Oceanfirst Financial (OCFC) Risk Analysis

. In 2017, a committee of private-market derivative participants and their regulators convened by the Federal Reserve, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, or "ARRC", was created to identify an alternative reference interest rate to replace LIBOR. Although uncertain, the ARRC announced Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or "SOFR", a broad measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight collateralized by Treasury securities, as its preferred alternative to LIBOR. The Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced its intention to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR to the administrator of LIBOR after 2021. Subsequently, the Federal Reserve Bank announced final plans for the production of SOFR, which resulted in the commencement of its published rates by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on April 2, 2018. Whether or not SOFR attains market traction as a LIBOR replacement tool remains in question and the future of LIBOR at this time is uncertain. The discontinuance of LIBOR may adversely affect the value of and return on the Company's financial assets and liabilities that are based on or are linked to LIBOR, the Company's results of operations or financial condition. In addition, these reforms may also require extensive changes to the contracts that govern these LIBOR based products, as well as the Company's systems and processes.

. The Company has substantial competition in originating loans, both commercial and consumer, in its market area. This competition comes principally from other banks, savings institutions, mortgage bankin g companies and other lenders. Many of these competitors enjoy advantages, including greater financial resources and access to capital, stronger regulatory ratios and higher lending limits, a wider geographic presence, more accessible branch office locations, the ability to offer a wider array of services or more favorable pricing alternatives, as well as lower origination and operating costs. In addition, rapid technological changes and consumer preferences may result in increased competition for the Bank's services. Increased competition could reduce the Company's net income by decreasing the number and size of loans that the Bank originates and the interest rates charged on these loans. In attracting consumer, business and public fund deposits, the Company faces substantial competition from other insured depository institutions such as banks, savings institutions and credit unions, as well as institutions offering uninsured investment alternatives, including money market funds. Many competitors enjoy advantages, including greater financial resources and access to capital, stronger regulatory ratios, stronger asset quality and performance, more aggressive marketing campaigns, better brand recognition and more branch locations. These competitors may offer higher interest rates than the Company, which could decrease the deposits that the Company attracts or require the Company to increase its rates to retain existing deposits or attract new deposits. In addition, rapid technological changes and consumer preferences may result in increased competition for the Company's other services. A number of well-funded technology focused companies are innovating the payments, distributed ledger, and cryptocurrency networks and are attempting to disintermediate portions of the traditional banking model. A shift in the mix of payment forms away from the Company's products and services could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position and results of operations. The Company has also been active in competing for New Jersey governmental and municipal deposits. At , these relationships included public school districts, local municipal governments, and cooperative health insurance funds, and such deposits accounted for approximately 24.5% of the Company's total deposits. The governor of New Jersey has proposed that the state form and own a bank in which governmental and municipal entities may deposit their excess funds, with the state owned bank then financing small businesses and municipal projects in New Jersey. Although this proposal is in the very early stages, should this proposal be adopted and a state owned bank formed, it could impede the Company's ability to attract and retain governmental and municipal deposits and financing opportunities. Increased deposit competition could adversely affect the Company's ability to generate the funds necessary for lending operations. As a result, the Company may need to seek other sources of funds that may be more expensive to obtain which could increase the cost of funds. Public fund deposits from local government entities such as counties, townships, school districts and other municipalities generally have highe r average balances and the Bank's inability to retain such funds could adversely affect liquidity or result in the use of higher-cost funding sources. Following the financial crisis of 2007-2008 the FRB began a process of lowering short-term interest rates and purchasing long-term Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities ("quantitative easing"). Quantitative easing ended in 2014 but the FRB did not begin to reduce its bond holdings until 2018 ("quantitative tightening"). The impact of this portfolio reduction process has been difficult to discern as the FRB steadily increased short-term interest rates throughout 2018 before easing rates again in mid 2019. The GSE's have remained in government conservatorship awaiting reform of the housing finance system. Eventually, the FRB will complete quantitative tightening and Congress will complete reform of the GSE's. These factors could have mixed, and potentially negative, effects on the ability of the Bank to originate residential mortgage loans and grow its residential mortgage loan portfolios, which could have a materially adverse impact on the Bank's earnings.

. Since these loans were acquired as part of the Company's acquisitions of other depository institutions, they were not underwritten or originated in accordance with the Company's credit standards, and the Company does not have long-standing relationships with many of these borrowers. As a result, the acquired loans are re-risk rated based on the Company's credit standards, which can temporarily increase loans classified as special mention and substandard for a period of time until these loans are integrated and conform to the Company's credit standards. Although the Company reviewed the loan portfolios of each institution acquired as part of the diligence process, and has established reasonable credit marks with regard to all loans acquired, no assurance can be given that the Company will not incur losses in excess of the credit marks with regard to these acquired loans, or that any such losses, if they occur, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.

. At ,$3.5 billion , or , of the Bank's total loans consisted of commercial real estate, multi-family and land loans, and commercial and industrial loans. This portfolio has grown in recent years and the Bank intends to continue to emphasize these types of lending. These types of loans may expose a lender to greater risk of non-payment and loss than one-to-four family residential mortgage loans because repayment of the loans often depends o n the successful operation of the property and the income stream of the borrowers. Such loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers compared to one-to-four family residential mortgage loans. In addition, many of these loans were acquired through the Company's recent acquisitions, and were not underwritten by the Bank and were made to borrowers with whom the Company and the Bank do not have longstanding relationships.

. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act requires originators to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on documented information that a borrower has a reasonable ability to repay a particular mortgage loan over the long term. If the originator cannot meet this standard, the burden is on the lender to demonstrate the appropriateness of its policies and the strength of its controls. The Dodd-Frank Act contains an exception from this Ability-To-Repay rule for "Qualified Mortgages." The rule sets forth specific underwriting criteria for a loan to qualify as a Qualified Mortgage. If a loan meets these criteria and is not a "higher priced loan" as defined in FRB regulations, the CFPB rule establishes a safe harbor preventing a consumer from asserting the failure of the originator to establish the consumer's Ability-To-Repay. Additionally, conforming fixed-rate loans with a debt-to-income ratio greater than 43% would also qualify as an Ability-To-Repay Qualified Mortgage based upon an automated loan approval from one of the government sponsored mortgage entities. However, a consumer may assert the lender's failure to comply with the Ability-To-Repay rule for all residential mortgage loans other than Qualified Mortgages, and may challenge whether a loan actually met the criteria to be deemed an Ability-to-Pay Qualified Mortgage. These challenges have yet to be addressed by the courts. Although the majority of residential mortgages historically originated by the Bank would be considered Qualified Mortgages, the Bank currently originates residential mortgage loans that do not qualify. As a result of the Ability-to-Repay rules, the Bank may experience loan losses, litigation related expenses and delays in taking title to real estate collateral in a foreclosure proceeding if these loans do not perform and borrowers challenge whether the Bank satisfied the Ability-To-Repay rule upon originating the loan.

. The Bank's allowance for loan losses may prove to be inadequate to cover actual loan losses and if the Bank is required to increase its allowance, current earnings may be reduced. The Bank provides for losses by reserving what it believes to be an adequate amount to absorb any probable incurred losses. A "charge-off" reduces the Bank's reserve for possible loan losses. If the Bank's reserves were insufficient, it would be required to record a larger reserve, which would reduce earnings for that period. Further, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") 2016-13, "Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments," that will be effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019. This standard will require financial institutions to determine periodic estimates of lifetime expected credit losses on loans, and provide for the expected credit losses as allowances for loan losses. This will change the current method of providing allowances for loan losses that are probable. The Company's current expected credit loss ("CECL") implementation efforts are in process and continue to focus on model validation, developing new disclosures, establishing formal policies and procedures and other governance and control documentation. Certain elements of the calculation are pending finalization, including refinement of the model assumptions, the qualitative framework, internal control design, model validation, and the operational control framework to support the new process. Furthermore, changes to the economic forecasts within the model could positively or negatively impact the actual results. Any increase in the allowance for loan losses, or expenses incurred to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses, may have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and results of operations.

. The Judicial foreclosure process in New Jersey is protracted, which delays the Company's ability to resolve non-performing loans through the sale of the underlying collateral. The longer timelines were the result of the economic crisis, additional consumer protection initiatives related to the foreclosure process, increased documentary requirements and judicial scrutiny, and, both voluntary and mandatory programs under which lenders may consider loan modifications or other alternatives to foreclosure. These reasons, historical issues at the largest mortgage loan servicers, and the legal and regulatory responses have impacted the foreclosure process and completion time of foreclosures f or residential mortgage lenders. Although the Company is not currently materially impacted by foreclosures, this may result in a material adverse effect on collateral values and the Bank's ability to minimize its losses.

. The Bank's ability to make a profit largely depends on net interest income, which could be negatively affected by changes in interest rates. The interest income earned on interest-earning assets and the interest expense paid on interest-bearing liabilities are generally fixed for a contractual period of time. Interest-bearing liabilities generally have shorter contractual maturities than interest-earning assets. This imbalance can create significant earnings volatility, because market interest rates change over time. In a period of rising interest rates, the interest income earned on interest-earning assets may not increase as rapidly as the interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities. Additionally, a flat or an inverted yield curve, where short-term rates are close to, or below, long-term rates, could adversely affect the Company's financial condition and results of operations. In addition, changes in interest rates can affect the average life of loans and mortgage-backed securities. A reduction in interest rates causes increased prepayments of loans and mortgage-backed securities as borrowers refinance their debt to reduce their borrowing costs. This creates reinvestment risk, which is the risk that the Bank may not be able to reinvest the funds from faster prepayments at rates that are comparable to the rates earned on the prepaid loans or mortgage-backed securities. Conversely, an increase in interest rates generally reduces prepayments. Additionally, increases in interest rates may decrease loan demand and/or make it more difficult for borrowers to repay adjustable-rate loans. Changes in interest rates also affect the current estimated fair value of the interest-earning securities portfolio. Generally, the value of securities moves inversely with changes in interest rates. Unrealized net losses on securities available-for-sale are reported as a separate component of equity. To the extent interest rates increase and the value of the available-for-sale portfolio decreases, stockholders' equity will be adversely affected.

. At , the Company maintained a debt securities portfolio of , of which was classified as available-for-sale. The estimated fair value of the available-for-sale debt securities portfolio may increase or decrease depending on the credit quality of the underlying issuer, market liquidity, changes in interest rates and other factors. Stockholders' equity is increased or decreased by the amount of the change in the unrealized gain or loss (difference between the estimated fair value and the amortized cost) of the available-for-sale debt securities portfolio, net of the related tax expense or benefit, under the category of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). Therefore, a decline in the estimated fair value of this portfolio will result in a decline in reported stockholders' equity, as well as book value per common share. The decrease will occur even though the securities are not sold. The Company conducts a periodic review and evaluation of the complete debt securities portfolio to determine if the decline in the estimated fair value of any security below its cost basis is other-than-temporary. Factors which are considered in the analysis include, but are not limited to, the severity and duration of the decline in estimated fair value of the security, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, whether the decline appears to be related to issuer conditions or general market or industry conditions, the intent and ability to retain the security for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value and the likelihood of any near-term fair value recovery. If such decline is deemed to be other-than-temporary, the security is written down to a new cost basis and the resulting loss is charged to earnings as a component of non-interest income. At the debt securities portfolio included corporate debt securities in an unrealized loss position for greater than one year. The debt securities in a loss position had a book value of and an estimated fair value of . At , the Company determined that no other-than-temporary impairment charge was required. However, the Company may be required to recognize an other-than-temporary impairment charge related to these securities if circumstances change.