Edgar Filing: FULTON FINANCIAL CORP

FULT 12.31.2013 10K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

_______________________________________________________

FORM 10-K



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

Commission File Number: 0-10587

_______________________________________________________

FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



PENNSYLVANIA		23-2195389
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)



One Penn Square, P. O. Box 4887, Lancaster, Pennsylvania		17604
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

(717) 291-2411

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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



Title of each class		Name of exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $2.50 par value		The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC

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

None

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 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 Web site, 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 x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405) 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. ¨

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 the definitions of "large accelerated filer," and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One):



Large accelerated filer	x	Accelerated filer	¨

Non-accelerated filer	¨	Smaller reporting company	¨

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

The aggregate market value of the voting Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the average bid and asked prices on June 30, 2013, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $2.2 billion. The number of shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding on January 31, 2014 was 191,381,000.

Portions of the Definitive Proxy Statement of the Registrant for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 8, 2014 are incorporated by reference in Part III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS



Description		Page

PART I
Item 1.	Business	3
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	14
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	24
Item 2.	Properties	24
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	24
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	24

PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	25
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	27
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	29
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	59
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data:
	Consolidated Balance Sheets	66
	Consolidated Statements of Income	67
	Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income	68
	Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity	69
	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows	70
	Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements	71
	Management Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting	117
	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	118
	Quarterly Consolidated Results of Operations (unaudited)	119
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	120
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	120
Item 9B.	Other Information	120

PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	121
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	121
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	121
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	121
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	121

PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	122

	Signatures	125
	Exhibit Index	127

PART I

Item 1. Business

General

Fulton Financial Corporation (the Corporation) was incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania on February 8, 1982 and became a bank holding company through the acquisition of all of the outstanding stock of Fulton Bank on June 30, 1982. In 2000, the Corporation became a financial holding company as defined in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act), which allowed the Corporation to expand its financial services activities under its holding company structure (See "Competition" and "Supervision and Regulation"). The Corporation directly owns 100% of the common stock of six community banks and ten non-bank entities. As of December 31, 2013, the Corporation had approximately 3,620 full-time equivalent employees.

The common stock of Fulton Financial Corporation is listed for quotation on the Global Select Market of The NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol FULT. The Corporation’s internet address is www.fult.com. Electronic copies of the Corporation’s 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K are available free of charge by visiting "Investor Relations" at www.fult.com. Electronic copies of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K are also available at this Internet address. These reports, as well as any amendments thereto, are posted as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Bank and Financial Services Subsidiaries

The Corporation’s six subsidiary banks are located primarily in suburban or semi-rural geographical markets throughout a five-state region (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia). Each of these banking subsidiaries delivers financial services in a highly personalized, community-oriented style, and decisions are generally made by the local management team in each market. Where appropriate, operations are centralized through common platforms and back-office functions.

From time to time, in some markets and in certain circumstances, merging subsidiary banks allows the Corporation to leverage one bank’s stronger brand recognition over a larger market. It also enables the Corporation to create operating and marketing efficiencies and avoid direct competition among subsidiary banks.

The Corporation’s subsidiary banks are located in areas that are home to a wide range of manufacturing, distribution, health care and other service companies. The Corporation and its banks are not dependent upon one or a few customers or any one industry, and the loss of any single customer or a few customers would not have a material adverse impact on any of the subsidiary banks.

Each of the subsidiary banks offers a full range of consumer and commercial banking products and services in its local market area. Personal banking services include various checking account and savings deposit products, certificates of deposit and individual retirement accounts. The subsidiary banks offer a variety of consumer lending products to creditworthy customers in their market areas. Secured consumer loan products include home equity loans and lines of credit, which are underwritten based on loan-to-value limits specified in the Corporation's lending policy. Subsidiary banks also offer a variety of fixed and variable-rate products, including construction loans and jumbo loans. Residential mortgages are offered through Fulton Mortgage Company, which operates as a division of each subsidiary bank. Consumer loan products also include automobile loans, automobile and equipment leases, personal lines of credit and checking account overdraft protection.

Commercial banking services are provided to small and medium sized businesses (generally with sales of less than $100 million) in the subsidiary banks’ market areas. The Corporation's policies limit the maximum total lending commitment to an individual borrower to $39.0 million as of December 31, 2013, which is below the Corporation’s regulatory lending limit. Commercial lending options include commercial, financial, agricultural and real estate loans. Floating, adjustable and fixed rate loans are provided, with floating and adjustable rate loans generally tied to an index such as the Prime Rate or the London Interbank Offered Rate. The commercial lending policy of the Corporation's subsidiary banks encourages relationship banking and provides strict guidelines related to customer creditworthiness and collateral requirements. In addition, equipment leasing, letters of credit, cash management services and traditional deposit products are offered to commercial customers.

Investment management, trust, brokerage, insurance and investment advisory services are offered to consumer and commercial banking customers in the market areas serviced by the Corporation's subsidiary banks by the Corporation's Fulton Bank, N.A. subsidiary bank.

The Corporation’s subsidiary banks deliver their products and services through traditional branch banking, with a network of full service branch offices. Electronic delivery channels include a network of automated teller machines, telephone banking, mobile banking and online banking. The variety of available delivery channels allows customers to access their account information and perform certain transactions, such as transferring funds and paying bills, at virtually any hour of the day.

The following table provides certain information for the Corporation’s banking subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013:



Subsidiary	Main Office Location	Total Assets		Total Deposits		Branches (1)
		(dollars in millions)
Fulton Bank, N.A.	Lancaster, PA	$	9,516	$	6,722	$	119
Fulton Bank of New Jersey	Mt. Laurel, NJ	3,302		2,734		71
The Columbia Bank	Columbia, MD	1,960		1,531		38
Lafayette Ambassador Bank	Bethlehem, PA	1,386		1,115		23
FNB Bank, N.A.	Danville, PA	348		272		8
Swineford National Bank	Middleburg, PA	295		250		7
						266


(1)	Remote service facilities (mainly stand-alone automated teller machines) are excluded. See additional information in "Item 2. Properties."

Non-Bank Subsidiaries

The Corporation owns 100% of the common stock of six non-bank subsidiaries, which are consolidated for financial reporting purposes: (i) Fulton Reinsurance Company, LTD, which engages in the business of reinsuring credit life and accident and health insurance directly related to extensions of credit by the banking subsidiaries of the Corporation; (ii) Fulton Financial Realty Company, which holds title to or leases certain properties upon which Corporation branch offices and other facilities are located; (iii) Central Pennsylvania Financial Corp., which owns certain limited partnership interests in partnerships invested primarily in low and moderate income housing projects; (iv) FFC Management, Inc., which owns certain investment securities and other passive investments; (v) FFC Penn Square, Inc., which owns trust preferred securities issued by a subsidiary of Fulton Bank, N.A; and (vi) Fulton Insurance Services Group, Inc., which engages in the sale of various life insurance products.

The Corporation owns 100% of the common stock of four non-bank subsidiaries which are not consolidated for financial reporting purposes. The following table provides information for these non-bank subsidiaries, whose sole assets consist of junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures issued by the Corporation, as of December 31, 2013 (dollars in thousands):



Subsidiary	State of Incorporation	Total Assets
Fulton Capital Trust I	Pennsylvania	$	154,640
Columbia Bancorp Statutory Trust	Delaware	6,186
Columbia Bancorp Statutory Trust II	Delaware	4,124
Columbia Bancorp Statutory Trust III	Delaware	6,186

Competition

The banking and financial services industries are highly competitive. Within its geographical region, the Corporation’s subsidiaries face direct competition from other commercial banks, varying in size from local community banks to larger regional and national

banks, credit unions and non-bank entities. With the growth in electronic commerce, the Corporation's subsidiary banks also face competition from financial institutions that do not have a physical presence in the Corporation’s geographical markets.

The industry is also highly competitive due to the GLB Act. Under the GLB Act, banks, insurance companies and securities firms may affiliate under a financial holding company structure, allowing expansion into non-banking financial services activities that were previously restricted. These activities include a full range of banking, securities and insurance activities, including securities and insurance underwriting, issuing and selling annuities and merchant banking activities. While the Corporation does not currently engage in all of these activities, the ability to do so without separate approval from the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) enhances the ability of the Corporation – and financial holding companies in general – to compete more effectively in all areas of financial services.

As a result of the GLB Act, there is a great deal of competition for customers that were traditionally served by the banking industry. While the GLB Act increased competition, it also provided opportunities for the Corporation to expand its financial services offerings. The Corporation competes through the variety of products that it offers and the quality of service that it provides to its customers. However, there is no guarantee that these efforts will insulate the Corporation from competitive pressure, which could impact its pricing decisions for loans, deposits and other services and could ultimately impact financial results.

Market Share

Deposit market share information is compiled as of June 30 of each year by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The Corporation’s banks maintain branch offices in 52 counties across five states. In 15 of these counties, the Corporation ranked in the top 5 in deposit market share (based on deposits as of June 30, 2013). The following table summarizes information about the counties in which the Corporation has branch offices and its market position in each county.



				No. of Financial Institutions		Deposit Market Share (June 30, 2013)
County	State	Population (2013 Est.)	Banking Subsidiary	Banks/ Thrifts	Credit Unions	Rank	%
Lancaster	PA	531,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	18	15	2	23.7	%
Berks	PA	415,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	20	13	8	3.8	%
Bucks	PA	627,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	36	20	17	1.8	%
Centre	PA	156,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	17	4	16	1.4	%
Chester	PA	511,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	35	9	11	3.0	%
Columbia	PA	67,000	FNB Bank, N.A.	6	2	5	4.2	%
Cumberland	PA	241,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	18	6	15	1.5	%
Dauphin	PA	271,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	16	10	7	3.7	%
Delaware	PA	563,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	34	17	33	0.2	%
Lebanon	PA	136,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	11	6	1	31.3	%
Lehigh	PA	358,000	Lafayette Ambassador Bank	22	14	10	3.6	%
Lycoming	PA	118,000	FNB Bank, N.A.	11	11	14	0.8	%
Montgomery	PA	813,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	45	33	28	0.4	%
Montour	PA	18,000	FNB Bank, N.A.	5	3	2	26.4	%
Northampton	PA	300,000	Lafayette Ambassador Bank	17	12	3	13.7	%
Northumberland	PA	94,000	Swineford National Bank	18	4	16	1.7	%
			FNB Bank, N.A.			9	4.0	%
Schuylkill	PA	146,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	18	3	9	4.0	%
Snyder	PA	40,000	Swineford National Bank	8	1	2	27.0	%
Union	PA	45,000	Swineford National Bank	8	3	4	7.2	%
York	PA	439,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	15	14	4	10.2	%
New Castle	DE	551,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	20	25	13	0.2	%
Sussex	DE	208,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	16	6	4	7.2	%
Anne Arundel	MD	559,000	The Columbia Bank	30	12	27	0.3	%
Baltimore	MD	825,000	The Columbia Bank	40	20	25	0.7	%
Baltimore City	MD	622,000	The Columbia Bank	34	17	16	0.3	%
Cecil	MD	102,000	The Columbia Bank	7	4	4	10.4	%
Frederick	MD	243,000	The Columbia Bank	18	5	17	0.6	%
Howard	MD	308,000	The Columbia Bank	20	5	4	9.4	%
Montgomery	MD	1,025,000	The Columbia Bank	36	24	35	0.2	%
Prince George’s	MD	892,000	The Columbia Bank	19	27	22	0.8	%
Washington	MD	150,000	The Columbia Bank	13	5	2	19.7	%
Atlantic	NJ	276,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	16	8	13	1.1	%
Burlington	NJ	452,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	22	14	19	0.7	%
Camden	NJ	513,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	21	11	10	2.1	%
Cumberland	NJ	158,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	12	5	11	1.8	%
Gloucester	NJ	290,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	22	6	2	13.5	%



				No. of Financial Institutions		Deposit Market Share (June 30, 2013)
County	State	Population (2013 Est.)	Banking Subsidiary	Banks/ Thrifts	Credit Unions	Rank	%
Hunterdon	NJ	126,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	16	7	12	2.7	%
Mercer	NJ	369,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	28	24	22	0.8	%
Middlesex	NJ	832,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	47	32	36	0.3	%
Monmouth	NJ	628,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	29	13	26	0.5	%
Morris	NJ	501,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	31	17	15	1.2	%
Ocean	NJ	583,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	22	8	18	0.6	%
Salem	NJ	65,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	8	4	1	26.0	%
Somerset	NJ	330,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	31	13	9	3.1	%
Warren	NJ	107,000	Fulton Bank of New Jersey	13	4	5	9.4	%
Chesapeake City	VA	232,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	14	10	11	1.6	%
Fairfax	VA	1,136,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	41	28	46	0.1	%
Henrico	VA	320,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	22	18	19	0.7	%
Manassas	VA	42,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	14	4	11	2.2	%
Newport News	VA	183,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	12	7	14	0.5	%
Richmond City	VA	214,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	17	12	15	0.3	%
Virginia Beach	VA	453,000	Fulton Bank, N.A.	17	11	11	1.5	%

Supervision and Regulation

The Corporation operates in an industry that is subject to various laws and regulations that are enforced by a number of federal and state agencies. Changes in these laws and regulations, including interpretation and enforcement activities, could impact the cost of operating in the financial services industry, limit or expand permissible activities or affect competition among banks and other financial institutions.

The following discussion summarizes the current regulatory environment for financial holding companies and banks, including a summary of the more significant laws and regulations.

Regulators – The Corporation is a registered financial holding company, and its subsidiary banks are depository institutions whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. The Corporation and its subsidiaries are subject to various regulations and examinations by regulatory authorities. The following table summarizes the charter types and primary regulators for each of the Corporation’s subsidiary banks:



Subsidiary	Charter	Primary Regulator(s)
Fulton Bank, N.A.	National	OCC
Fulton Bank of New Jersey	NJ	NJ/FDIC
The Columbia Bank	MD	MD/FDIC
Lafayette Ambassador Bank	PA	PA/Federal Reserve Bank
FNB Bank, N.A.	National	OCC
Swineford National Bank	National	OCC
Fulton Financial (Parent Company)	N/A	Federal Reserve Bank

OCC - Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Federal statutes that apply to the Corporation and its subsidiaries include the GLB Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, among others. In general, these statutes and related interpretations establish the eligible business activities of the Corporation, certain acquisition and merger restrictions, limitations on intercompany transactions, such as loans and dividends, and capital adequacy requirements, among other things.

The Corporation is subject to regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve Bank, and is required to file periodic reports and to provide additional information that the Federal Reserve Bank may require. In addition, the Federal Reserve Bank must approve certain proposed changes in organizational structure or other business activities before they occur. The BHCA imposes certain restrictions upon the Corporation regarding the acquisition of substantially all of the assets of or direct or indirect ownership or control of any bank for which it is not already the majority owner.

Dodd-Frank Act – The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted in July 2010 and resulted in significant financial regulatory reform. The Dodd-Frank Act also changed the responsibilities of the current federal banking regulators. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, with oversight authority for monitoring and regulating systemic risk, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which has broad regulatory and enforcement powers over consumer financial products and services. Effective July 21, 2011, the CFPB became responsible for administering and enforcing numerous federal consumer financial laws enumerated in the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act also provided that, for banks with total assets of more than $10 billion, the CFPB would have exclusive or primary authority to examine those banks for, and enforce compliance with, the federal consumer financial laws. As of December 31, 2013, none of the Corporation's subsidiary banks had total assets of more than $10 billion, however, the Corporation's largest subsidiary bank, Fulton Bank, N. A., had $9.5 billion in assets. Although not subject to CFPB examination, the Corporation's subsidiary banks remain subject to the review and supervision of other applicable regulatory authorities, and such authorities may enforce compliance with regulations issued by the CFPB. In the event that Fulton Bank, N.A.'s total assets exceed $10 billion in the future, Fulton Bank, N.A. would become subject to supervision, examination and enforcement by the CFPB.

The scope of the Dodd-Frank Act impacts many aspects of the financial services industry, and it requires the development and adoption of numerous regulations, some of which have not yet been issued. The effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on the financial services industry will depend, in large part, upon the extent to which regulators exercise the authority granted to them under the Dodd-Frank Act and the approaches taken in implementing regulations. Additional uncertainty regarding the effects of the Dodd-Frank Act exists due to court decisions and the potential for additional legislative changes to the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Dodd-Frank Act's provisions that have received the most public attention have generally been those which apply only to larger institutions with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. However, the Dodd-Frank Act contains numerous other provisions that affect all bank holding companies, including the Corporation.

The following is a listing of significant provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, and, if applicable, the resulting regulatory rules adopted, that apply (or will apply), most directly to the Corporation and its subsidiaries:

•

Federal deposit insurance – On April 1, 2011, the FDIC's revised deposit insurance assessment base changed from total domestic deposits to average total assets, minus average tangible equity. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act created a two scorecard system, one for large depository institutions that have more than $10 billion in assets and another for highly complex institutions that have over $50 billion in assets. See details under the heading "Federal Deposit Insurance" below.

•

Debit card interchange fees – In June 2011, the FRB adopted regulations, which became effective on October 1, 2011, setting maximum permissible interchange fees issuers can receive or charge on electronic debit card transactions and network exclusivity arrangements (the "Current Rule"). Recently, there has been litigation regarding certain provisions of the Current Rule, including the level of the maximum permissible debit card interchange fees. The final outcome of such litigation or any future litigation, or any further rulemaking by the FRB, may result in a reduction in the Current Rule's maximum permissible debit card interchange fees, thereby potentially reducing the Corporation's debit card income in future periods.


•	Interest on demand deposits – Beginning in July 2011, depository institutions were no longer prohibited from paying interest on business transaction and other accounts.

•

Stress testing – In October 2012, the FRB issued final rules regarding company-run stress testing. In accordance with these rules, the Corporation is required to conduct an annual stress test in the manner specified, and using assumptions for baseline, adverse and severely adverse scenarios announced by the FRB. The stress test is designed to assess the potential impact of the various scenarios on the Corporation's earnings, capital levels and capital ratios over at least a nine-quarter time horizon. The Corporation's board of directors and its senior management will be required to consider the results of the stress test in the normal course of business, including as part of its capital planning process and the evaluation of the adequacy of its capital. As required, the Corporation will use data as of September 30, 2013 to conduct the stress test, using scenarios that were released by the FRB in November 2013. Stress test results must be reported to the Federal Reserve Bank in March 2014. Public disclosure of summary stress test results under the severely adverse scenario will begin in June 2015 for stress tests commencing in the fall of 2014. While the Corporation believes that both the quality and magnitude of its capital base are sufficient to support its current operations given its risk profile, the results of the stress testing process may lead the Corporation to retain additional capital or alter the mix of its capital components.

Under similar rules adopted by the OCC, national banks and federal savings associations with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion are also required to conduct annual stress tests. Although the total consolidated assets of Fulton Bank, N.A., the Corporation's largest subsidiary bank, are less than $10 billion, if Fulton Bank, N.A.’s assets exceed $10 billion in the future, it will become subject to the OCC’s stress test rules.

•

Ability-to-pay rules and qualified mortgages – As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a series of final rules in January 2013 amending Regulation Z, implementing by the Truth in Lending Act, requiring mortgage lenders to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a residential mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. These final rules, most of which became effective January 10, 2014, prohibit creditors, such as the Corporation's bank subsidiaries, from extending residential mortgage loans without regard for the consumer's ability to repay and add restrictions and requirements to residential mortgage origination and servicing practices. In addition, these rules restrict the imposition of prepayment penalties and compensation practices relating to residential mortgage loan origination. Mortgage lenders are required to determine consumers’ ability to repay in one of two ways. The first alternative requires the mortgage lender to consider eight underwriting factors when making the credit decision. Alternatively, the mortgage lender can originate "qualified mortgages," which are entitled to a presumption that the creditor making the loan satisfied the ability-to-repay requirements. In general, a "qualified mortgage" is a residential mortgage loan that does not have certain high risk features, such as negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, or a term exceeding 30 years. In addition, to be a qualified mortgage, the points and fees paid by a consumer cannot exceed 3% of the total loan amount and the borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio must be no higher than 43% (subject to certain limited exceptions for loans eligible for purchase, guarantee or insurance by a government sponsored entity or a federal agency).

Compliance with these rules has increased the Corporation's overall regulatory compliance costs and required changes to the underwriting practices of the Corporation's subsidiaries with respect to mortgage loans. Moreover, these rules will adversely affect the volume of mortgage loans that are underwritten by the Corporation's subsidiaries and may subject the Corporation to increased potential liability related to such residential mortgage origination activities. The Corporation estimates that approximately 5% of its total residential mortgage loan originations in 2013 would not have been considered "qualified mortgages."

•

Volcker Rule – As mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, in December 2013, the OCC, FRB, FDIC, SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued final rulings (the "Final Rules") implementing certain prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of a banking entity and non-bank financial company supervised by the FRB to engage in proprietary trading and have certain ownership interests in, or relationships with, a "covered fund" (the so-called "Volcker Rule"). The Final Rules generally treat as a covered fund any entity that would be an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act") but for the application of the exemptions from SEC registration set forth in Section 3(c)(1) (fewer than 100 beneficial owners) or Section 3(c)(7) (qualified purchasers) of the 1940 Act. The Final Rules also require regulated entities to establish an internal compliance program that is consistent with the extent to which it engages in activities covered by the Volcker Rule, which must include making regular reports about those activities to regulators. Although the Final Rules provide some tiering of compliance and reporting obligations based on size, the fundamental prohibitions of the Volcker Rule apply to banking entities of any size, including the Corporation. Banking entities have until July 21, 2015 to conform their activities and investments to the requirements of the Final Rules.

While the Corporation does not engage in proprietary trading or in any other activities prohibited by the Final Rules, the Corporation will continue to evaluate whether any of its investments that fall within the definition of a "covered fund" and would need to be disposed of by July 21, 2015. However, based on the Corporation's evaluation to date, it does not currently expect the Final Rules will have a material effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations.

•

Incentive compensation – As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, a joint interagency proposed regulation was issued in April 2011. The proposed rule would require the reporting of incentive-based compensation arrangements by a covered financial institution and prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements at a covered financial institution that provides excessive compensation or that could expose the institution to inappropriate risks that could lead to material financial loss. The proposed rule, if adopted as currently proposed, could limit the manner in which the Corporation structures incentive compensation for its executives.

Capital Requirements – There are a number of restrictions on financial and bank holding companies and FDIC-insured depository subsidiaries that are designed to minimize potential loss to depositors and the FDIC insurance funds. Also, a bank holding company is required to serve as a source of financial strength to its depository institution subsidiaries and to commit resources to support such institutions in circumstances where it might not do so absent such policy. Under the BHCA, the FRB has the authority to require a bank holding company to terminate any activity or to relinquish control of a non-bank subsidiary upon the FRB’s

determination that such activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness and stability of a depository institution subsidiary of the bank holding company.

Bank holding companies are required to comply with the FRB’s risk-based capital guidelines, which require a minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets of 8.00%. At least half of the total capital is required to be Tier 1 capital. In addition to the risk-based capital guidelines, the FRB has adopted a minimum leverage capital ratio under which a bank holding company must maintain a level of Tier 1 capital to average total consolidated assets of at least 3.00% in the case of a bank holding company which has the highest regulatory examination rating and is not contemplating significant growth or expansion. For all other bank holding companies, the minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets is 4.00%. Depository institutions are required to comply with similar capital guidelines issued by their primary federal regulator. Bank holding companies and depository institutions with supervisory, financial, operational, or managerial weaknesses, as well as those that are anticipating or experiencing significant growth, are expected to maintain capital ratios well above the minimum levels. Moreover, higher capital ratios may be required for any bank holding company and depository institution if warranted by its particular circumstances or risk profile. In all cases, bank holding companies and depository institutions should hold capital commensurate with the level and nature of the risks, including the volume and severity of problem loans, to which they are exposed.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel) is a committee of central banks and bank regulators from major industrialized countries that develops broad policy guidelines for use by each country’s regulators with the purpose of ensuring that financial institutions have adequate capital given the risk levels of assets and off-balance sheet financial instruments. In December 2010, Basel released frameworks for strengthening international capital and liquidity regulations, referred to as Basel III.

In July 2013, the FRB approved final rules (the "U.S. Basel III Capital Rules") establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations and implementing the Basel III framework for strengthening international capital standards. The U.S. Basel III Capital Rules substantially revise the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and depository institutions.

The new minimum regulatory capital requirements established by the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules are effective for the Corporation beginning on January 1, 2015, and become fully phased in on January 1, 2019.

When fully phased in, the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules will require the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries to:


•	Meet a new minimum Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.50% of risk-weighted assets and a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.00% of risk-weighted assets;


•	Continue to require the current minimum Total capital ratio of 8.00% of risk-weighted assets and the minimum Tier 1 leverage capital ratio of 4.00% of average assets;


•	Maintain a "capital conservation buffer" of 2.50% above the minimum risk-based capital requirements, which must be maintained to avoid restrictions on capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments; and


•	Comply with a revised definition of capital to improve the ability of regulatory capital instruments to absorb losses as a result of which certain non-qualifying capital instruments, including cumulative preferred stock and trust preferred securities, will be excluded as a component of Tier 1 capital for institutions of the Corporation's size.

The U.S. Basel III Capital Rules use a standardized approach for risk weightings that expand the risk-weightings for assets and off balance sheet exposures from the current 0%, 20%, 50% and 100% categories to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

The new rules provide that the failure to maintain the "capital conservation buffer" will result in restrictions on capital distributions and discretionary cash bonus payments to executive officers. As a result, under the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules, if any of the Corporation's bank subsidiaries fails to maintain the required minimum capital conservation buffer, the Corporation will be subject to limits, and possibly prohibitions, on its ability to obtain capital distributions from such subsidiaries. If the Corporation does not receive sufficient cash dividends from its bank subsidiaries, it may not have sufficient funds to pay dividends on its capital stock, service its debt obligations or repurchase its common stock. In addition, the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries may be limited in their ability to pay certain cash bonuses to executive officers which may make it more difficult to retain key personnel.

As of December 31, 2013, the Corporation believes its current capital levels would meet the fully-phased in minimum capital requirements, including capital conservation buffer, as prescribed in the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules.

The Basel III liquidity framework also includes new liquidity requirements that, if implemented by U.S. bank regulators, may require the Corporation to maintain increased levels of liquid assets or alter its strategies for liquidity management. The Basel III liquidity framework requires banks and bank holding companies to measure their liquidity against specific ratios. One ratio, referred

to as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio, or LCR, is designed to ensure that sufficient high quality liquid resources are available for a one month period in case of a stress scenario. A second ratio, referred to as the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), is designed to promote resiliency over longer-term time horizons by creating additional incentives for banks to fund their activities with more stable sources of funding on an ongoing structural basis. These new liquidity standards are subject to further rulemaking, and their terms may change before implementation. In October 2013, U.S. bank regulators proposed rules implementing portions of the Basel III liquidity framework for large, internationally active banking organizations, and the FRB proposed similar, but less stringent rules , applicable to bank holding companies with consolidated assets of $50.0 billion or more. Because of the Corporation's size, neither of these proposed rules as currently drafted will apply to it. U.S. bank regulators have not proposed rules implementing the Basel III liquidity framework and have not determined to what extent they will apply to banking organizations that are not large, internationally active banking organizations, and that do not have consolidated assets of $50.0 billion or more.

Prompt Corrective Regulatory Action – The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) established a system of prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. Under this system, the federal bank regulators are required to take certain, and authorized to take other, supervisory actions against undercapitalized institutions, based upon five categories of capitalization which FDICIA created: "well capitalized," "adequately capitalized," "undercapitalized," "significantly undercapitalized," and "critically undercapitalized," the severity of which depends upon the institution’s degree of capitalization. Generally, a capital restoration plan must be filed with the institution’s primary federal regulator within 45 days of the date an institution receives notice that it is "undercapitalized," "significantly undercapitalized" or "critically undercapitalized," and the plan must be guaranteed by any parent holding company. In addition, various mandatory supervisory actions become immediately applicable to the institution, including restrictions on growth of assets and other forms of expansion. Under current federal banking regulations, generally, an insured depository institution is treated as well capitalized if its total risk-based capital ratio is 10.00% or greater, its Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is 6.00% or greater and its Tier 1 leverage capital ratio is 5.00% or greater, and it is not subject to any order or directive to meet a specific capital level. As of December 31, 2013, each of the Corporation’s bank subsidiaries’ capital ratios were above the minimum levels required to be considered "well capitalized" by its primary federal regulator.

Loans and Dividends from Subsidiary Banks – There are various restrictions on the extent to which the Corporation's bank subsidiaries can make loans or extensions of credit to, or enter into certain transactions with, its affiliates, which would include the Corporation and its non-banking subsidiaries. In general, these restrictions require that such loans be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral and are limited, as to any one of the Corporation or its non-bank subsidiaries, to 10% of the lending bank’s regulatory capital (20% in the aggregate to all such entities). The Dodd-Frank Act expanded these restrictions, effective in July 2012, to cover securities lending, repurchase agreement and derivatives activities that the Corporation’s bank subsidiaries may have with an affiliate.

For safety and soundness reasons, banking regulations also limit the amount of cash that can be transferred from subsidiary banks to the Parent Company in the form of dividends. Dividend limitations vary, depending on the subsidiary bank’s charter and whether or not it is a member of the Federal Reserve System. Generally, subsidiaries are prohibited from paying dividends when doing so would cause them to fall below the regulatory minimum capital levels. Additionally, limits may exist on paying dividends in excess of net income for specified periods. See Note K, "Regulatory Matters," in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding regulatory capital and dividend and loan limitations.

Federal Deposit Insurance – Substantially all of the deposits of the Corporation’s subsidiary banks are insured up to the applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) of the FDIC, generally up to $250,000 per insured depositor.

The subsidiary banks pay deposit insurance premiums based on assessment rates established by the FDIC. The FDIC has established a risk-based assessment system under which institutions are classified and pay premiums according to their perceived risk to the DIF. An institution’s base assessment rate is generally subject to following adjustments: (1) a decrease for the institution’s long-term unsecured debt, including most senior and subordinated debt, (2) an increase for brokered deposits above a threshold amount and (3) an increase for unsecured debt held that is issued by another insured depository institution.

On April 1, 2011, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the deposit insurance assessment base changed from total domestic deposits to average total assets, minus average tangible equity. In addition, the FDIC also created a two scorecard system, one for large depository institutions that have $10 billion or more in assets and another for highly complex institutions that have $50 billion or more in assets. As of December 31, 2013, none of the Corporation’s individual subsidiary banks had assets of $10 billion or more and, therefore, did not meet the classification of large depository institutions.

The FDIC annually establishes for the DIF a designated reserve ratio, or DRR, of estimated insured deposits. The DRR is currently 2.00%. The FDIC is authorized to change deposit insurance assessment rates as necessary to maintain the DRR, without further notice-and-comment rulemaking, provided that: (1) no such adjustment can be greater than three basis points from one quarter to

the next, (2) adjustments cannot result in rates more than three basis points above or below the base rates and (3) rates cannot be negative.

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum DRR to 1.35% of insured deposits, which must be reached by September 30, 2020, and provides that in setting the assessment rates necessary to meet the new requirement, the FDIC shall offset the effect of this provision on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, so that more of the cost of raising the reserve ratio will be borne by the institutions with more than $10 billion in assets. In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a restoration plan to ensure that the DIF reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020. The FDIC is expected to pursue further rulemaking regarding the method that will be used to reach the reserve ratio of 1.35% so that more of the cost of raising the reserve ratio to 1.35% will be borne by institutions with more than $10 billion in assets. To the extent that any of the Corporation’s subsidiary banks’ assets exceeds $10 billion in the future, such rulemaking could result in an increase in the deposit insurance assessments for such banks.

USA Patriot Act – Anti-terrorism legislation enacted under the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (Patriot Act) expanded the scope of anti-money laundering laws and regulations and imposed significant new compliance obligations for financial institutions, including the Corporation’s subsidiary banks. These regulations include obligations to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing.

Among other requirements, the Patriot Act and the related regulations impose the following requirements with respect to financial institutions:


•	Establishment of anti-money laundering programs.


•	Establishment of a program specifying procedures for obtaining identifying information from customers seeking to open new accounts, including verifying the identity of customers within a reasonable period of time.


•	Establishment of enhanced due diligence policies, procedures and controls designed to detect and report money laundering.


•	Prohibition on correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks and compliance with recordkeeping obligations with respect to correspondent accounts of foreign banks.

Failure to comply with the Patriot Act’s requirements could have serious legal, financial, regulatory and reputational consequences. In addition, bank regulators will consider a holding company’s effectiveness in combating money laundering when ruling on BHCA and Bank Merger Act applications. The Corporation has adopted policies, procedures and controls to address compliance with the Patriot Act and will continue to revise and update its policies, procedures and controls to reflect required changes.

Residential Lending Laws – As a residential mortgage lender, the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries are subject to multiple federal consumer protection status and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Truth-In-Lending Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Act and the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Failure to comply with these and similar statutes and regulations can result in the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries becoming subject to formal or informal enforcement actions, civil money penalties and consumer litigation.

Community Reinvestment – Under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), each of the Corporation’s subsidiary banks has a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with its safe and sound operation, to ascertain and meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income areas. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions, nor does it limit an institution's discretion to develop the types of products and services that it believes are best suited to its particular community. The CRA requires an institution’s primary federal regulator, in connection with its examination of the institution, to assess the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to take such record into account in its evaluation of certain applications by such institution. The assessment focuses on three tests: (1) a lending test, to evaluate the institution’s record of making loans, including community development loans, in its designated assessment areas; (2) an investment test, to evaluate the institution’s record of investing in community development projects, affordable housing, and programs benefiting low or moderate income individuals and areas and small businesses; and (3) a service test, to evaluate the institution’s delivery of banking services throughout its CRA assessment area, including low and moderate income areas. The CRA also requires all institutions to make public disclosure of their CRA ratings. As of December 31, 2013, all of the Corporation’s subsidiary banks are rated as "satisfactory." Regulations require that the Corporation’s subsidiary banks publicly disclose certain agreements that are in fulfillment of CRA. None of the Corporation’s subsidiary banks have any such agreements in place at this time.

Standards for Safety and Soundness – Pursuant to the requirements of FDICIA, as amended by the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, the federal bank regulatory agencies adopted guidelines establishing general standards relating to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate

risk exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risks and exposures specified in the guidelines. The guidelines prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal shareholder. An institution must submit a compliance plan to its regulator if it is notified that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards. If the institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an accepted compliance plan, the regulator must issue an order directing corrective actions and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which a significantly undercapitalized institution is subject under the "prompt corrective action" provisions of FDICIA. If the institution fails to comply with such an order, the regulator may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties.

Privacy Protection – The Corporation’s bank subsidiaries are subject to regulations implementing the privacy protection provisions of the GLB Act. These regulations require each of the Corporation’s bank subsidiaries to disclose its privacy policy, including identifying with whom it shares "nonpublic personal information," to customers at the time of establishing the customer relationship and annually thereafter. The regulations also require the bank to provide its customers with initial and annual notices that accurately reflect its privacy policies and practices. In addition, to the extent its sharing of such information is not covered by an exception, the bank is required to provide its customers with the ability to "opt-out" of having the bank share their nonpublic personal information with unaffiliated third parties.

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

Federal Reserve System – FRB regulations require depository institutions to maintain cash reserves against their transaction accounts (primarily NOW and demand deposit accounts). A reserve of 3% is to be maintained against aggregate transaction accounts between $13.3 million and $89.0 million (subject to adjustment by the FRB) plus a reserve of 10% (subject to adjustment by the FRB between 8% and 14%) against that portion of total transaction accounts in excess of $89.0 million. The first $13.3 million of otherwise reservable balances (subject to adjustment by the FRB) is exempt from the reserve requirements. Each of the Corporation’s bank subsidiaries is in compliance with the foregoing requirements.

Required reserves must be maintained in the form of either vault cash, an account at a Federal Reserve Bank or a pass-through account as defined by the FRB. Pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Federal Reserve Banks pay interest on depository institutions’ required and excess reserve balances. The interest rate paid on required reserve balances is currently the average target federal funds rate over the reserve maintenance period. The rate on excess balances will be set equal to the lowest target federal funds rate in effect during the reserve maintenance period.

FHLB members are also authorized to borrow from the Federal Reserve "discount window," but FRB regulations require institutions to exhaust all FHLB sources before borrowing from a Federal Reserve Bank.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 – The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley), which was signed into law in July 2002, impacts all companies with securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including the Corporation. Sarbanes-Oxley created new requirements in the areas of corporate governance and financial disclosure including, among other things, (i) increased responsibility for Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers with respect to the content of filings with the SEC; (ii) enhanced requirements for audit committees, including independence and disclosure of expertise; (iii) enhanced requirements for auditor independence and the types of non-audit services that auditors can provide; (iv) accelerated filing requirements for SEC reports; (v) disclosure of a code of ethics; (vi) increased disclosure and reporting obligations for companies, their directors and their executive officers; and (vii) new and increased civil and criminal penalties for violations of securities laws. Many of the provisions became effective immediately, while others became effective as a result of rulemaking procedures delegated by Sarbanes-Oxley to the SEC.

Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley requires management to issue a report on the effectiveness of its internal controls over financial reporting. In addition, the Corporation’s independent registered public accountants are required to issue an opinion on the effectiveness of the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting. These reports can be found in Item 8, "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data." Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer as required by Sarbanes-Oxley and the resulting SEC rules can be found in the "Signatures" and "Exhibits" sections.

Executive Officers

As of December 31, 2013, the executive officers of the Corporation are as follows:



Name	Age	Office Held and Term of Office
E. Philip Wenger	56	Director of the Corporation since 2009. Mr. Wenger was appointed Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation in January 2013. He previously served as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Corporation from 2008 to 2012, a Director of Fulton Bank, N.A. from 2003 to 2009, Chairman of Fulton Bank, N.A. from 2006 to 2009 and has been employed by the Corporation in a number of positions since 1979.

Patrick S. Barrett	50	Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation effective January 1, 2014. Mr. Barrett joined the Corporation as Senior Executive Vice President in November 2013. He held multiple roles with SunTrust Banks, Inc. in the three years prior to joining the Corporation, ending as Chief Financial Officer of SunTrust Wholesale Bank from 2011 to 2013. Mr. Barrett previously held a number of senior finance and managing director roles with JPMorgan Chase & Co. from 2003 to 2010, ending as Managing Director - Investor Relations. He spent 10 years as a Certified Public Accountant with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu from 1993 to 2003, ending as an Audit Partner, Financial Services in 2003.

Curtis J. Myers	45	Senior Executive Vice President of the Corporation; and President and Chief Operating Officer of Fulton Bank, N.A. since July 2013. President and Chief Operating Officer of Fulton Bank, N.A. and Executive Vice President of the Corporation since August 2011. President and Chief Operating Officer of Fulton Bank, N.A. since February 2009. Mr. Myers has been employed by Fulton Bank, N.A. in a number of positions since 1990.

Craig H. Hill	58	Senior Executive Vice President of the Corporation since January 2006. Executive Vice President and Director of Human Resources from 1999 through 2005. Mr. Hill serves as the Corporation's Senior Executive Vice President of Human Resources, Corporate Communications and Administrative Services.

Meg R. Mueller	49	Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer of the Corporation since July 2013. Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer since 2010. Ms. Mueller has been employed by the Corporation in a number of positions since 1996.

Charles J. Nugent	65	Retired, effective December 31, 2013. Mr. Nugent served as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation since January 2001 and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation from 1992 to 2001. Mr. Nugent has served as a director of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh since 2010.

Craig A. Roda	57	Senior Executive Vice President of Community Banking of the Corporation since July 2011; and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fulton Bank, N.A., since February 2009. Chief Executive Officer and President of Fulton Bank, N.A. from 2006 to 2009.

Philmer H. Rohrbaugh	61	Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of the Corporation since November 2012. Mr. Rohrbaugh was a managing partner of KPMG, LLP's Chicago office from 2009 to 2012; Vice Chairman Industries and part of the U.S. Management Committee of KPMG from 2006 to 2009; and joined KPMG in 2002. He has more than 25 years of experience in various management positions. Mr. Rohrbaugh is a Certified Public Accountant and currently serves as a director of a public manufacturing company.

Angela M. Sargent	46	Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer of the Corporation since July 2013. Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer since 2002. Ms. Sargent has been employed by the Corporation in a number of positions since 1992.

James E. Shreiner	64	Senior Executive Vice President of the Corporation since January 2006 and Executive Vice President of the Corporation and Executive Vice President of Fulton Bank, N.A. from 2000 to 2005. Mr. Shreiner serves as Senior Executive Vice President of Operations and Credit.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in the Corporation's common stock involves certain risks, including, among others, the risks described below. In addition to the other information contained in this report, you should carefully consider the following risk factors.

Difficult conditions in the economy and the capital markets may materially adversely affect the Corporation's business and results of operations.

The Corporation's results of operations and financial condition are affected by conditions in the capital markets and the economy generally. The Corporation's financial performance is highly dependent upon the business environment in the markets where the Corporation operates and in the U.S. as a whole. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence, limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital, increases in inflation or interest rates, high unemployment, natural disasters or a combination of these or other factors.

Specifically, the business environment impacts the ability of borrowers to pay interest on, and repay principal of, outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, as well as demand for loans and other products and services the Corporation offers. If the quality of the Corporation’s loan portfolio declines, the Corporation may have to increase its provision for credit losses, which would negatively impact its results of operations, and could result in charge-offs of a higher percentage of its loans. Unlike large, national institutions, the Corporation is not able to spread the risks of unfavorable local economic conditions across a large number of diversified economies and geographic locations. If the communities in which the Corporation operates do not grow, or if prevailing economic conditions locally or nationally are unfavorable, its business could be adversely affected. In addition, increased market competition in a lower demand environment could adversely affect the profit potential of the Corporation.

Since emerging from a recession during the second half of 2009, the U.S. economy has generally been improving; however, the pace of economic growth has been somewhat sluggish and uneven. There can be no assurance that this improvement will continue, and certain sectors of the economy remain weak and unemployment remains elevated. Some state and local governments and many businesses are still experiencing serious financial difficulty. Loan demand shows signs of improvement; however, intense competition among lenders is contributing to downward pressure on loan yields. Confidence levels of both individuals and businesses in the economy appear to be improving, but their confidence remains fragile.

The Corporation is subject to certain risks in connection with the establishment and level of its allowance for credit losses.

The allowance for credit losses consists of the allowance for loan losses and the reserve for unfunded lending commitments. While the Corporation believes that its allowance for credit losses as of December 31, 2013 is sufficient to cover incurred losses in the loan portfolio on that date, the Corporation may be required to increase its provision for credit losses due to changes in the risk characteristics of the loan portfolio, thereby negatively impacting its results of operations.

The allowance for loan losses represents management’s estimate of losses inherent in the loan portfolio as of the balance sheet date and is recorded as a reduction to loans. Management’s estimate of losses inherent in the loan portfolio is dependent on the proper application of its methodology for determining its allowance needs. The most critical judgments underpinning that methodology include: the ability to identify potential problem loans in a timely manner; proper collateral valuation of impaired loans evaluated for impairment; proper measurement of allowance needs for pools of loans measured for impairment; and an overall assessment of the risk profile of the loan portfolio.

The Corporation determines the appropriate level of the allowance for credit losses based on many quantitative and qualitative factors, including, but not limited to: the size and composition of the loan portfolio; changes in risk ratings; changes in collateral values; delinquency levels; historical losses; and economic conditions.

If the Corporation’s assumptions and judgments regarding such matters prove to be inaccurate, its allowance for credit losses might not be sufficient, and additional provisions for credit losses might need to be made. Depending on the amount of such provisions for credit losses, the adverse impact of the Corporation’s earnings could be material.

In addition, as the Corporation’s loan portfolio grows, it will generally be necessary to increase the allowance for credit losses through additional provisions, which would adversely impact the Corporation’s operating results. Furthermore, bank regulators may require the Corporation to make additional provisions for credit losses or otherwise recognize further loan charge-offs or impairments following their periodic reviews of the Corporation’s loan portfolio, underwriting procedures and allowance for credit losses. Any increase in the Corporation’s allowance for credit losses or loan charge-offs as required by such regulatory authorities could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations. See Item 7, "Management’s

Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," "Financial Condition - Provision and Allowance for Credit Losses."

Economic downturns and the composition of the Corporation’s loan portfolio subject the Corporation to credit risk.

Economic downturns and the composition of the Corporation’s loan portfolio subject the Corporation to credit risk. National, regional and local economic conditions can impact the Corporation’s loan portfolio. For example, an increase in unemployment, a decrease in real estate values or increases in interest rates, as well as other factors, could weaken the economies of the communities the Corporation serves. Weakness in the market areas served by the Corporation may depress the Corporation’s earnings and consequently its financial condition because:


•	borrowers may not be able to pay interest on, and repay their principal of, outstanding loans;


•	the value of the collateral securing the Corporation’s loans to borrowers may decline; and


•	demand for loans, as well as and other products and services the Corporation offers, may decline.

Approximately $5.7 billion, or 44%, of the Corporation’s loan portfolio was in commercial mortgage and construction loans at December 31, 2013. The Corporation did not have a concentration of credit risk with any single borrower, industry or geographical location. However, commercial mortgage and construction loans generally involve a greater degree of credit risk than residential mortgage loans because they typically have larger balances and are more affected by adverse conditions in the economy. Because payments on commercial mortgage loans often depend on the successful operation and management of the properties and the businesses which operate from within them, repayment of such loans may be affected by factors outside the borrower’s control, such as adverse conditions in the real estate markets, adverse economic conditions or changes in government regulation. See Item 7, "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," "Financial Condition - Loans."

Changes in interest rates may have an adverse effect on the Corporation's net income.

The Corporation is affected by fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government, including those of the FRB, which regulates the national money supply and engages in other lending and investment activities in order to manage recessionary and inflationary pressures, many of which affect interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits.

Net interest income is the most significant component of the Corporation's net income, accounting for approximately 75% of total revenues in 2013. The narrowing of interest rate spreads, the difference between interest rates earned on loans and investments and interest rates paid on deposits and borrowings, could adversely affect the Corporation's net interest income and financial condition. The Corporation cannot predict or control changes in interest rates.

Low market interest rates, which have been projected by many to continue for some time, have pressured net interest margins. Interest-earning assets, such as loans and investments, have been originated, acquired or repriced at lower rates, reducing the average rate earned on those assets. While the average rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings, has also declined, the decline has not always occurred at the same pace as the decline in the average rate earned on interest-earning assets, resulting in a narrowing of the net interest margin. For example, competition sometimes requires the Corporation to lower rates charged on loans more than the decline in market rates would otherwise indicate. Competition may also require the Corporation to pay higher rates on deposits than market rates would otherwise indicate, further narrowing net interest margin. Further, due to historically low market interest rates, rates paid on deposits may reach a “natural floor” below which rates may not be able to be lowered. See Item 7, "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," "Net Interest Income."

Movements in interest rates can also cause demand for some of the Corporation’s products and services to be cyclical. As a result, the Corporation may need to periodically scale certain of its businesses, including its personnel, to match increases and decreases in demand and volume. The need to change the scale of these businesses is challenging and there is often a lag between changes in the businesses and the Corporation’s reaction to these changes. For example, demand for residential mortgage loans has historically tended to increase during periods when interest rates were declining, and to decrease during periods when interest rates were rising. During 2012, long-term interest rates in general, and those for residential mortgage loans in particular, were at or near historic lows. This low level of interest rates contributed to a significant increase in the volume of residential mortgage loans originated by the Corporation, a significant increase in gains realized on the sale of some of those loans to investors in the secondary market, and significant growth in the Corporation's residential mortgage loans held in its loan portfolio during 2012. This level of growth was not repeated in 2013 and, as a result, the Corporation’s income related to residential mortgage loans declined.

Changes in interest rates or disruption in liquidity markets may adversely affect the Corporation’s sources of funding; liquidity planning at both the bank and holding company levels has become an area of increased regulatory emphasis.

The Corporation must maintain sufficient funds to respond to the needs of its depositors and borrowers. The Corporation’s liquidity management emphasizes core deposits and repayments and maturities of loans and investments as its primary sources of liquidity. These primary sources of liquidity can be supplemented by FHLB advances, borrowings from the Federal Reserve Bank, proceeds from the sales of loans and liquidity resources of the holding company. Lower-cost, core deposits may be adversely affected by changes in interest rates and the supplemental sources of liquidity are often more expensive and may not always be as readily available. Technology and other factors have also made it more convenient for customers to transfer low-cost deposits into higher-cost deposits or into alternative investments or deposits of other banks or non-bank providers; these funding changes can also increase the Corporation’s funding costs and/or create liquidity challenges.

While the Corporation attempts to manage its liquidity through models, assumptions and estimates used in the models do not always accurately forecast the impact of changes in customer behavior. For example, the Corporation may face limitations on its ability to fund loan growth if customers move funds out of the Corporation’s subsidiary banks’ deposit accounts in response to increases in interest rates. In the current, unusually low interest rate environment, customers are less sensitive to interest rates when making deposit decisions. However, should interest rates rise, customers may become more aware of interest rate differences and alternative opportunities, which could cause them to move funds into those other opportunities and out of deposit accounts maintained by the Corporation’s bank subsidiaries. Due to regulatory limitations on the Corporation’s ability to rely on short term funding sources, any significant movements of deposits away from traditional depository accounts which negatively impacts the Corporation’s loan-to-deposit ratio could restrict its ability to achieve growth in loans or result in the necessity to pay higher interest rates on deposit products in order to retain deposits to fund loans.

Market conditions have been negatively impacted by disruptions in the liquidity markets in the past, and such disruptions or an adverse change in the Corporation's results of operations or financial condition could, in the future, have a negative impact on secondary sources of liquidity. See Part II, Item 7A, "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk," "Interest Rate Risk, Asset/Liability Management and Liquidity."

Liquidity must also be managed at the holding company level. Banking regulators are paying close attention to liquidity at the holding company level, in addition to consolidated and bank liquidity levels. For safety and soundness reasons, banking regulations limit the amount of cash that can be transferred from subsidiary banks to the parent company in the form of loans and dividends. Generally, these limitations are based on the subsidiary banks' regulatory capital levels and their net income. These factors have affected some institutions' ability to pay dividends and have required some institutions to establish borrowing facilities at the holding company level.

As discussed under Part I, Item 1, "Business," "Supervision and Regulation," proposals included within the Basel III liquidity framework include new liquidity requirements which, if implemented by U.S. bank regulators, may require the Corporation to maintain increased levels of liquid assets or alter its strategies for liquidity management.

Price fluctuations in securities markets, as well as other market events, such as a disruption in credit and other markets and the abnormal functioning of markets for securities, could have an impact on the Corporation's results of operations.

The market value of the Corporation's securities investments, which include municipal securities, auction rate securities, corporate debt securities and equity investments, as well as the revenues the Corporation earns from its trust and investment management services business, are particularly sensitive to price fluctuations and market events. Declines in the values of the Corporation’s securities holdings, combined with adverse changes in the expected cash flows from these investments, could result in other-than-temporary impairment charges:

•

Municipal Securities. As of December 31, 2013, the Corporation had $284.8 million of municipal securities issued by various municipalities in its investment portfolio. Ongoing uncertainty with respect to the financial viability of municipal insurers places greater emphasis on the underlying strength of issuers. Increasing pressure on local tax revenues of issuers due to adverse economic conditions could also have a negative impact on the underlying credit quality of issuers. The Corporation evaluates existing and potential holdings primarily on the underlying credit worthiness of the issuing municipality and then, to a lesser extent, on the credit enhancement corresponding to the individual issuance. As of December 31, 2013, approximately 95% of municipal securities were supported by the general obligation of corresponding municipalities. In addition, approximately 84% of these securities were school district issuances that are supported by the general obligation of the corresponding municipalities as of December 31, 2013.

•

Auction Rate Securities. As of December 31, 2013, the Corporation had $159.3 million of investments in Auction Rate Certificates (ARCs). Recent market prices for ARCs represent forced liquidations or distressed sales and do not provide an accurate basis for determining their fair value. The Corporation does not have the intent to sell the ARCs and does not believe it will more likely than not be required to sell any of the ARCs prior to a recovery of their fair value to amortized cost, which may be at maturity. However, if the Corporation chose to liquidate these securities prior to their maturity, it would likely have to do so at such "distressed" sale prices and would likely do so at a loss.


•	Corporate Debt Securities. As of December 31, 2013, the Corporation had $98.7 million of corporate debt securities issued by financial institutions. Declines in the values of these securities, combined with adverse changes in the expected cash flows from these investments, could result in other-than-temporary impairment charges

•

Equity Investments. The Corporation's holdings of equity investments include stocks of publicly traded financial institutions, including shares of a single financial institution which, as of December 31, 2013, had a fair value of $29.3 million. The Corporation's holdings of this financial institution constituted approximately 72% of the fair value of the Corporation's aggregate holdings of publicly traded financial institutions as of that date.

•

Investment Management and Trust Services Revenues. The Corporation's investment management and trust services revenue, which is partially based on the value of the underlying investment portfolios, can also be impacted by fluctuations in the securities markets. If the values of those investment portfolios decrease, whether due to factors influencing U.S. securities markets, in general, or otherwise, the Corporation's revenue could be negatively impacted. In addition, the Corporation's ability to sell its brokerage services is dependent, in part, upon consumers' level of confidence in securities markets.

See also Part II, Item 7A, "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk."

The supervision and regulation to which the Corporation is subject is increasing and can be a competitive disadvantage; the Corporation may incur fines, penalties and other negative consequences from regulatory violations, including inadvertent or unintentional violations.

Virtually every aspect of the Corporation's operations is subject to extensive regulation and, in the current economic, political and regulatory climate, the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries are subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny, especially given the Corporation's size and complexity. The Corporation has six banking subsidiaries. The Corporation and its subsidiaries are subject to regulation by a variety of federal and state banking regulatory agencies. This corporate structure presents challenges, in terms of compliance with different, and potentially inconsistent, regulatory requirements. As a result, the time, expense and internal and external resources associated with regulatory compliance continue to increase, and balancing the need to address regulatory changes and effectively manage growth in non-interest expenses has become more challenging than it has been in the past. Thus, the Corporation’s compliance obligations increase the Corporation's expense, require management's attention and can be a disadvantage from a competitive standpoint with respect to non-regulated competitors and larger bank competitors.

Compliance with banking statutes and regulations is important to the Corporation’s ability to engage in new activities and to consummate certain transactions. Bank regulators are scrutinizing banks through longer and more extensive bank examinations in both the safety and soundness and compliance areas. The results of such examinations could result in a delay in receiving required regulatory approvals for potential new activities and transactional matters. In the event that the Corporation’s compliance record would be determined to be unsatisfactory, such approvals may not be able to be obtained. Federal and state banking regulators also possess broad powers to take supervisory actions, as they deem appropriate. These supervisory actions may result in higher capital requirements, higher deposit insurance premiums and limitations on the Corporation’s operations and expansion activities that could have a material adverse effect on its business and profitability.

In recent years, a combination of financial reform legislation and heightened scrutiny by banking regulators have significantly increased expectations regarding what constitutes an effective risk and compliance management infrastructure. To keep pace with these expectations, the Corporation has invested considerable resources in initiatives designed to strengthen its risk management framework and regulatory compliance programs.

Further, failure to comply with these regulatory requirements, including inadvertent or unintentional violations, may result in the assessment of fines and penalties, the commencement of informal or formal regulatory enforcement actions against the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries. As an example, three of the Corporation's bank subsidiaries were recently subject to civil money penalties for certain alleged failures to comply with the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Other negative consequences also can result from such failures, including regulatory restrictions on the Corporation's activities, including restrictions on the Corporation’s ability to grow through acquisition, reputational damage, restrictions on the ability of institutional investment managers to invest in the

Corporation's securities and increases in the Corporation's costs of doing business. The occurrence of one or more of these events may have a material adverse effect on the Corporation's business, financial condition or results of operations.

Among other areas that the Corporation continues to focus substantial resources on to improve its compliance functions are the requirements under the Flood Disaster Protection Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act and related anti-money laundering regulations. Although the Corporation has made progress in continuing to build-out its risk and compliance management infrastructures, the pace at which it has progressed may not be consistent with current regulatory expectations. As a result, the Corporation believes that there is an increasing risk that it, or one or more of its bank subsidiaries, may become subject to regulatory enforcement action in addition to the civil monetary penalties recently imposed against three of its banking subsidiaries. Any such enforcement action by the Corporation’s banking regulators would likely require that it accelerate its efforts to resolve identified deficiencies and improve its compliance functions and to undertake additional remedial actions, and could also involve the imposition of material restrictions on the Corporation’s activities or the assessment of fines or penalties against the Corporation or one or more of its bank subsidiaries.

Management has accelerated its efforts to resolve identified deficiencies and enhance the Corporation’s compliance and risk management functions, and this work will continue. Although management is not able to predict the outcome of these matters, costs associated with these efforts, including additional expenses for salaries and benefits, outside professional services, such as consulting and legal, and for enhancing or acquiring systems to strengthen and support the Corporation’s regulatory compliance and risk management infrastructures, could materially affect the Corporation’s results of operations in future periods. See also Part I, Item 1, Business, "Supervision and Regulation."

Financial reform legislation continues to have a significant impact on the Corporation's business and results of operations; however, until more implementing regulations are adopted, the extent to which the legislation will impact the Corporation is uncertain.

On July 21, 2010, the President of the United States signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The scope of the Dodd-Frank Act impacted many aspects of the financial services industry, and it requires the development and adoption of many regulations, a significant number of which have not yet been adopted or fully implemented. The effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on the financial services industry will depend, in large part, upon the extent to which regulators exercise the authority granted to them under the Dodd-Frank Act and the approaches taken in implementing regulations. The delay in the implementation of many of the regulations mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act on the timelines contemplated by such legislation has resulted in a lack of clear regulatory guidance to banks. The resulting uncertainty has caused banks to take a cautious approach to business initiatives and planning. Additional uncertainty regarding the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act exists due to court decisions and the potential for additional legislative changes to the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Corporation, as well as the broader financial services industry, is continuing to assess the potential impact of the Dodd-Frank Act (and its possible impact on customers' behaviors) on its business and operations but, at this stage, the extent of the impact cannot be fully determined with any degree of certainty. However, the Corporation has been impacted, and will likely continue to be in the future, by the so-called Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, which reduced debit card interchange revenue of banks; and revised FDIC deposit insurance assessments. The Durbin amendment is currently the subject of litigation that could result in a further reduction to permissible interchange income, although the outcome of that litigation is not yet final. The Corporation also is likely to be impacted by the Dodd-Frank Act in the areas of corporate governance, capital requirements, risk management, stress testing and regulation under consumer protection laws.

The Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB. Among other things, the CFPB was given rulemaking authority over most providers of consumer financial services in the U.S., examination and enforcement authority over the consumer operations of large banks, as well as interpretive authority with respect to numerous existing consumer financial services regulations. The CFPB began exercising these oversight authorities over the largest banks during 2011. Because the CFPB is a relatively new agency, the impact on the Corporation, including its retail banking and mortgage businesses, is largely uncertain. However, any new regulatory requirements, or modified interpretations of existing regulations, will affect the Corporation's consumer business practices and operations, potentially resulting in increased compliance costs. Furthermore, the CFPB represents an additional source of potential enforcement or litigation against the Corporation and, as a relatively new agency with a focus on consumer protection, the CFPB may have new or different enforcement or litigation strategies than those typically utilized by other regulatory agencies. Such actions could further increase the Corporation's costs.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a series of final rules in January 2013 related to mortgage loan origination and mortgage loan servicing. These final rules, most provisions of which became effective January 10, 2014, prohibit creditors, such as the Corporation's bank subsidiaries, from extending residential mortgage loans without regard for the consumer's ability to rep

ay, provide certain safe harbor protections for the origination of loans that meet the requirements for a "qualified mortgage" and add restrictions and requirements to residential mortgage origination and servicing practices. In addition, these rules restrict the imposition of prepayment penalties and compensation practices relating to residential mortgage loan origination. Compliance with these rules will likely increase the Corporation’s overall regulatory compliance costs and required the Corporation’s bank subsidiaries to change their underwriting practices. Moreover, these rules may adversely affect the volume of mortgage loans that the Corporation’s bank subsidiaries originate and may subject those subsidiaries to increased potential liability related to their residential loan origination activities. See also Part I, Item 1, "Business," "Supervision and Regulation."

Additional growth, particularly at the Corporation's largest subsidiary, Fulton Bank, N.A., will subject it to additional regulation and increased supervision.

The Dodd-Frank Act imposes additional regulatory requirements on institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. The Corporation's largest bank subsidiary, Fulton Bank, N.A., had $9.5 billion in assets as of December 31, 2013. Additional growth that results in Fulton Bank, N.A. having assets of $10 billion or more would subject Fulton Bank, N.A. to the following:


•	Supervision, examination and enforcement by the CFPB with respect to consumer financial protection laws;


•	Stress testing requirements;


•	A modified methodology for calculating FDIC insurance assessments and potentially higher assessment rates as a result of institutions with $10 billion or more in assets being required to bear a greater portion of the cost of raising the reserve ratio to 1.35% as required by the Dodd-Frank Act;


•	Heightened compliance standards under the Volcker Rule; and


•	Enhanced supervision as a larger financial institution.

See also Part I, Item 1, "Business," "Supervision and Regulation."

The Corporation is exposed to many types of operational and other risks; some of these risks are associated with third-party vendors and other financial institutions.

The Corporation is exposed to many types of operational risk, including the risk of human error or fraud by employees and outsiders, unsatisfactory performance by employees and vendors, clerical and record-keeping errors, and computer and telecommunications systems malfunctions.

Reputation risk, or the risk to the Corporation's earnings and capital from negative public opinion, is inherent in the Corporation's business. Negative public opinion could result from the Corporation's actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices, corporate governance, regulatory, compliance, mergers and acquisitions, and disclosure, sharing or inadequate protection of customer information and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to that conduct. Because the Corporation conducts the majority of its businesses under the "Fulton" brand, negative public opinion about one business could affect the Corporation's other businesses.

The Corporation relies upon certain third-party vendors to provide products and services necessary to maintain its day-to-day operations. For example, the Corporation's businesses are dependent on its ability to process a large number of increasingly complex transactions; a significant amount of this processing is provided to the Corporation by third-party vendors. Accordingly, the Corporation’s operations are exposed to the risk that these vendors might not perform in accordance with applicable contractual arrangements or service level agreements. The failure of an external vendor to perform in accordance with applicable contractual arrangements or service level agreements could be disruptive to the Corporation’s operations, which could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The commercial soundness of many financial institutions may be closely interrelated as a result of credit, trading, execution of transactions or other relationships between the institutions. As a result, concerns about, or a default or threatened default by, one institution could lead to significant market-wide liquidity and credit problems, losses or defaults by other institutions. This is sometimes referred to as "systemic risk" and may adversely affect financial intermediaries, such as clearing agencies, clearing houses, banks, securities firms and exchanges, with which the Corporation interacts on a daily basis, and therefore could adversely affect the Corporation.

Any of these operational or other risks could result in the Corporation's diminished ability to operate one or more of its businesses, financial loss, potential liability to customers, inability to secure insurance, reputational damage and regulatory intervention, which could materially adversely affect the Corporation.

The Corporation's framework for managing risks may not be effective in mitigating risk and loss to the Corporation; for example, the Corporation’s internal control may be ineffective.

The Corporation’s risk management framework is subject to inherent limitations, and there may exist, or develop in the future, risks that the Corporation has not anticipated or identified. If the Corporation's risk management framework proves to be ineffective, the Corporation could suffer unexpected losses and could be materially adversely affected. In addition, the Corporation historically has followed a "super-community" banking strategy under which the Corporation has operated its subsidiary banks autonomously to maximize the advantage of community banking and service to its customers. This banking strategy challenges the Corporation's efforts to manage risk efficiently and effectively through a centralized risk management and compliance function. The evolving need for organization-wide risk management procedures may require further changes in the Corporation's historical multi-bank, de-centralized operating approach.

One critical component of the Corporation’s risk management framework is its system of internal controls. Management regularly reviews and updates the Corporation’s internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the controls are met. Any failure or circumvention of the Corporation’s controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s business, results of operations, and financial condition. See Part II, Item 9A, "Controls and Procedures."

Loss of, or failure to adequately safeguard, confidential or proprietary information may adversely affect the Corporation's operations, net income or reputation.

The Corporation regularly collects, processes, transmits and stores significant amounts of its own confidential information, as well as confidential information regarding its customers, employees and others that is necessary to the conduct of its business. In some cases, this confidential or proprietary information is collected, compiled, processed, transmitted or stored by third parties on behalf of the Corporation. A failure in or breach of the Corporation's operational or information security systems, or those of the Corporation's third-party service providers, as a result of cyber attacks or information security breaches or due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions could adversely affect the Corporation’s business, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage the Corporation’s reputation, increase the Corporation’s costs and/or cause losses and could subject the Corporation to significant regulatory consequences. As a result, cyber security and the continued development and enhancement of the controls and processes designed to protect the Corporation's systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a priority for the Corporation.

The safeguards employed by the Corporation do not provide absolute assurance that mishandling, misuse or loss of the information will not occur, and that if mishandling, misuse or loss of the information did occur, those events will be promptly detected and addressed. As information security risks and cyber threats continue to evolve (and possibly increase as technological developments may further increase cyber threats), the Corporation may be required to expend additional resources to continue to enhance its information security measures and/or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities.

If the goodwill that the Corporation has recorded in connection with its acquisitions becomes impaired, it could have a negative impact on the Corporation's results of operations.

In the past, the Corporation supplemented its internal growth with strategic acquisitions of banks, branches and other financial services companies. If the purchase price of an acquired company exceeds the fair value of the company's net assets, the excess is carried on the acquirer's balance sheet as goodwill. Companies must evaluate goodwill for impairment at least annually. A more frequent evaluation could be triggered by, for example, a broad price decline in the shares of comparable publicly traded financial institutions. Write-downs of the amount of any impairment, if necessary, are to be charged to earnings in the period in which the impairment occurs. There can be no assurance that future evaluations of goodwill will not result in impairment charges.

The Corporation continually encounters technological change.

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. The Corporation’s future success depends, in part, upon its ability to address the needs of its customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in the Corporation’s operations. Many of the Corporation’s competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. The Corporation may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services, be successful in marketing these products and services to its customers, or effectively deploy new technologies to improve

the efficiency of its operations. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on the Corporation’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Further, the costs of new technology, including personnel, can be high in both absolute and relative terms. There can be no assurance, given the past pace of change and innovation, that the Corporation’s technology, either purchased or developed internally, will meet or continue to meet the needs of the Corporation and the needs of its customers.

The competition the Corporation faces is significant and may reduce the Corporation's customer base and negatively impact the Corporation's results of operations.

There is significant competition among commercial banks in the market areas served by the Corporation. In addition, as a result of the deregulation of the financial services industry, the Corporation also competes with other providers of financial services, such as savings and loan associations, credit unions, consumer finance companies, securities firms, insurance companies, commercial finance and leasing companies, the mutual funds industry, full service brokerage firms and discount brokerage firms, some of which are subject to less extensive regulations than the Corporation is with respect to the products and services they provide and have different cost structures. Some of the Corporation's competitors have greater resources, higher lending limits, lower cost of funds and may offer other services not offered by the Corporation. The Corporation also experiences competition from a variety of institutions outside its market areas. Some of these institutions conduct business primarily over the Internet and may thus be able to realize certain cost savings and offer products and services at more favorable rates and with greater convenience to the customer.

Competition may adversely affect the rates the Corporation pays on deposits and charges on loans, thereby potentially adversely affecting the Corporation's profitability. The Corporation's profitability depends upon its continued ability to successfully compete in the market areas it serves. Further, intense competition among lenders is contributing to downward pressure on loan yields. See Part I, Item 1, "Business," "Competition."

The Corporation may not be able to attract and retain skilled people.

The Corporation’s success depends, in large part, on its ability to attract and retain skilled people. Competition for the best people in most activities engaged in by the Corporation can be intense, and the Corporation may not be able to hire sufficiently skilled people or to retain them. As an example and as noted above, the Corporation is engaged in an effort to enhance its compliance and risk management functions. As many of the Corporation’s peers are engaged in similar efforts, the competition for personnel with skills in these areas can be significant and, to the extent that the Corporation is able to attract qualified personnel, the expense associated with hiring such personnel may be substantial. The unexpected loss of services of one or more of the Corporation’s key personnel could have a material adverse impact on the Corporation’s business because of their skills, knowledge of the Corporation’s markets, years of industry experience and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel.

The Corporation's future growth may require the Corporation to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed or may be available only at an excessive cost.

The Corporation is required by regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support its operations. The Corporation anticipates that current capital levels will satisfy regulatory requirements for the foreseeable future. The Corporation, however, may at some point choose to raise additional capital to support its continued growth. The Corporation's ability to raise additional capital will depend, in part, on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of the Corporation's control. Accordingly, the Corporation may be unable to raise additional capital, if and when needed, on terms acceptable to the Corporation, or at all. If the Corporation cannot raise additional capital when needed, its ability to further expand operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be materially impacted. In the event of a material decrease in the Corporation's stock price, future issuances of equity securities could result in dilution of existing shareholder interests.

Capital planning has taken on more importance due to regulatory requirements and the Basel III capital standards.

Consistent with current regulatory guidance, the Corporation conducts an annual stress test. The Corporation's board of directors and its senior management will be required to consider the results of the stress test in the normal course of business, including as part of its capital planning process and the evaluation of the adequacy of its capital. The Corporation will also be required to report the results of the annual stress test to the Federal Reserve and, beginning with the stress test conducted in the fall of 2014, publicly disclose a summary of the results of the stress test completed under the severely adverse scenario. The results of the stress testing process may lead the Corporation to retain additional capital or alter the mix of its capital components. In addition, the implementation of certain regulations with regard to regulatory capital could disproportionately affect the Corporation's regulatory capital position relative to that of its competitors, including those who may not be subject to the same regulatory requirement.

In 2013, the federal banking regulatory agencies implemented the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules, including: (i) new minimum Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.50% of risk-weighted assets, (ii) increased minimum Tier 1 capital ratio (from 4.00% to 6.00% of risk-weighted assets), (iii) retention of the current minimum Total capital ratio of 8.00% of risk-weighted assets and the minimum Tier 1 leverage capital ratio at 4.00% of average assets and (iv) a new "capital conservation buffer" of 2.50% above the minimum risk-based capital requirements which must be maintained to avoid restrictions on capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments. As a result of the implementation of the new capital standards, certain non-qualifying capital instruments, including cumulative preferred stock and trust preferred securities, will be excluded as a component of Tier 1 capital for institutions of the Corporation’s size.

The fully phased-in capital standards under the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules require banks to maintain more capital than the minimum levels required under current regulatory capital standards. The new minimum regulatory capital requirements begin to apply to the Corporation in 2015. The required minimum capital conservation buffer will be phased in incrementally starting on January 1, 2016 and will be fully phased in on January 1, 2019. The failure to meet the established capital requirements could result in the federal banking regulators placing limitations or conditions on the activities of the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries or restricting the commencement of new activities, and such failure could subject the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries to a variety of enforcement remedies, including limiting the ability of the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries to pay dividends, issuing a directive to increase capital and terminating FDIC deposit insurance. In addition, the failure to comply with the capital conservation buffer will result in restrictions on capital distributions and discretionary cash bonus payments to executive officers. As of December 31, 2013, the Corporation believes its current capital levels would meet the fully-phased in minimum capital requirements, including capital conservation buffers, as set forth in the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules. See Part I, Item 1, "Business," "Supervision and Regulation - Capital Requirements."

The Corporation is a holding company and relies on dividends from its subsidiaries for substantially all of its revenue and its ability to make dividends, distributions and other payments.

The Corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from its banking and nonbanking subsidiaries, and depends on the payment of dividends from its subsidiaries, principally its banking subsidiaries, for substantially all of its revenues. As a result, the Corporation's ability to make dividend payments on its common stock depends primarily on certain federal and state regulatory considerations and the receipt of dividends and other distributions from its subsidiaries. There are various regulatory and prudential supervisory restrictions, which may change from time to time, that impact the ability of the Corporation’s banking subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other payments to it. There can be no assurance that the Corporation’s banking subsidiaries will be able to pay dividends at past levels, or at all, in the future. If the Corporation does not receive sufficient cash dividends or is unable to borrow from its banking subsidiaries, then the Corporation may not have sufficient funds to pay dividends to its shareholders, repurchase its common stock or service its debt obligations. See Part I, Item 1, "Business," "Supervision and Regulation - Loans and Dividends from Subsidiary Banks."

A downgrade in the credit ratings of the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries could have a material adverse impact on the Corporation.

Fitch, Inc. and Moody's Investors Service, Inc. continuously evaluate the Corporation and its subsidiaries, and their ratings of the Corporation and its subsidiary's long-term and short-term debt are based on a number of factors, including financial strength, as well as factors not entirely within its and its subsidiaries' control, such as conditions affecting the financial services industry generally. Moreover, Fitch and Moody's have indicated that they are evaluating the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on the rating support assumptions currently included in their methodologies. In light of these reviews and the continued focus on the financial services industry generally, the Corporation and its subsidiaries may not be able to maintain their current respective ratings. Ratings downgrades by Fitch or Moody's could have a significant and immediate impact on the Corporation's funding and liquidity through cash obligations, reduced funding capacity and collateral triggers. A reduction in the Corporation's or its subsidiaries' credit ratings could also increase the Corporation's borrowing costs and limit its access to the capital markets.

Downgrades in the credit or financial strength ratings assigned to the counterparties with whom the Corporation transacts, could create the perception that the Corporation's financial condition will be adversely impacted as a result of potential future defaults by such counterparties. Additionally, the Corporation could be adversely affected by a general, negative perception of financial institutions caused by the downgrade of other financial institutions. Accordingly, ratings downgrades for other financial institutions could affect the market price of the Corporation's stock and could limit access to or increase its cost of capital.

Anti-takeover provisions could negatively impact the Corporation's shareholders.

Provisions of banking laws, Pennsylvania corporate law and of the Corporation's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of the Corporation or have the effect of discouraging a third party from attempting to acquire control of the Corporation.

The Corporation's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws include certain provisions which may be considered to be "anti-takeover" in nature because they may have the effect of discouraging or making more difficult the acquisition of control over the Corporation by means of a hostile tender offer, exchange offer, proxy contest or similar transaction. These provisions are intended to protect the Corporation's shareholders by providing a measure of assurance that the Corporation's shareholders will be treated fairly in the event of an unsolicited takeover bid and by preventing a successful takeover bidder from exercising its voting control to the detriment of the other shareholders. However, the anti-takeover provisions set forth in the Corporation's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, taken as a whole, may discourage a hostile tender offer, exchange offer, proxy solicitation or similar transaction relating to the Corporation's common stock. To the extent that these provisions actually discourage such a transaction, holders of the Corporation's common stock may not have an opportunity to dispose of part or all of their stock at a higher price than that prevailing in the market. In addition, some of these provisions make it more difficult to remove, and thereby may serve to entrench, the Corporation's incumbent directors and officers, even if their removal would be regarded by some shareholders as desirable.

The ability of a third party to acquire the Corporation is also limited under applicable banking regulations. The BHCA requires any "bank holding company" (as defined in that Act) to obtain the approval of the FRB prior to acquiring more than 5% of the Corporation’s outstanding common stock. Any person other than a bank holding company is required to obtain prior approval of the FRB to acquire 10% or more of the Corporation’s outstanding common stock under the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978. Any holder of 25% or more of the Corporation’s outstanding common stock, other than an individual, is subject to regulation as a bank holding company under the BHCA. In addition, the delays associated with obtaining necessary regulatory approvals for acquisitions of interests in bank holding companies also tend to make more difficult certain acquisition structures, such as a tender offer. While these provisions do not prohibit an acquisition, they would likely act as a deterrent factor to an unsolicited takeover attempt.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

The following table summarizes the Corporation’s full-service branch properties, by subsidiary bank, as of December 31, 2013. Remote service facilities (mainly stand-alone automated teller machines) are excluded.



Subsidiary Bank	Owned	Leased	Total Branches
Fulton Bank, N.A.	47	72	119
Fulton Bank of New Jersey	39	32	71
The Columbia Bank	9	29	38
Lafayette Ambassador Bank	5	18	23
FNB Bank, N.A.	6	2	8
Swineford National Bank	5	2	7
Total	111	155	266

The following table summarizes the Corporation’s other significant administrative properties. Banking subsidiaries also maintain administrative offices at their respective main banking branches, which are included within the preceding table.



Entity	Property	Location	Owned/Leased
Fulton Bank, N.A./Fulton Financial Corporation	Corporate Headquarters	Lancaster, PA	(1)
Fulton Financial Corporation	Operations Center	East Petersburg, PA	Owned
Fulton Bank, N.A.	Operations Center	Mantua, NJ	Owned

(1)

Includes approximately 100,000 square feet which is owned by an independent third-party who financed the construction through a loan from Fulton Bank, N.A. The Corporation is leasing this space from the third-party in an arrangement accounted for as a capital lease. The lease term expires in 2027. The Corporation owns the remainder of the Corporate Headquarters location. This property also includes a Fulton Bank, N.A. branch, which is included in the preceding table.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

The Corporation and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business of the Corporation. The Corporation periodically evaluates the possible impact of pending litigation matters based on, among other factors, the advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and recorded liabilities and reserves for probable legal liabilities and costs. In addition, from time to time, the Corporation is the subject of investigations or other forms of regulatory or governmental inquiry covering a range of possible issues and, in some cases, these may be part of similar reviews of the specified activities of other industry participants. These inquiries could lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, and could possibly result in fines, penalties, restitution or the need to alter the Corporation’s business practices, and cause the Corporation to incur additional costs. The Corporation’s practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations.

As of the date of this report, the Corporation believes that any liabilities, individually or in the aggregate, which may result from the final outcomes of pending proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, the operating results and/or the liquidity of the Corporation. However, legal proceedings are often unpredictable, and the actual results of such proceedings cannot be determined with certainty.

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

Common Stock

As of December 31, 2013, the Corporation had 192.7 million shares of $2.50 par value common stock outstanding held by approximately 42,000 holders of record. The closing price per share of the Corporation’s common stock on December 31, 2013 was $13.09. The common stock of the Corporation is traded on the Global Select Market of The NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol FULT.

The following table presents the quarterly high and low prices of the Corporation’s stock and per share cash dividends declared for each of the quarterly periods in 2013 and 2012:



	Price Range				Per Share Dividend
	High		Low		Per Share Dividend
2013
First Quarter	$	11.91	$	9.78	$	0.08
Second Quarter	11.91		10.30		0.08
Third Quarter	13.08		11.23		0.08
Fourth Quarter	13.40		11.50		0.08
2012
First Quarter	$	10.80	$	9.18	$	0.07
Second Quarter	10.68		9.32		0.07
Third Quarter	10.72		8.75		0.08
Fourth Quarter	10.49		9.22		0.08

Restrictions on the Payments of Dividends

The Corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from its banking and nonbanking subsidiaries, and depends on the payment of dividends from its subsidiaries, principally its banking subsidiaries, for substantially all of its revenues. As a result, the Corporation's ability to make dividend payments on its common stock depends primarily on certain federal and state regulatory considerations and the receipt of dividends and other distributions from its subsidiaries. There are various regulatory and prudential supervisory restrictions, which may change from time to time, that impact the ability of its banking subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other payments to it. For additional information regarding the regulatory restrictions applicable to the Corporation and its subsidiaries, see Part I, Item 1, "Business - Supervision and Regulation," Part I, Item 1A, "Risk Factors - The Corporation is a holding company and relies on dividends from its subsidiaries for substantially all of its revenue and its ability to make dividends, distributions and other payments" and Part II, Item 8, "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data - Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements - Note K - Regulatory Matters" of this Report.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

The following table provides information about options outstanding under the Corporation’s Amended and Restated Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation Plan and the number of securities remaining available for future issuance under the Corporation's Amended and Restated Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation Plan, the 2011 Directors' Equity Participation Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan as of December 31, 2013:



Plan Category	Equity compensation plans approved by security holders	Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights		Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in first column) (1)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders	5,567,701	$	13.25	11,803,838
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders	—	N/A		—
Total	5,567,701	$	13.25	11,803,838

(1) Consists of 11,032,143 shares that may be awarded under the Amended and Restated Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation Plan, 437,776 shares that may be awarded under the 2011 Directors' Equity Participation Plan and 333,919 of shares that may be purchased under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Excludes accrued purchase rights under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan as of December 31, 2013 as the number of shares to be purchased is indeterminable until the time shares are issued.

Performance Graph

The following graph shows cumulative investment returns to shareholders based on the assumptions that (A) an investment of $100.00 was made on December 31, 2008, in each of the following: (i) Fulton Financial Corporation common stock; (ii) the stock of all companies on the NASDAQ Bank Index; (iii); the stock all companies on the Standard and Poor's 500 index (S&P 500); and (B) all dividends were reinvested in such securities over the past five years. The graph is not indicative of future price performance.

The graph below is furnished under this Part II, Item 5 of this Form 10-K and shall not be deemed to be "soliciting material" or to be "filed" with the SEC or subject to Regulation 14A or 14C, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



	Year Ending December 31
Index	2008		2009		2010		2011		2012		2013
Fulton Financial Corporation	$	100.00	$	92.28	$	110.76	$	107.28	$	108.28	$	151.41
S&P 500	$	100.00	$	126.46	$	145.51	$	148.59	$	172.37	$	228.19
NASDAQ Bank Index	$	100.00	$	83.70	$	95.55	$	85.52	$	101.50	$	143.84

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Not applicable.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

5-YEAR CONSOLIDATED SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL RESULTS

(dollars in thousands, except per-share data)



	2013			2012			2011			2010			2009
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS
Interest income	$	609,689		$	647,496		$	693,698		$	745,373		$	786,467
Interest expense	82,495			103,168			133,538			186,627			265,513
Net interest income	527,194			544,328			560,160			558,746			520,954
Provision for credit losses	40,500			94,000			135,000			160,000			190,020
Investment securities gains, net	8,004			3,026			4,561			701			1,079
Non-interest income, excluding investment securities gains	179,660			207,171			182,932			181,548			172,843
Gain on sale of Global Exchange Division	—			6,215			—			—			—
Non-interest expense	461,433			449,294			416,242			408,254			415,524
Income before income taxes	212,925			217,446			196,411			172,741			89,332
Income taxes	51,085			57,601			50,838			44,409			15,408
Net income	161,840			159,845			145,573			128,332			73,924
Preferred stock dividends and discount accretion	—			—			—			(16,303		)	(20,169		)
Net income available to common shareholders	$	161,840		$	159,845		$	145,573		$	112,029		$	53,755
PER COMMON SHARE
Net income (basic)	$	0.84		$	0.80		$	0.73		$	0.59		$	0.31
Net income (diluted)	0.83			0.80			0.73			0.59			0.31
Cash dividends	0.32			0.30			0.20			0.12			0.12
RATIOS
Return on average assets	0.96		%	0.98		%	0.90		%	0.78		%	0.45		%
Return on average common shareholders’ equity	7.88			7.79			7.45			6.29			3.54
Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity (1)	10.76			10.73			10.54			9.39			5.96
Net interest margin	3.50			3.76			3.90			3.80			3.52
Efficiency ratio (1)	63.39			57.61			54.27			53.32			57.77
Dividend payout ratio	38.55			37.50			27.40			20.34			38.71
PERIOD-END BALANCES
Total assets	$	16,934,634		$	16,533,097		$	16,375,174		$	16,280,005		$	16,640,095
Investment securities	2,568,434			2,721,082			2,596,347			2,763,951			3,164,910
Loans, net of unearned income	12,782,220			12,146,971			11,971,223			11,935,128			11,974,742
Deposits	12,491,186			12,484,163			12,535,015			12,396,641			12,105,449
Short-term borrowings	1,258,629			868,399			597,033			674,077			868,940
Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) advances and long-term debt	883,584			894,253			1,040,149			1,119,450			1,540,773
Shareholders’ equity	2,063,187			2,081,656			1,992,539			1,880,389			1,936,482
AVERAGE BALANCES
Total assets	$	16,811,337		$	16,257,776		$	16,114,343		$	16,436,457		$	16,491,607
Investment securities	2,718,173			2,766,552			2,637,130			2,856,171			3,044,153
Loans, net of unearned income	12,578,524			11,968,567			11,906,447			11,960,262			11,977,105
Deposits	12,473,184			12,392,580			12,455,065			12,351,190			11,643,724
Short-term borrowings	1,196,323			690,883			495,791			587,602			1,043,279
FHLB advances and long-term debt	889,461			933,727			1,034,475			1,326,449			1,712,630
Shareholders’ equity	2,053,821			2,050,994			1,953,396			1,977,166			1,889,561


(1)	Ratio represents a financial measure derived by methods other than Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). See reconciliation of this non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP measure under the following heading, "Supplemental Reporting of Non-GAAP Based Financial Measures."

Supplemental Reporting of Non-GAAP Based Financial Measures

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains supplemental financial information, as detailed below, which has been derived by methods other than Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). The Corporation has presented these non-GAAP financial measures because it believes that these measures provide useful and comparative information to assess trends in the Corporation's results of operations. Presentation of these non-GAAP financial measures is consistent with how the Corporation evaluates its performance internally, and these non-GAAP financial measures are frequently used by securities analysts, investors and other interested parties in the evaluation of companies in the Corporation's industry. Management believes that these non-GAAP financial measures, in addition to GAAP measures, are also useful to investors to evaluate the Corporation's results. Investors should recognize that the Corporation's presentation of these non-GAAP financial measures might not be comparable to similarly-titled measures of other companies. These non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered a substitute for GAAP basis measures, and the Corporation strongly encourages a review of its consolidated financial statements in their entirety. Following are reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure as of and for the year ended December 31:



	2013			2012			2011			2010			2009
	(in thousands, except per share data and percentages)
Return on average common shareholders' equity (tangible)
Net income	$	161,840		$	159,845		$	145,573		$	112,029		$	53,755
Plus: Intangible amortization, net of tax	1,584			1,970			2,767			3,406			3,736
Numerator	$	163,424		$	161,815		$	148,340		$	115,435		$	57,491

Average common shareholders' equity	$	2,053,821		$	2,050,994		$	1,953,396		$	1,780,148		$	1,520,093
Less: Average goodwill and intangible assets	(534,431		)	(542,600		)	(545,920		)	(550,271		)	(555,270		)
Average tangible shareholders' equity (denominator)	$	1,519,390		$	1,508,394		$	1,407,476		$	1,229,877		$	964,823

Return on average common shareholders' equity (tangible), annualized	10.76		%	10.73		%	10.54		%	9.39		%	5.96		%

Efficiency ratio
Non-interest expense	$	461,433		$	449,294		$	416,242		$	408,254		$	415,524
Less: Intangible amortization	(2,438		)	(3,031		)	(4,257		)	(5,240		)	(5,747		)
Numerator	$	458,995		$	446,263		$	411,985		$	403,014		$	409,777

Net interest income (fully taxable equivalent) (1)	$	544,474		$	561,190		$	576,232		$	574,257		$	536,499
Plus: Total Non-interest income	187,664			216,412			187,493			182,249			173,922
Less: Investment securities gains, net	(8,004		)	(3,026		)	(4,561		)	(701		)	(1,079		)
Denominator	$	724,134		$	774,576		$	759,164		$	755,805		$	709,342

Efficiency ratio	63.39		%	57.61		%	54.27		%	53.32		%	57.77		%

Non-performing assets to tangible common shareholders' equity and allowance for credit losses
Non-performing assets (numerator)	$	169,329		$	237,199		$	317,331		$	361,731		$	305,028

Tangible common shareholders' equity	$	1,530,111		$	1,546,093		$	1,448,330		$	1,332,410		$	1,013,629
Plus: Allowance for credit losses	204,917			225,439			258,177			275,498			257,553
Tangible common shareholders' equity and allowance for credit losses (denominator)	$	1,735,028		$	1,771,532		$	1,706,507		$	1,607,908		$	1,271,182
Non-performing assets to tangible common shareholders' equity and allowance for credit losses	9.76		%	13.39		%	18.60		%	22.50		%	24.00		%

(1) Presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis, using a 35% Federal tax rate and statutory interest expense disallowances.

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

This Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (Management’s Discussion) relates to Fulton Financial Corporation (the Corporation), a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act and incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1982, and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Management’s Discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and other financial information presented in this report.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The Corporation has made, and may continue to make, certain forward-looking statements with respect to its financial condition and results of operations. Do not unduly rely on forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as "may," "should," "will," "could," "estimates," "predicts," "potential," "continue," "anticipates," "believes," "plans," "expects," "future," "intends" and similar expressions which are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Corporation's control and ability to predict, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. The Corporation undertakes no obligation, other than as required by law, to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Many factors could affect future financial results including, without limitation:


•	the impact of adverse changes in the economy and real estate markets, including protracted periods of low-growth and sluggish loan demand;


•	increases in non-performing assets, which may require the Corporation to increase the allowance for credit losses, charge-off loans and incur elevated collection and carrying costs related to such non-performing assets;


•	the effect of market interest rates, particularly a continuing period of low market interest rates, and relative balances of rate-sensitive assets to rate-sensitive liabilities, on net interest margin and net interest income;


•	capital and liquidity strategies, including the expected impact of the capital and liquidity requirements upon adoption of the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules;


•	investment securities gains and losses, including other-than-temporary declines in the value of securities which may result in charges to earnings;


•	non-interest income growth, including the impact of potential regulatory changes;


•	the impact of increased regulatory scrutiny of the banking industry;


•	the increasing time and expense associated with regulatory compliance and risk management;


•	the uncertainty and lack of clear regulatory guidance associated with the delay in implementing many of the regulations mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act;


•	operational risk, i.e. the risk of loss resulting from human error, inadequate or failed internal processes and systems, outsourcing arrangements, compliance and legal risk and external events;


•	the level of non-interest expenses, including salaries and employee benefits expenses, operating risk losses, amortization of intangible assets and goodwill impairment; and


•	the effect of competition on rates of deposit and loan growth and net interest margin.

OVERVIEW

Fulton Financial Corporation is a financial holding company comprised of six wholly owned banking subsidiaries which provide a full range of retail and commercial financial services in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia. The Corporation generates the majority of its revenue through net interest income, or the difference between interest earned on loans and investments and interest paid on deposits and borrowings. Growth in net interest income is dependent upon balance sheet growth and/or maintaining or increasing the net interest margin, which is net interest income (fully taxable-equivalent, or FTE) as a percentage of average interest-earning assets. The Corporation also generates revenue through fees earned on the various services and products offered to its customers and through gains on sales of assets, such as loans, investments, lines of business or properties. Offsetting these revenue sources are provisions for credit losses on loans, non-interest expenses and income taxes.

The following table presents a summary of the Corporation’s earnings and selected performance ratios:



	2013			2012
Net income (in thousands)	$	161,840		$	159,845
Diluted net income per share	$	0.83		$	0.80
Return on average assets	0.96		%	0.98		%
Return on average equity	7.88		%	7.79		%
Return on average tangible equity (1)	10.76		%	10.73		%
Net interest margin (2)	3.50		%	3.76		%
Efficiency ratio (1)	63.39		%	57.61		%


(1)	Ratio represents a financial measure derived by methods other than Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). See reconciliation of this non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP measure under the heading, "Supplemental Reporting of Non-GAAP Based Financial Measures" in Item 6, "Selected Financial Data."


(2)	Presented on an FTE basis, using a 35% Federal tax rate and statutory interest expense disallowances. See also the "Net Interest Income" section of Management’s Discussion.

During 2013, the Corporation continued to focus on achieving its corporate objectives, which included the following:

•

Net Income Per Share Growth - Diluted net income per share increased $0.03, or 3.8%, in comparison to 2012 due to a decrease in weighted average diluted shares outstanding as a result of the Corporation's repurchase of 8.0 million shares in 2013 and an increase in net income. Net income increased $2.0 million, or 1.2%, in comparison to 2012. This increase was driven largely by a $53.5 million decrease in the provision for credit losses and a $6.5 million reduction in income tax expense, partially offset by a $17.1 million decrease in net interest income, a $28.7 million decrease in non-interest income, mainly in mortgage banking income, and a $12.1 million increase in non-interest expenses, most notably a $9.3 million increase in salaries and employee benefits.


•	Quality Loan Growth and Net Interest Margin Management - Average loans increased $610.0 million, or 5.1%, in comparison to 2012, with notable increases in commercial mortgages, commercial loans, home equity loans and residential mortgages. The Corporation's loan growth occurred throughout most of its markets.

During 2013, growth in average loans partially mitigated the negative impact of the decline in net interest margin, from 3.76% in 2012 to 3.50% in 2013. Net interest margin compression resulted from the decline in yields on interest-earning assets outpacing the decline in the cost of interest-bearing liabilities. Net interest margin compression slowed as the year progressed, and the Corporation anticipates that this trend will continue in 2014.


•	Asset Quality Improvement - Overall asset quality improved in 2013, with decreases in non-performing loans, net charge- offs and overall delinquency levels resulting in a 56.9% decrease in the provision for credit losses.


•	Core Deposit Growth - Average demand and savings deposit accounts increased $669.0 million, or 7.7%, in comparison to 2012. As a result, the Corporation was able to fund its loan growth with lower cost core deposits as opposed to higher cost time deposits, while also executing its customer relationship banking strategy.

•

Return on Average Assets and Return on Average Equity Improvement - Return on average assets improves when net income increases at a higher rate than average assets. In 2013, return on average assets decreased two basis points in comparison to 2012, due to a 3.4% increase in average assets, which exceeded the 1.2% increase in net income. As noted above, average asset growth was largely attributable to the 5.1% increase in average loans. The increases in average balances are expected to have a positive impact on future earnings.

In 2013, return on average equity increased nine basis points, or 1.2%, in comparison to 2012. This increase resulted from the growth in net income exceeding a 0.1% increase in average shareholders’ equity. During 2013, capital was deployed for organic growth, and 8.0 million shares were repurchased for a total cost of $90.9 million. As of December 31, 2013, the Corporation had a share repurchase program in place, pursuant to which an additional 4.0 million shares, or approximately 2.1% of outstanding shares, could be repurchased. During the first quarter of 2014, the Corporation repurchased 4.0 million shares under this repurchase plan at an average cost of $12.45 per share, completing this repurchase program on February 19, 2014.


•	Enhance Compliance and Risk Management Infrastructure - The time and expense associated with regulatory compliance and risk management efforts continues to increase. Virtually every aspect of the Corporation’s operations is subject to

extensive regulation and, in recent years, a combination of financial reform legislation and heightened scrutiny by banking regulators has significantly increased expectations regarding what constitutes an effective risk and compliance management infrastructure. To keep pace with these expectations, over the past two years, the Corporation has invested considerable resources in initiatives designed to strengthen its risk management framework and regulatory compliance programs.

Among the areas that the Corporation continues to focus substantial resources on to improve its compliance functions are the requirements under the Flood Disaster Protection Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act and related anti-money laundering regulations. Although the Corporation has made progress in continuing to build-out its risk and compliance management infrastructures, the pace at which it has progressed may not be consistent with current regulatory expectations. As a result, the Corporation believes that there is an increasing risk that it, or one or more of its bank subsidiaries, may become subject to regulatory enforcement action in addition to the civil monetary penalties recently imposed against three of its banking subsidiaries. Any such enforcement action by the Corporation’s banking regulators would likely require that it accelerate its efforts to resolve identified deficiencies and improve its compliance functions and to undertake additional remedial actions, and could also involve the imposition of material restrictions on the Corporation’s activities or the assessment of fines or penalties against the Corporation or one or more of its bank subsidiaries.

•

Expense Management - Non-interest expenses increased $12.1 million, or 2.7%, in comparison to 2012, driven largely by regulatory compliance and risk management efforts, as discussed above, and a core processing system conversion. The expense categories with the most notable increases were salaries and employee benefits, other outside services, data processing, software expense and professional fees. These increases were somewhat mitigated by a $3.8 million decrease in other real estate owned (OREO) and repossession expenses, reflecting the improvement in asset quality.

During 2013, the Corporation successfully completed its conversion to a new core processing system. The core processing system is used to maintain customer account records, reflect account transactions and activity, and support customer relationship management for substantially all deposit and loan customers. Total implementation costs specifically associated with this conversion were approximately $3.5 million and $975,000, respectively, during 2013 and 2012. The Corporation expects that data processing and software expenses will increase as a result of the conversion and continued investments in its information technology infrastructure.

To mitigate the increases in expenses associated with investments in technology and the build out of its risk management and compliance infrastructure, the Corporation has implemented a series of initiatives intended to reduce non-interest expenses by approximately $8 million annually.

These initiatives include the consolidation of 13 branches in early 2014, which will result in the transfer of deposits, employees and other branch resources to existing branch locations. Approximately $2 million of expenses, consisting of lease termination costs and the write-off of leasehold improvements, will be incurred in 2014 to complete the branch consolidation. Ongoing estimated annual expense reductions associated with the branch consolidations will be approximately $3 million.

Other initiatives include the streamlining of subsidiary bank management structures and certain changes to employee benefits plans. These initiatives will result in one-time gains, net of charges, of $2.7 million in 2014. Ongoing estimated annual expense reductions associated with these initiatives will be approximately $5 million in 2014.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The following is a summary of those accounting policies that the Corporation considers to be most important to the presentation of its financial condition and results of operations, as they require management’s most difficult judgments as a result of the need to make estimates about the effects of matters that are inherently uncertain. See additional information regarding these critical accounting policies in Note A, "Summary of Significant Accounting Policies," in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Allowance for Credit Losses - The allowance for credit losses consists of the allowance for loan losses and the reserve for unfunded lending commitments. The allowance for loan losses represents management’s estimate of losses inherent in the loan portfolio as of the balance sheet date and is recorded as a reduction to loans. The reserve for unfunded lending commitments represents management’s estimate of losses inherent in its unfunded loan commitments and is recorded in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet.

The Corporation’s allowance for loan losses includes: 1) specific allowances allocated to impaired loans evaluated for impairment under the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Accounting Standards Codification (FASB ASC) Section 310-10-35; and 2) allowances calculated for pools of loans evaluated for impairment under FASB ASC Subtopic 450-20.

Management's estimate of incurred losses in the loan portfolio is based on a methodology that includes the following critical judgments:

•

The ability to identify potential problem loans in a timely manner. For commercial loans, commercial mortgages and construction loans to commercial borrowers, an internal risk rating process is used. The Corporation believes that internal risk ratings are the most relevant credit quality indicator for these types of loans. The migration of loans through the various internal risk rating categories is a significant component of the allowance for credit loss methodology for these loans, which bases the probability of default on this migration. Assigning risk ratings involves judgment. Risk ratings are initially assigned to loans by loan officers and are reviewed on a regular basis by credit administration staff. The Corporation's loan review officers provide an independent assessment of risk rating accuracy. Ratings may be changed based on the ongoing monitoring procedures performed by loan officers or credit administration staff, or if specific loan review activities identify a deterioration or an improvement in the loan.

The Corporation does not assign internal risk ratings for residential mortgages, home equity loans, residential mortgages, consumer loans, lease receivables, and construction loans to individuals secured by residential real estate, as these portfolios consist of a larger number of loans with smaller balances. Instead, these portfolios are evaluated for risk through the monitoring of delinquency status.

•

Proper collateral valuation of impaired loans evaluated for impairment under FASB ASC Section 310-10-35. Substantially all of the Corporation’s impaired loans to borrowers with total outstanding loan balances greater than $1.0 million are measured based on the estimated fair value of each loan’s collateral. Collateral could be in the form of real estate, in the case of impaired commercial mortgages and construction loans, or business assets, such as accounts receivable or inventory, in the case of commercial loans. Commercial loans may also be secured by real property.

For loans secured by real estate, estimated fair values are determined primarily through appraisals performed by certified third-party appraisers, discounted to arrive at expected sale prices, net of estimated selling costs. When a real estate secured loan becomes impaired, a decision is made regarding whether an updated appraisal of the real estate is necessary. This decision is based on various considerations, including: the age of the most recent appraisal; the loan-to-value ratio based on the original appraisal; the condition of the property; the Corporation’s experience and knowledge of the real estate market; the purpose of the loan; environmental factors; payment status; the strength of any guarantors; and the existence and age of other indications of value such as broker price opinions, among others. The Corporation generally obtains updated third-party appraisals for impaired loans secured predominately by real estate every 12 months.

When updated certified appraisals are not obtained for loans evaluated for impairment under FASB ASC Section 310-10-35 that are secured by real estate, fair values are estimated based on the original appraisal values, as long as the original appraisal indicated a strong loan-to-value position and, in the opinion of the Corporation's internal loan evaluation staff, there has not been a significant deterioration in the collateral value since the original appraisal was performed. Original appraisals are typically used only when the estimated collateral value, as adjusted appropriately for the age of the appraisal, results in a current loan-to-value ratio that is lower than the Corporation's loan-to-value requirements for new loans, generally less than 70%.


•	Proper measurement of allowance needs for pools of loans measured for impairment under FASB ASC Subtopic 450-20. For loan loss allocation purposes, loans are segmented into pools with similar characteristics. These pools are

established by general loan type, or "portfolio segments," as presented in the table under the heading, "Loans, Net of Unearned Income," within Note D, "Loans and Allowance for Credit Losses," in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Certain portfolio segments are further disaggregated and evaluated collectively for impairment based on "class segments," which are largely based on the type of collateral underlying each loan. For commercial loans, class segments include loans secured by collateral and unsecured loans. Construction loan class segments include loans secured by commercial real estate, loans to commercial borrowers secured by residential real estate and loans to individuals secured by residential real estate. Consumer loan class segments are based on collateral types and include direct consumer installment loans and indirect automobile loans.

Commercial loans, commercial mortgages and construction loans to commercial borrowers are further segmented into separate pools based on internally assigned risk ratings. Residential mortgages, home equity loans, consumer loans, and lease receivables are further segmented into separate pools based on delinquency status.

A loss rate is calculated for each pool through a regression analysis based on historical losses as loans migrate through the various risk rating or delinquency categories. Estimated loss rates are based on a probability of default and a loss given default. The loss rate is adjusted to consider qualitative factors, such as economic conditions and trends.

•

Overall assessment of the risk profile of the loan portfolio. The allocation of the allowance for credit losses is reviewed to evaluate its appropriateness in relation to the overall risk profile of the loan portfolio. The Corporation considers risk factors such as: local and national economic conditions; trends in delinquencies and non-accrual loans; the diversity of borrower industry types; and the composition of the portfolio by loan type. An unallocated allowance is maintained for factors and conditions that exist at the balance sheet date, but are not specifically identifiable, and to recognize the inherent imprecision in estimating and measuring loss exposure.

For additional details related to the allowance for credit losses, see Note D, "Loans and Allowance for Credit Losses," in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Goodwill - Goodwill recorded in connection with acquisitions is not amortized to expense, but is tested at least annually for impairment. A quantitative annual impairment test is not required if, based on a qualitative analysis, the Corporation determines that the existence of events and circumstances indicate that it is more likely than not that goodwill is not impaired. The Corporation completes its annual goodwill impairment test as of October 31st of each year. The Corporation tests for impairment by first allocating its goodwill and other assets and liabilities, as necessary, to defined reporting units. A fair value is then determined for each reporting unit. If the fair values of the reporting units exceed their book values, no write-down of the recorded goodwill is necessary. If the fair values are less than the book values, an additional valuation procedure is necessary to assess the proper carrying value of the goodwill.

Reporting unit valuation is inherently subjective, with a number of factors based on assumptions and management judgments. Among these are future growth rates for the reporting units, selection of comparable market transactions, discount rates and earnings capitalization rates. Changes in assumptions and results due to economic conditions, industry factors and reporting unit performance and cash flow projections could result in different assessments of the fair values of reporting units and could result in impairment charges.

If an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount, an interim impairment test is required. Such events may include adverse changes in legal factors or in the business climate, unanticipated competition, the loss of key employees, or similar events.

For additional details related to the annual goodwill impairment test, see Note F, "Goodwill and Intangible Assets," in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Income Taxes – The provision for income taxes is based upon income before income taxes, adjusted for the effect of certain tax-exempt income, non-deductible expenses and credits. In addition, certain items of income and expense are reported in different periods for financial reporting and tax return purposes. The tax effects of these temporary differences are recognized currently in the deferred income tax provision or benefit. Deferred tax assets or liabilities are computed based on the difference between the financial statement and income tax bases of assets and liabilities using the applicable enacted marginal tax rate.

The Corporation must also evaluate the likelihood that deferred tax assets will be recovered through future taxable income. If any such assets are more likely than not to not be recovered, a valuation allowance must be recognized. The assessment of the carrying value of deferred tax assets is based on certain assumptions, changes in which could have a material impact on the Corporation’s consolidated financial statements.

The Corporation accounts for uncertain tax positions by applying a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for tax positions taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. Recognition and measurement of tax positions is based on management’s evaluations of relevant tax code and appropriate industry information about audit proceedings for comparable positions at other organizations. Virtually all of the Corporation’s unrecognized tax benefits relate to positions that are taken on an annual basis on state tax returns. Increases to unrecognized tax benefits will occur as a result of accruing for the nonrecognition of the position for the current year. Decreases will occur as a result of the lapsing of the statute of limitations for the oldest outstanding year which includes the position or through settlements of positions with the tax authorities.

See also Note L, "Income Taxes," in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

Fair Value Measurements – FASB ASC Topic 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy for the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure assets and liabilities at fair value based on the following three categories (from highest to lowest priority):


•	Level 1 – Inputs that represent quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets.


•	Level 2 – Inputs that represent quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, or quoted prices for identical instruments in non-active markets. Also includes valuation techniques whose inputs are derived principally from observable market data other than quoted prices, such as interest rates or other market-corroborated means.


•	Level 3 – Inputs that are largely unobservable, as little or no market data exists for the instrument being valued.

The Corporation has categorized all assets and liabilities measured at fair value both on a recurring and nonrecurring basis into the above three levels.

The determination of fair value for assets categorized as Level 3 items involves a great deal of subjectivity due to the use of unobservable inputs. In addition, determining when a market is no longer active and placing little or no reliance on distressed market prices requires the use of management’s judgment. The Corporation's Level 3 assets include available for sale debt securities in the form of pooled trust preferred securities, certain single-issuer trust preferred securities issued by financial institutions and auction rate securities. The Corporation also categorizes impaired loans, net of allowance allocations, other real estate owned (OREO) and mortgage servicing rights as Level 3 assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis.

The Corporation engages third-party valuation experts to assist in valuing interest rate swap derivatives and most available-for-sale investment securities, both measured at fair value on a recurring basis, and mortgage servicing rights, which are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. The pricing data and market quotes the Corporation obtains from outside sources are reviewed internally for reasonableness.

See Note R, "Fair Value Measurements," in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for the disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 820.

New Accounting Standards

In July 2013, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2013-11, "Presentation of an Unrecognized Tax Benefit When a Net Operating Loss Carryforward, a Similar Tax Loss, or a Tax Credit Carryforward Exists." The provisions of ASC Update 2013-11 generally require an entity to present an unrecognized tax benefit, or a portion of an unrecognized tax benefit, as a reduction to a deferred tax asset for a net operating loss carryforward or a similar tax loss. ASU Update 2013-11 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2013. For the Corporation, this standards update is effective with its March 31, 2014 quarterly report on Form 10-Q. The adoption of ASC Update 2013-11 is not expected to have a material impact on the Corporation's consolidated financial statements.

In December 2013, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2013-12, “Definition of a Public Business Entity - An Addition to the Master Glossary." ASC Update 2013-12 amends the Master Glossary of the FASB ASC to include one definition of public business entity and identifies the types of business entities that are excluded from the scope of the FASB's private company decision-making framework. ASC Update 2013-12 does not have an effective date, but the term "public business entity" will be used in all future ASC updates. The Corporation meets the definition of a public business entity, and the adoption of ASC Update 2013-12 did not have a significant impact on the Corporation's consolidated financial statements.

In January 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2014-01, "Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable

Housing Projects." ASC Update 2014-01provides guidance on accounting for investments made by a reporting entity in flow-through limited liability entities that manage or invest in affordable housing projects that qualify for the low income housing tax credit. ASC Update 2014-01 is effective for public business entities' interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2014. For the Corporation, this standards update is effective with its March 31, 2015 quarterly report on Form 10-Q. The adoption of ASC Update 2014-01 is not expected to have a material impact on the Corporation's consolidated financial statements.

In January 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2014-04, "Reclassification of Residential Real Estate Collateralized Consumer Mortgage Loans upon Foreclosure." ASC Update 2014-04 clarifies when an in substance repossession or foreclosure occurs, that is, when a creditor should be considered to have received physical possession of residential real estate property collateralizing a consumer mortgage loan such that the loan receivable should be derecognized and the real estate property recognized. ASC Update 2014-04 is effective for public business entities' interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2014. For the Corporation, this standards update is effective with its March 31, 2015 quarterly report on Form 10-Q. The adoption of ASC Update 2014-04 is not expected to have a material impact on the Corporation's consolidated financial statements.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Net Interest Income

Net interest income is the most significant component of the Corporation’s net income. The Corporation manages the risk associated with changes in interest rates through the techniques described within Item 7A, "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk."

The following table provides a comparative average balance sheet and net interest income analysis for 2013 compared to 2012 and 2011. Interest income and yields are presented on an FTE basis, using a 35% federal tax rate and statutory interest expense disallowances. The discussion following this table is based on these tax-equivalent amounts.



	2013							2012							2011
	Average Balance			Interest (1)		Yield/ Rate		Average Balance			Interest (1)		Yield/ Rate		Average Balance			Interest (1)		Yield/ Rate
	(dollars in thousands)
ASSETS
Interest-earning assets:
Loans, net of unearned income (2)	$	12,578,524		$	552,427	4.39	%	$	11,968,567		$	575,534	4.81	%	$	11,906,447		$	605,672	5.09	%
Taxable investment securities (3)	2,391,650			54,321		2.27		2,401,343			67,349		2.80		2,223,376			80,184		3.61
Tax-exempt investment securities (3)	285,174			14,577		5.11		287,763			15,942		5.54		330,087			18,520		5.61
Equity securities (3)	38,722			1,829		4.72		35,151			1,639		4.66		37,011			1,593		4.31
Total investment securities	2,715,546			70,727		2.60		2,724,257			84,930		3.12		2,590,474			100,297		3.87
Loans held for sale	36,561			1,551		4.24		54,351			2,064		3.80		43,470			1,958		4.50
Other interest-earning assets	229,444			2,264		0.99		207,415			1,830		0.88		249,672			1,843		0.74
Total interest-earning assets	15,560,075			626,969		4.03		14,954,590			664,358		4.45		14,790,063			709,770		4.80
Noninterest-earning assets:
Cash and due from banks	207,931							234,494							274,138
Premises and equipment	226,041							219,236							207,081
Other assets (3)	1,037,338							1,099,616							1,119,339
Less: Allowance for loan losses	(220,048		)					(250,160		)					(276,278		)
Total Assets	$	16,811,337						$	16,257,776						$	16,114,343
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Interest-bearing liabilities: