Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Principles of Consolidation	The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Pacific Premier Bank (the “Bank”) (collectively, the “Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us”). All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Basis of Financial Statement Presentation	In the opinion of management, the unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments and accruals that are necessary for a fair presentation of the statement of financial position and the results of operations for the interim periods presented. The results of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2023 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for any other interim period or the full year ending December 31, 2023. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 (the “2022 Form 10-K”).
Variable Interest Entities	The Company consolidates voting entities in which the Company has control through voting interests or entities through which the Company has a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity (“VIE”). The Company evaluates its interests in these entities to determine whether they meet the definition of a VIE and whether the Company is required to consolidate these entities. A VIE is consolidated by its primary beneficiary, which is the party that has both (i) the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of the VIE and (ii) a variable interest that could potentially be significant to the VIE. To determine whether or not a variable interest the Company holds could potentially be significant to the VIE, the Company considers both qualitative and quantitative factors regarding the nature, size, and form of the Company's involvement with the VIE.The Company is involved with VIEs through its loan securitization activities and affordable housing investments that qualify for the low-income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”). The Company has determined that its interests in these entities meet the definition of variable interests.
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements	Accounting Standards Adopted in 2023 In March 2022, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU” or “Update”) 2022-02, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326) Troubled Debt Restructurings and Vintage Disclosures. The FASB issued this Update in response to feedback the FASB received from various stakeholders in its post-implementation review process related to the issuance of ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which was effective for the Company on January 1, 2020. The amendments in this Update include the elimination of accounting guidance for troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”) in Subtopic 310-40 - Receivables - Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors, and introduce new disclosures and enhance existing disclosures concerning certain loan refinancings and restructurings when a borrower is experiencing financial difficulty. Under the provisions of this Update, an entity must determine whether a modification results in a new loan or the continuation of an existing loan. Further, the amendments in this Update require that a public business entity disclose current period gross charge-offs on financing receivables within the scope of ASC 326-20, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses - Measured at Amortized Cost, by year of origination and class of financing receivable. The amendments in this Update became effective for the Company on January 1, 2023 for all interim and annual periods. The adoption of the provisions in this Update are applied prospectively and have resulted in additional disclosures concerning modifications of loans to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty, as well as disaggregated disclosure of charge-offs on loans. Please also see Note 5 – Loans Held for Investment for added disclosure concerning modifications of loans to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty, as well as current period gross charge-offs on loans by year of origination and loan classification. In March 2022, the FASB issued ASU 2022-01, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815) Fair Value Hedging - Portfolio Layer Method. The amendments in this Update make targeted improvements to fair value hedge accounting and more specifically to the last-of-layer hedge accounting method. This Update expands the last-of-layer hedge accounting method to allow for multiple hedged layers to be designated for a single closed portfolio of prepayable financial assets, and renames this accounting method the “portfolio layer method.” The provisions of this Update also include: (i) expanding the scope of the portfolio layer method to nonprepayable financial assets, (ii) specifying that eligible hedging instruments in a single layer hedge may include spot-starting or forward-starting constant-notional or amortizing-notional swaps and that the number of hedged layers corresponds with the number of hedges designated, (iii) specifies that an entity hedging multiple amounts in a closed portfolio using a single amortizing-notional swap is executing a single-layer hedge, (iv) provides additional guidance on the accounting for and disclosure of hedge basis adjustments resulting from a fair value hedge under the portfolio layer method by requiring such basis adjustments be maintained at the portfolio level and not allocated to individual assets, and to disclose basis adjustments as a reconciling item in certain disclosures, such as those for loans, and (v) specifies that an entity is to exclude hedge basis adjustments in the determination of credit losses on the assets within the closed portfolio. The provisions of this Update became effective for the Company on January 1, 2023 for all interim and annual periods. The adoption of the provisions in this Update did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Please also see Note 11 – Derivative Instruments, for disclosure concerning the Company’s portfolio layer method fair value hedges. In March 2020, the FASB issued ASU 2020-04, Reference Rate Reform (Topic 848)—Facilitation of the Effects of Reference Rate Reform on Financial Reporting. In response to concerns about structural risks of Interbank Offered Rates (“IBORs”), and particularly, the risk of cessation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), regulators around the world have undertaken reference rate reform initiatives to identify alternative reference rates that are more observable or transaction-based and less susceptible to manipulation. The amendments in this Update provide optional guidance for a limited time to ease the potential burden in accounting for (or recognizing the effects of) reference rate reform on financial reporting as well as optional expedients and exceptions for applying GAAP to contracts, hedging relationships, and other transactions affected by reference rate reform if certain criteria are met. The amendments in this Update apply only to contracts and hedging relationships that reference LIBOR or another reference rate expected to be discontinued due to reference rate reform. The expedients and exceptions provided by the amendments do not apply to contract modifications made and hedging relationships entered into or evaluated after December 31, 2022. The amendments in this Update are elective and become effective upon issuance for all entities. An entity may elect to apply the amendments in this Update to eligible hedging relationships existing as of the beginning of the interim period that includes March 12, 2020 and to new eligible hedging relationships entered into after the beginning of the interim period that includes March 12, 2020. The Company has not entered into any hedging related transactions that reference LIBOR or another reference rate that is expected to be discontinued, and as such, the amendments included in this Update have not had an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The use of LIBOR was discontinued after June 30, 2023. In anticipation of this, the Company previously created a cross-functional working group to manage the transition away from LIBOR. This working group was comprised of senior leadership and staff from functional areas that include: finance, treasury, lending, loan servicing, enterprise risk management, information technology, legal, and other internal stakeholders integral to the Bank’s transition away from LIBOR. The working group monitored developments related to transition and uncertainty surrounding reference rate reform and guided the Bank’s response. The working group performed regular assessments of the population of financial instruments that referenced LIBOR and worked to transition such instruments away from LIBOR. The working group also worked to confirm the Bank’s loan documents that referenced LIBOR have been appropriately amended, ensuring that our internal systems were prepared for the transition, and managed the transition process with our customers. The Company has chosen to use the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) as an alternative to LIBOR. However, the Company may also use other alternative reference rates, such as the Constant Maturity Treasury index and Prime rate based on the individual needs of our customers as well as the types of credit being extended. Recent Accounting Guidance Not Yet Effective In March 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-01, Leases (Topic 842), Common Control Arrangements. The amendments in this Update clarify the accounting for leasehold improvements associated with common control leases. This Update has been issued in order to address current diversity in practice associated with the accounting for leasehold improvements associated with a lease between entities under common control. The amendments in this Update apply to all lessees that are a party to a lease between entities under common control in which there are leasehold improvements. The amendments in this Update are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2023. The Company has evaluated the provisions of this Update, and does not anticipate the adoption will have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In March 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-02, Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323), Accounting for Investments in Tax Credit Structures Using the Proportional Amortization Method, a consensus of the Emerging Issues Task Force. The amendments in this Update allow the option for an entity to apply the proportional amortization method of accounting to other equity investments that are made for the primary purpose of receiving income tax credits or other income tax benefits, if certain conditions are met. Prior to this Update, the application of the proportional amortization method of accounting was limited to investments in low income housing tax credit structures. The proportional amortization method of accounting results in the amortization of applicable investments, as well as the related income tax credits or other income tax benefits received, being presented on a single line in the statements of income, that is income tax expense. Under this Update, an entity has the option to apply the proportional amortization method of accounting to applicable investments on a tax-credit-program-by-tax-credit-program basis. In addition, the amendments in this Update require that all tax equity investments accounted for using the proportional amortization method use the delayed equity contribution guidance in paragraph 323-740-25-3, requiring a liability be recognized for delayed equity contributions that are unconditional and legally binding or for equity contributions that are contingent upon a future event when that contingent event becomes probable. Under this Update, low income housing tax credit investments for which the proportional amortization method is not applied can no longer be accounted for using the delayed equity contribution guidance. Further, this Update specifies that tax equity investments accounted for using the equity method must apply the impairment guidance in Subtopic 323-10 - Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures - Overall. This Update also clarifies that for low income housing tax credit investments not accounted for under the proportional amortization method or the equity method, an entity shall account for them under Topic 321 - Investments - Equity Securities. The amendments in this Update also require additional disclosures in interim and annual periods concerning investments for which the proportional amortization method is applied, including (i) the nature of tax equity investments, and (ii) the effect of tax equity investments and related income tax credits and other income tax benefits on the financial position and results of operations. The provisions of this Update are effective for the Company for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2023. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this Update on its consolidated financial statements.
Modified Loans to Borrowers Experiencing Financial Difficulty	Modified Loans to Borrowers Experiencing Financial Difficulty. Infrequently, the Company makes modifications to certain loans in order to alleviate temporary difficulties in the borrower’s financial condition and/or constraints on the borrower’s ability to repay the loan, and to minimize potential losses to the Company. The Company also refers to these modifications as modified loans to troubled borrowers (“MLTB”). Modifications may include: changes in the amortization terms of the loan, reductions in interest rates, acceptance of interest only payments, and, in very limited cases, reductions to the outstanding loan balance. Such loans are typically placed on nonaccrual status when there is doubt concerning the full repayment of principal and interest or the loan has been in default for a period of 90 days or more. Such loans may be returned to accrual status when all contractual amounts past due have been brought current, and the borrower’s performance under the modified terms of the loan agreement and the ultimate collectability of all contractual amounts due under the modified terms is no longer in doubt. The Company typically measures the allowance for credit losses (“ACL”) on MLTB on an individual basis when the loans are deemed to no longer share risk characteristics that are similar with other loans in the portfolio. The determination of the ACL for these loans is based on a discounted cash flow approach for both those measured collectively and individually, unless the loan is deemed collateral dependent, which requires measurement of the ACL based on the estimated expected fair value of the underlying collateral, less costs to sell. GAAP requires the Company to make certain disclosures related to these loans, including certain types of modifications, as well as how such loans have performed since their modifications. Please see Note 5 – Loans Held for Investment for additional information concerning modified loans to troubled borrowers.
Use of Estimates	Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods presented. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Allowance for Credit Losses on Investment Securities and Loans	The Company maintains an ACL for loans and unfunded loan commitments in accordance with ASC 326 - Financial Instruments - Credit Losses. ASC 326 requires the Company to recognize estimates for lifetime credit losses on loans and unfunded loan commitments at the time of origination or acquisition. The recognition of credit losses at origination or acquisition represents the Company’s best estimate of lifetime expected credit losses, given the facts and circumstances associated with a particular loan or group of loans with similar risk characteristics. Determining the ACL involves the use of significant management judgement and estimates, which are subject to change based on management’s ongoing assessment of the credit quality of the loan portfolio and changes in economic forecasts used in the model. The Company uses a discounted cash flow model when determining estimates for the ACL for commercial real estate loans and commercial loans, which comprise the majority of the loan portfolio, and uses a historical loss rate model for retail loans. The Company also utilizes proxy loan data in its ACL model where the Company’s own historical data is not sufficiently available. The discounted cash flow model is applied on an instrument-by-instrument basis, and for loans with similar risk characteristics, to derive estimates for the lifetime ACL for each loan. The discounted cash flow methodology relies on several significant components essential to the development of estimates for future cash flows on loans and unfunded loan commitments. These components consist of: (i) the estimated probability of default (“PD”), (ii) the estimated loss given default (“LGD”), which represents the estimated severity of the loss when a loan is in default, (iii) estimates for prepayment activity on loans, and (iv) the estimated exposure to the Company at default (“EAD”). The PD and LGD are heavily influenced by changes in economic forecasts employed in the model over a reasonable and supportable period. The Company’s ACL methodology for unfunded loan commitments also includes assumptions concerning the probability an unfunded commitment will be drawn upon by the borrower. These assumptions are based on the Company’s historical experience. The Company’s discounted cash flow ACL model for commercial real estate and commercial loans uses internally derived estimates for prepayments in determining the amount and timing of future contractual cash flows expected to be collected. The estimate of future cash flows also incorporates estimates for contractual amounts the Company believes may not be collected, which are based on assumptions for PD, LGD, and EAD. The EAD is determined by the contractual payment schedule and expected payment profile of the loan, incorporating estimates for expected prepayments and future draws on revolving credit facilities. The Company discounts cash flows using the effective interest rate on the loan. The effective interest rate represents the contractual rate on the loan; adjusted for any purchase premiums, or discounts, and deferred fees and costs associated with an originated loan. The Company has made an accounting policy election to adjust the effective interest rate to take into consideration the effects of estimated prepayments. The ACL for loans is determined by measuring the amount by which a loan’s amortized cost exceeds its discounted cash flows expected to be collected. The ACL for credit facilities is determined by discounting estimates for cash flows not expected to be collected. Probability of Default The PD for investor loans secured by real estate is based largely on a model provided by a third party, using proxy loan information. The PDs generated by this model are reflective of current and expected economic conditions in the commercial real estate market, and how they are expected to impact loan level and property level attributes, and ultimately the likelihood of a default event occurring. This model incorporates assumptions for PD at a loan’s maturity. Significant loan and property level attributes include: loan-to-value ratios, debt service coverage, loan size, loan vintage, and property types. The PD for business loans secured by real estate and commercial loans is based on an internally developed PD rating scale that assigns PDs based on the Company’s internal credit risk grades for loans. This internally developed PD rating scale is based on a combination of the Company’s own historical data and observed historical data from the Company’s peers, which consist of banks that management believes align with our business profile. As credit risk grades change for these loans, the PD assigned to them also changes. As with investor loans secured by real estate, the PD for business loans secured by real estate and commercial loans is also impacted by current and expected economic conditions. The Company considers loans to be in default when they are 90 days or more past due and still accruing or placed on nonaccrual status. Loss Given Default LGDs for commercial real estate loans are derived from a third party, using proxy loan information, and are based on loan and property level characteristics for loans in the Company’s loan portfolio, such as: loan-to-value ratios (“LTV”), estimated time to resolution, property size, and current and estimated future market price changes for underlying collateral. The LGD is highly dependent upon LTV ratios, and incorporates estimates for the expense associated with managing the loan through to resolution. LGDs also incorporate an estimate for the loss severity associated with loans where the borrower fails to meet their debt obligation at maturity, such as through a balloon payment or the refinancing of the loan through another lender. External factors that have an impact on LGDs include: changes in the index for CRE pricing, GDP growth rate, unemployment rates, and the Consumer Price Index. LGDs are applied to each loan in the commercial real estate portfolio, and in conjunction with the PD, produce estimates for net cash flows not expected to be collected over the estimated term of the loan. LGDs for commercial loans are also derived from a third party that has a considerable database of credit related information specific to the financial services industry and the type of loans within this segment, and is used to generate annual default information for commercial loans. These proxy LGDs are dependent upon data inputs such as: credit quality, borrower industry, region, borrower size, and debt seniority. LGDs are then applied to each loan in the commercial segment, and in conjunction with the PD, produce estimates for net cash flows not expected to be collected over the estimated term of the loan. Historical Loss Rates for Retail Loans The historical loss rate model for retail loans is derived from a third party that has a considerable database of credit related information for retail loans. Key loan level attributes and economic drivers in determining the loss rate for retail loans include FICO scores, vintage, as well as geography, unemployment rates, and changes in consumer real estate prices. Economic Forecasts In order to develop reasonable and supportable forecasts of future conditions, the Company estimates how those forecasts are expected to impact a borrower’s ability to satisfy their obligation to the Bank and the ultimate collectability of future cash flows over the life of a loan. The Company uses macroeconomic scenarios from an independent third party, which are based on past events, current conditions, and the likelihood of future events occurring. These scenarios are typically comprised of: a base-case scenario, an upside scenario, representing slightly better economic conditions than currently experienced and, a downside scenario, representing recessionary conditions. Management periodically evaluates appropriateness of economic scenarios and may decide that a particular economic scenario or a combination of probability-weighted economic scenarios should be used in the Company’s ACL model. The economic scenarios chosen for the model, the extent to which more than one scenario is used, and the weights that are assigned to them, are based on the likelihood that the economy would perform better than each scenario, which is based in part on analysis performed by an independent third party. Economic scenarios chosen, as well as the assumptions within those scenarios, and whether to use a probability-weighted multiple scenario approach, can vary from one period to the next based on changes in current and expected economic conditions, and due to the occurrence of specific events. The Company’s ACL model at September 30, 2023 includes assumptions concerning the rising interest rate environment, general uncertainty concerning future economic conditions, and the potential for recessionary conditions. The Company currently forecasts PDs and LGDs based on economic scenarios over a two-year period, which we believe is a reasonable and supportable period. Beyond this point, PDs and LGDs revert to their long-term averages. The Company has reflected this reversion over a period of three years in each of its economic scenarios used to generate the overall probability-weighted forecast. Changes in economic forecasts impact the PD, LGD, and EAD for each loan, and therefore influence the amount of future cash flows the Company does not expect to collect for each loan. It is important to note that the Company’s ACL model relies on multiple economic variables, which are used in several economic scenarios. Although no one economic variable can fully demonstrate the sensitivity of the ACL calculation to changes in the economic variables used in the model, the Company has identified certain economic variables that have significant influence in the Company’s model for determining the ACL. These key economic variables include changes in the U.S. unemployment rate, U.S. real GDP growth, CRE prices, and interest rates. Qualitative Adjustments The Company recognizes that historical information used as the basis for determining future expected credit losses may not always, by itself, provide a sufficient basis for determining future expected credit losses. The Company, therefore, considers the need for qualitative adjustments to the ACL on a quarterly basis. Qualitative adjustments may be related to and include, but not be limited to, factors such as: (i) management’s assessment of economic forecasts used in the model and how those forecasts align with management’s overall evaluation of current and expected economic conditions, (ii) organization specific risks such as credit concentrations, collateral specific risks, regulatory risks, and external factors that may ultimately impact credit quality, (iii) potential model limitations such as limitations identified through back-testing, and other limitations associated with factors such as underwriting changes, acquisition of new portfolios, and changes in portfolio segmentation, and (iv) management’s overall assessment of the adequacy of the ACL, including an assessment of model data inputs used to determine the ACL. Qualitative adjustments primarily relate to certain segments of the loan portfolio deemed by management to be of a higher-risk profile or other factors where management believes the quantitative component of the Company’s ACL model may not be fully reflective of levels deemed adequate in the judgement of management. Certain qualitative adjustments also relate to heightened uncertainty as to future macroeconomic conditions and the related impact on certain loan segments. Management reviews the need for an appropriate level of qualitative adjustments on a quarterly basis, and as such, the amount and allocation of qualitative adjustments may change in future periods.
Fair Value Measurement	The fair value of an asset or liability is the exchange price that would be received to sell that asset or paid to transfer that liability (exit price) in an orderly transaction occurring in the principal market (or most advantageous market in the absence of a principal market) for such asset or liability. In estimating fair value, the Company utilizes valuation techniques that are consistent with the market approach, the income approach, and/or the cost approach. Such valuation techniques are consistently applied. Inputs to valuation techniques include the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. ASC Topic 825 - Financial Instruments, requires disclosure of the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities, including both those financial assets and financial liabilities that are not measured and reported at fair value on a recurring basis and a non-recurring basis. The methodologies for estimating the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities that are measured at fair value are discussed below. In accordance with ASC Topic 820 - Fair Value Measurement, the Company groups its financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value in three levels, based on the markets in which the assets and liabilities are traded and the reliability of the assumptions used to determine fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described as follows: Level 1 - Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities. Level 2 - Inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. These might include quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (such as interest rates, prepayment speeds, volatilities, etc.), or model-based valuation techniques where all significant assumptions are observable, either directly or indirectly, in the market. Level 3 - Valuation is generated from model-based techniques where one or more significant inputs are not observable, either directly or indirectly, in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect the Company’s own estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques may include use of matrix pricing, discounted cash flow models, and similar techniques. Because no market exists for a significant portion of the Company’s financial instruments, fair value estimates are based on judgments regarding current economic conditions, risk characteristics of various financial instruments, and other factors. These estimates are subjective in nature, and involve uncertainties and matters of significant judgment and, therefore, cannot be determined with precision. Changes in assumptions could significantly affect the fair values presented. Management uses its best judgment in estimating the fair value of the Company’s financial instruments; however, there are inherent limitations in any estimation technique. While management believes the Company’s valuation methodologies are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date. The Company’s valuation methodologies may produce a fair value calculation that may not be indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future fair values. A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Management maximizes the use of observable inputs and attempts to minimize the use of unobservable inputs when determining fair value measurements. Estimated fair values are disclosed for financial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate fair value. These estimates are made at a specific point in time based on relevant market data and information about the financial instruments. These estimates do not reflect any premium or discount that could result from offering the Company’s entire holdings of a particular financial instrument for sale at one time, nor do they attempt to estimate the value of anticipated future business related to the instruments. In addition, the tax ramifications related to the realization of unrealized gains and losses can have a significant effect on fair value estimates and have not been considered in any of these estimates. Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis The following is a description of both the general and specific valuation methodologies used for certain instruments measured at fair value, as well as the general classification of these instruments pursuant to the fair value hierarchy. AFS Investment Securities – Investment securities are generally valued based upon quotes obtained from independent third-party pricing services, which use evaluated pricing applications and model processes. Observable market inputs, such as, benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, issuer spreads, two-sided markets, benchmark securities, bids, offers, and reference data are considered as part of the evaluation. The inputs are related directly to the security being evaluated, or indirectly to a similarly situated security. Market assumptions and market data are utilized in the valuation models. The Company reviews the market prices provided by the third-party pricing service for reasonableness based on the Company’s understanding of the marketplace and credit issues related to the securities. The Company has not made any adjustments to the market quotes provided by them and, accordingly, the Company categorized these securities within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Equity Securities With Readily Determinable Fair Values – The Company’s equity securities with readily determinable fair values consist of investments in public companies and qualify for CRA purposes. The fair value is based on the closing price on nationally recognized securities exchanges at the end of each period and classified as Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. Interest Rate Swaps – The Company originates a variable rate loan and enters into a variable-to-fixed interest rate swap with the customer. The Company also enters into an offsetting swap with a correspondent bank. These back-to-back swap agreements are intended to offset each other and allow the Company to originate a variable rate loan, while providing a contract for fixed interest payments for the customer. The Company also enters into interest rate swap contracts with institutional counterparties to hedge against certain fixed-rate loans. The net cash flow for the Company is equal to the interest income received from a variable rate loan originated with the customer. The fair value of these derivatives is based on a market standard discounted cash flow approach. The Company incorporates credit value adjustments on derivatives to properly reflect the respective counterparty’s nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements of its derivatives. The Company has determined that the observable nature of the majority of inputs used in deriving the fair value of these derivative contracts fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, and the credit valuation adjustments are not significant to the overall valuation of its derivative financial instruments. As a result, the valuation of interest rate swaps is classified as Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Equity Warrant Assets – The Company acquired equity warrant assets as a result of the acquisition of Opus. Opus received equity warrant assets through its lending activities as part of loan origination fees. The warrants provide the Bank the right to purchase a specific number of equity shares of the underlying company’s equity at a certain price before expiration and contain net settlement terms qualifying as derivatives under ASC Topic 815 - Derivatives and Hedging. The fair value of equity warrant assets is determined using a Black-Scholes option pricing model and are classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy due to the extent of unobservable inputs. The key assumptions used in determining the fair value include the exercise price of the warrants, valuation of the underlying entity's outstanding stock, expected term, risk-free interest rate, marketability discount for private company warrants, and price volatility. Foreign Exchange Contracts – The Company enters into foreign exchange contracts to accommodate the business needs of its customers. The Company also enters into offsetting contracts with institutional counterparties to mitigate the Company’s foreign exchange exposure with its customers, or enters into bilateral collateral and master netting agreements with certain customer counterparties to manage its credit exposure. The Company measures the fair value of foreign exchange contracts based on quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets, a Level 1 measurement. Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis Individually Evaluated Loans – A loan is individually evaluated for expected credit losses when it is probable that payment of interest and principal will not be made in accordance with the contractual terms of the loan agreement and it does not share similar risk characteristics with other loans. Individually evaluated loans are measured at fair value when they are deemed collateral dependent. Fair value on such loans is measured based on the underlying collateral. Collateral generally consists of accounts receivable, inventory, fixed assets, real estate, and cash. The Company measures impairment on all individually evaluated loans for which it has reduced the principal balance to the value of the underlying collateral less the anticipated selling costs. Other Real Estate Owned – OREO is initially recorded at the fair value less estimated costs to sell at the date of transfer. This amount becomes the property’s new basis. Any fair value adjustments based on the property’s fair value less estimated costs to sell at the date of acquisition are charged to the allowance for credit losses. The fair value of individually evaluated collateral dependent loans and other real estate owned were determined using Level 3 assumptions, and represents individually evaluated loan for which a specific reserve has been established or on which a write down has been taken. For real estate loans, generally, the Company obtains third party appraisals (or property valuations) and/or collateral audits in conjunction with internal analysis based on historical experience on its individually evaluated loans and other real estate owned to determine fair value. In determining the net realizable value of the underlying collateral for individually evaluated loans, the Company then discounts the valuation to cover both market price fluctuations and selling costs, typically ranging from 7% to 10% of the collateral value, that the Company expects would be incurred in the event of foreclosure. In addition to the discounts taken, the Company’s calculation of net realizable value considered any other senior liens in place on the underlying collateral. For non-real estate loans, fair value of the loan’s collateral may be determined using an appraisal, net book value per the borrower’s financial statements, or aging reports, adjusted or discounted based on management’s historical knowledge, changes in market conditions, and management’s expertise and knowledge of the client and client’s business.

Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Pacific Premier Bank (the “Bank”) (collectively, the “Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us”). All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Basis of Financial Statement Presentation

In the opinion of management, the unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all normal recurring adjustments and accruals that are necessary for a fair presentation of the statement of financial position and the results of operations for the interim periods presented. The results of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2023 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for any other interim period or the full year ending December 31, 2023.

Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 (the “2022 Form 10-K”).

Variable Interest Entities

The Company consolidates voting entities in which the Company has control through voting interests or entities through which the Company has a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity (“VIE”). The Company evaluates its interests in these entities to determine whether they meet the definition of a VIE and whether the Company is required to consolidate these entities. A VIE is consolidated by its primary beneficiary, which is the party that has both (i) the power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic performance of the VIE and (ii) a variable interest that could potentially be significant to the VIE. To determine whether or not a variable interest the Company holds could potentially be significant to the VIE, the Company considers both qualitative and quantitative factors regarding the nature, size, and form of the Company's involvement with the VIE.The Company is involved with VIEs through its loan securitization activities and affordable housing investments that qualify for the low-income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”). The Company has determined that its interests in these entities meet the definition of variable interests.

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

Accounting Standards Adopted in 2023

In March 2022, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU” or “Update”) 2022-02, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326) Troubled Debt Restructurings and Vintage Disclosures. The FASB issued this Update in response to feedback the FASB received from various stakeholders in its post-implementation review process related to the issuance of ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which was effective for the Company on January 1, 2020. The amendments in this Update include the elimination of accounting guidance for troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”) in Subtopic 310-40 - Receivables - Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors, and introduce new disclosures and enhance existing disclosures concerning certain loan refinancings and restructurings when a borrower is experiencing financial difficulty. Under the provisions of this Update, an entity must determine whether a modification results in a new loan or the continuation of an existing loan. Further, the amendments in this Update require that a public business entity disclose current period gross charge-offs on financing receivables within the scope of ASC 326-20, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses - Measured at Amortized Cost, by year of origination and class of financing receivable. The amendments in this Update became effective for the Company on January 1, 2023 for all interim and annual periods. The adoption of the provisions in this Update are applied prospectively and have resulted in additional disclosures concerning modifications of loans to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty, as well as disaggregated disclosure of charge-offs on loans. Please also see Note 5 – Loans Held for Investment for added disclosure concerning modifications of loans to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty, as well as current period gross charge-offs on loans by year of origination and loan classification.

In March 2022, the FASB issued ASU 2022-01, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815) Fair Value Hedging - Portfolio Layer Method. The amendments in this Update make targeted improvements to fair value hedge accounting and more specifically to the last-of-layer hedge accounting method. This Update expands the last-of-layer hedge accounting method to allow for multiple hedged layers to be designated for a single closed portfolio of prepayable financial assets, and renames this accounting method the “portfolio layer method.” The provisions of this Update also include: (i) expanding the scope of the portfolio layer method to nonprepayable financial assets, (ii) specifying that eligible hedging instruments in a single layer hedge may include spot-starting or forward-starting constant-notional or amortizing-notional swaps and that the number of hedged layers corresponds with the number of hedges designated, (iii) specifies that an entity hedging multiple amounts in a closed portfolio using a single amortizing-notional swap is executing a single-layer hedge, (iv) provides additional guidance on the accounting for and disclosure of hedge basis adjustments resulting from a fair value hedge under the portfolio layer method by requiring such basis adjustments be maintained at the portfolio level and not allocated to individual assets, and to disclose basis adjustments as a reconciling item in certain disclosures, such as those for loans, and (v) specifies that an entity is to exclude hedge basis adjustments in the determination of credit losses on the assets within the closed portfolio. The provisions of this Update became effective for the Company on January 1, 2023 for all interim and annual periods. The adoption of the provisions in this Update did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Please also see Note 11 – Derivative Instruments, for disclosure concerning the Company’s portfolio layer method fair value hedges.

In March 2020, the FASB issued ASU 2020-04, Reference Rate Reform (Topic 848)—Facilitation of the Effects of Reference Rate Reform on Financial Reporting. In response to concerns about structural risks of Interbank Offered Rates (“IBORs”), and particularly, the risk of cessation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), regulators around the world have undertaken reference rate reform initiatives to identify alternative reference rates that are more observable or transaction-based and less susceptible to manipulation. The amendments in this Update provide optional guidance for a limited time to ease the potential burden in accounting for (or recognizing the effects of) reference rate reform on financial reporting as well as optional expedients and exceptions for applying GAAP to contracts, hedging relationships, and other transactions affected by reference rate reform if certain criteria are met. The amendments in this Update apply only to contracts and hedging relationships that reference LIBOR or another reference rate expected to be discontinued due to reference rate reform. The expedients and exceptions provided by the amendments do not apply to contract modifications made and hedging relationships entered into or evaluated after December 31, 2022. The amendments in this Update are elective and become effective upon issuance for all entities.

An entity may elect to apply the amendments in this Update to eligible hedging relationships existing as of the beginning of the interim period that includes March 12, 2020 and to new eligible hedging relationships entered into after the beginning of the interim period that includes March 12, 2020. The Company has not entered into any hedging related transactions that reference LIBOR or another reference rate that is expected to be discontinued, and as such, the amendments included in this Update have not had an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The use of LIBOR was discontinued after June 30, 2023. In anticipation of this, the Company previously created a cross-functional working group to manage the transition away from LIBOR. This working group was comprised of senior leadership and staff from functional areas that include: finance, treasury, lending, loan servicing, enterprise risk management, information technology, legal, and other internal stakeholders integral to the Bank’s transition away from LIBOR. The working group monitored developments related to transition and uncertainty surrounding reference rate reform and guided the Bank’s response. The working group performed regular assessments of the population of financial instruments that referenced LIBOR and worked to transition such instruments away from LIBOR. The working group also worked to confirm the Bank’s loan documents that referenced LIBOR have been appropriately amended, ensuring that our internal systems were prepared for the transition, and managed the transition process with our customers. The Company has chosen to use the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) as an alternative to LIBOR. However, the Company may also use other alternative reference rates, such as the Constant Maturity Treasury index and Prime rate based on the individual needs of our customers as well as the types of credit being extended.

Recent Accounting Guidance Not Yet Effective

In March 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-01, Leases (Topic 842), Common Control Arrangements. The amendments in this Update clarify the accounting for leasehold improvements associated with common control leases. This Update has been issued in order to address current diversity in practice associated with the accounting for leasehold improvements associated with a lease between entities under common control. The amendments in this Update apply to all lessees that are a party to a lease between entities under common control in which there are leasehold improvements. The amendments in this Update are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2023. The Company has evaluated the provisions of this Update, and does not anticipate the adoption will have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In March 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-02, Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323), Accounting for Investments in Tax Credit Structures Using the Proportional Amortization Method, a consensus of the Emerging Issues Task Force. The amendments in this Update allow the option for an entity to apply the proportional amortization method of accounting to other equity investments that are made for the primary purpose of receiving income tax credits or other income tax benefits, if certain conditions are met. Prior to this Update, the application of the proportional amortization method of accounting was limited to investments in low income housing tax credit structures. The proportional amortization method of accounting results in the amortization of applicable investments, as well as the related income tax credits or other income tax benefits received, being presented on a single line in the statements of income, that is income tax expense. Under this Update, an entity has the option to apply the proportional amortization method of accounting to applicable investments on a tax-credit-program-by-tax-credit-program basis. In addition, the amendments in this Update require that all tax equity investments accounted for using the proportional amortization method use the delayed equity contribution guidance in paragraph 323-740-25-3, requiring a liability be recognized for delayed equity contributions that are unconditional and legally binding or for equity contributions that are contingent upon a future event when that contingent event becomes probable. Under this Update, low income housing tax credit investments for which the proportional amortization method is not applied can no longer be accounted for using the delayed equity contribution guidance. Further, this Update specifies that tax equity investments accounted for using the equity method must apply the impairment guidance in Subtopic 323-10 - Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures - Overall. This Update also clarifies that for low income housing tax credit investments not accounted for under the proportional amortization method or the equity method, an entity shall account for them under Topic 321 - Investments - Equity Securities. The amendments in this Update also require additional disclosures in interim and annual periods concerning investments for which the proportional amortization method is applied, including (i) the nature of tax equity investments, and (ii) the effect of tax equity investments and related income tax credits and other income tax benefits on the financial position and results of operations. The provisions of this Update are effective for the Company for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2023. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this Update on its consolidated financial statements.

Modified Loans to Borrowers Experiencing Financial Difficulty

Modified Loans to Borrowers Experiencing Financial Difficulty. Infrequently, the Company makes modifications to certain loans in order to alleviate temporary difficulties in the borrower’s financial condition and/or constraints on the borrower’s ability to repay the loan, and to minimize potential losses to the Company. The Company also refers to these modifications as modified loans to troubled borrowers (“MLTB”). Modifications may include: changes in the amortization terms of the loan, reductions in interest rates, acceptance of interest only payments, and, in very limited cases, reductions to the outstanding loan balance. Such loans are typically placed on nonaccrual status when there is doubt concerning the full repayment of principal and interest or the loan has been in default for a period of 90 days or more. Such loans may be returned to accrual status when all contractual amounts past due have been brought current, and the borrower’s performance under the modified terms of the loan agreement and the ultimate collectability of all contractual amounts due under the modified terms is no longer in doubt. The Company typically measures the allowance for credit losses (“ACL”) on MLTB on an individual basis when the loans are deemed to no longer share risk characteristics that are similar with other loans in the portfolio. The determination of the ACL for these loans is based on a discounted cash flow approach for both those measured collectively and individually, unless the loan is deemed collateral dependent, which requires measurement of the ACL based on the estimated expected fair value of the underlying collateral, less costs to sell. GAAP requires the Company to make certain disclosures related to these loans, including certain types of modifications, as well as how such loans have performed since their modifications. Please see Note 5 – Loans Held for Investment for additional information concerning modified loans to troubled borrowers.

Use of Estimates

Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods presented. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Allowance for Credit Losses on Investment Securities and Loans

The Company maintains an ACL for loans and unfunded loan commitments in accordance with ASC 326 - Financial Instruments - Credit Losses. ASC 326 requires the Company to recognize estimates for lifetime credit losses on loans and unfunded loan commitments at the time of origination or acquisition. The recognition of credit losses at origination or acquisition represents the Company’s best estimate of lifetime expected credit losses, given the facts and circumstances associated with a particular loan or group of loans with similar risk characteristics. Determining the ACL involves the use of significant management judgement and estimates, which are subject to change based on management’s ongoing assessment of the credit quality of the loan portfolio and changes in economic forecasts used in the model. The Company uses a discounted cash flow model when determining estimates for the ACL for commercial real estate loans and commercial loans, which comprise the majority of the loan portfolio, and uses a historical loss rate model for retail loans. The Company also utilizes proxy loan data in its ACL model where the Company’s own historical data is not sufficiently available.

The discounted cash flow model is applied on an instrument-by-instrument basis, and for loans with similar risk characteristics, to derive estimates for the lifetime ACL for each loan. The discounted cash flow methodology relies on several significant components essential to the development of estimates for future cash flows on loans and unfunded loan commitments. These components consist of: (i) the estimated probability of default (“PD”), (ii) the estimated loss given default (“LGD”), which represents the estimated severity of the loss when a loan is in default, (iii) estimates for prepayment activity on loans, and (iv) the estimated exposure to the Company at default (“EAD”). The PD and LGD are heavily influenced by changes in economic forecasts employed in the model over a reasonable and supportable period. The Company’s ACL methodology for unfunded loan commitments also includes assumptions concerning the probability an unfunded commitment will be drawn upon by the borrower. These assumptions are based on the Company’s historical experience.

The Company’s discounted cash flow ACL model for commercial real estate and commercial loans uses internally derived estimates for prepayments in determining the amount and timing of future contractual cash flows expected to be collected. The estimate of future cash flows also incorporates estimates for contractual amounts the Company believes may not be collected, which are based on assumptions for PD, LGD, and EAD. The EAD is determined by the contractual payment schedule and expected payment profile of the loan, incorporating estimates for expected prepayments and future draws on revolving credit facilities. The Company discounts cash flows using the effective interest rate on the loan. The effective interest rate represents the contractual rate on the loan; adjusted for any purchase premiums, or discounts, and deferred fees and costs associated with an originated loan. The Company has made an accounting policy election to adjust the effective interest rate to take into consideration the effects of estimated prepayments. The ACL for loans is determined by measuring the amount by which a loan’s amortized cost exceeds its discounted cash flows expected to be collected. The ACL for credit facilities is determined by discounting estimates for cash flows not expected to be collected.

Probability of Default

The PD for investor loans secured by real estate is based largely on a model provided by a third party, using proxy loan information. The PDs generated by this model are reflective of current and expected economic conditions in the commercial real estate market, and how they are expected to impact loan level and property level attributes, and ultimately the likelihood of a default event occurring. This model incorporates assumptions for PD at a loan’s maturity. Significant loan and property level attributes include: loan-to-value ratios, debt service coverage, loan size, loan vintage, and property types.

The PD for business loans secured by real estate and commercial loans is based on an internally developed PD rating scale that assigns PDs based on the Company’s internal credit risk grades for loans. This internally developed PD rating scale is based on a combination of the Company’s own historical data and observed historical data from the Company’s peers, which consist of banks that management believes align with our business profile. As credit risk grades change for these loans, the PD assigned to them also changes. As with investor loans secured by real estate, the PD for business loans secured by real estate and commercial loans is also impacted by current and expected economic conditions.

The Company considers loans to be in default when they are 90 days or more past due and still accruing or placed on nonaccrual status.

Loss Given Default

LGDs for commercial real estate loans are derived from a third party, using proxy loan information, and are based on loan and property level characteristics for loans in the Company’s loan portfolio, such as: loan-to-value ratios (“LTV”), estimated time to resolution, property size, and current and estimated future market price changes for underlying collateral. The LGD is highly dependent upon LTV ratios, and incorporates estimates for the expense associated with managing the loan through to resolution. LGDs also incorporate an estimate for the loss severity associated with loans where the borrower fails to meet their debt obligation at maturity, such as through a balloon payment or the refinancing of the loan through another lender. External factors that have an impact on LGDs include: changes in the index for CRE pricing, GDP growth rate, unemployment rates, and the Consumer Price Index. LGDs are applied to each loan in the commercial real estate portfolio, and in conjunction with the PD, produce estimates for net cash flows not expected to be collected over the estimated term of the loan.

LGDs for commercial loans are also derived from a third party that has a considerable database of credit related information specific to the financial services industry and the type of loans within this segment, and is used to generate annual default information for commercial loans. These proxy LGDs are dependent upon data inputs such as: credit quality, borrower industry, region, borrower size, and debt seniority. LGDs are then applied to each loan in the commercial segment, and in conjunction with the PD, produce estimates for net cash flows not expected to be collected over the estimated term of the loan.

Historical Loss Rates for Retail Loans

The historical loss rate model for retail loans is derived from a third party that has a considerable database of credit related information for retail loans. Key loan level attributes and economic drivers in determining the loss rate for retail loans include FICO scores, vintage, as well as geography, unemployment rates, and changes in consumer real estate prices.

Economic Forecasts

In order to develop reasonable and supportable forecasts of future conditions, the Company estimates how those forecasts are expected to impact a borrower’s ability to satisfy their obligation to the Bank and the ultimate collectability of future cash flows over the life of a loan. The Company uses macroeconomic scenarios from an independent third party, which are based on past events, current conditions, and the likelihood of future events occurring. These scenarios are typically comprised of: a base-case scenario, an upside scenario, representing slightly better economic conditions than currently experienced and, a downside scenario, representing recessionary conditions. Management periodically evaluates appropriateness of economic scenarios and may decide that a particular economic scenario or a combination of probability-weighted economic scenarios should be used in the Company’s ACL model. The economic scenarios chosen for the model, the extent to which more than one scenario is used, and the weights that are assigned to them, are based on the likelihood that the economy would perform better than each scenario, which is based in part on analysis performed by an independent third party. Economic scenarios chosen, as well as the assumptions within those scenarios, and whether to use a probability-weighted multiple scenario approach, can vary from one period to the next based on changes in current and expected economic conditions, and due to the occurrence of specific events. The Company’s ACL model at September 30, 2023 includes assumptions concerning the rising interest rate environment, general uncertainty concerning future economic conditions, and the potential for recessionary conditions.

The Company currently forecasts PDs and LGDs based on economic scenarios over a two-year period, which we believe is a reasonable and supportable period. Beyond this point, PDs and LGDs revert to their long-term averages. The Company has reflected this reversion over a period of three years in each of its economic scenarios used to generate the overall probability-weighted forecast. Changes in economic forecasts impact the PD, LGD, and EAD for each loan, and therefore influence the amount of future cash flows the Company does not expect to collect for each loan.

It is important to note that the Company’s ACL model relies on multiple economic variables, which are used in several economic scenarios. Although no one economic variable can fully demonstrate the sensitivity of the ACL calculation to changes in the economic variables used in the model, the Company has identified certain economic variables that have significant influence in the Company’s model for determining the ACL. These key economic variables include changes in the U.S. unemployment rate, U.S. real GDP growth, CRE prices, and interest rates.

Qualitative Adjustments

The Company recognizes that historical information used as the basis for determining future expected credit losses may not always, by itself, provide a sufficient basis for determining future expected credit losses. The Company, therefore, considers the need for qualitative adjustments to the ACL on a quarterly basis. Qualitative adjustments may be related to and include, but not be limited to, factors such as: (i) management’s assessment of economic forecasts used in the model and how those forecasts align with management’s overall evaluation of current and expected economic conditions, (ii) organization specific risks such as credit concentrations, collateral specific risks, regulatory risks, and external factors that may ultimately impact credit quality, (iii) potential model limitations such as limitations identified through back-testing, and other limitations associated with factors such as underwriting changes, acquisition of new portfolios, and changes in portfolio segmentation, and (iv) management’s overall assessment of the adequacy of the ACL, including an assessment of model data inputs used to determine the ACL.

Qualitative adjustments primarily relate to certain segments of the loan portfolio deemed by management to be of a higher-risk profile or other factors where management believes the quantitative component of the Company’s ACL model may not be fully reflective of levels deemed adequate in the judgement of management. Certain qualitative adjustments also relate to heightened uncertainty as to future macroeconomic conditions and the related impact on certain loan segments. Management reviews the need for an appropriate level of qualitative adjustments on a quarterly basis, and as such, the amount and allocation of qualitative adjustments may change in future periods.

Fair Value Measurement

The fair value of an asset or liability is the exchange price that would be received to sell that asset or paid to transfer that liability (exit price) in an orderly transaction occurring in the principal market (or most advantageous market in the absence of a principal market) for such asset or liability. In estimating fair value, the Company utilizes valuation techniques that are consistent with the market approach, the income approach, and/or the cost approach. Such valuation techniques are consistently applied. Inputs to valuation techniques include the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability. ASC Topic 825 - Financial Instruments, requires disclosure of the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities, including both those financial assets and financial liabilities that are not measured and reported at fair value on a recurring basis and a non-recurring basis. The methodologies for estimating the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities that are measured at fair value are discussed below.

In accordance with ASC Topic 820 - Fair Value Measurement, the Company groups its financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value in three levels, based on the markets in which the assets and liabilities are traded and the reliability of the assumptions used to determine fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described as follows:

Level 1 - Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities.

Level 2 - Inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. These might include quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (such as interest rates, prepayment speeds, volatilities, etc.), or model-based valuation techniques where all significant assumptions are observable, either directly or indirectly, in the market.

Level 3 - Valuation is generated from model-based techniques where one or more significant inputs are not observable, either directly or indirectly, in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect the Company’s own estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques may include use of matrix pricing, discounted cash flow models, and similar techniques.

Because no market exists for a significant portion of the Company’s financial instruments, fair value estimates are based on judgments regarding current economic conditions, risk characteristics of various financial instruments, and other factors. These estimates are subjective in nature, and involve uncertainties and matters of significant judgment and, therefore, cannot be determined with precision. Changes in assumptions could significantly affect the fair values presented. Management uses its best judgment in estimating the fair value of the Company’s financial instruments; however, there are inherent limitations in any estimation technique. While management believes the Company’s valuation methodologies are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date. The Company’s valuation methodologies may produce a fair value calculation that may not be indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future fair values.

A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Management maximizes the use of observable inputs and attempts to minimize the use of unobservable inputs when determining fair value measurements. Estimated fair values are disclosed for financial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate fair value. These estimates are made at a specific point in time based on relevant market data and information about the financial instruments. These estimates do not reflect any premium or discount that could result from offering the Company’s entire holdings of a particular financial instrument for sale at one time, nor do they attempt to estimate the value of anticipated future business related to the instruments. In addition, the tax ramifications related to the realization of unrealized gains and losses can have a significant effect on fair value estimates and have not been considered in any of these estimates.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis

The following is a description of both the general and specific valuation methodologies used for certain instruments measured at fair value, as well as the general classification of these instruments pursuant to the fair value hierarchy.

AFS Investment Securities – Investment securities are generally valued based upon quotes obtained from independent third-party pricing services, which use evaluated pricing applications and model processes. Observable market inputs, such as, benchmark yields, reported trades, broker/dealer quotes, issuer spreads, two-sided markets, benchmark securities, bids, offers, and reference data are considered as part of the evaluation. The inputs are related directly to the security being evaluated, or indirectly to a similarly situated security. Market assumptions and market data are utilized in the valuation models. The Company reviews the market prices provided by the third-party pricing service for reasonableness based on the Company’s understanding of the marketplace and credit issues related to the securities. The Company has not made any adjustments to the market quotes provided by them and, accordingly, the Company categorized these securities within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Equity Securities With Readily Determinable Fair Values – The Company’s equity securities with readily determinable fair values consist of investments in public companies and qualify for CRA purposes. The fair value is based on the closing price on nationally recognized securities exchanges at the end of each period and classified as Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy.

Interest Rate Swaps – The Company originates a variable rate loan and enters into a variable-to-fixed interest rate swap with the customer. The Company also enters into an offsetting swap with a correspondent bank. These back-to-back swap agreements are intended to offset each other and allow the Company to originate a variable rate loan, while providing a contract for fixed interest payments for the customer. The Company also enters into interest rate swap contracts with institutional counterparties to hedge against certain fixed-rate loans. The net cash flow for the Company is equal to the interest income received from a variable rate loan originated with the customer. The fair value of these derivatives is based on a market standard discounted cash flow approach. The Company incorporates credit value adjustments on derivatives to properly reflect the respective counterparty’s nonperformance risk in the fair value measurements of its derivatives. The Company has determined that the observable nature of the majority of inputs used in deriving the fair value of these derivative contracts fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, and the credit valuation adjustments are not significant to the overall valuation of its derivative financial instruments. As a result, the valuation of interest rate swaps is classified as Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Equity Warrant Assets – The Company acquired equity warrant assets as a result of the acquisition of Opus. Opus received equity warrant assets through its lending activities as part of loan origination fees. The warrants provide the Bank the right to purchase a specific number of equity shares of the underlying company’s equity at a certain price before expiration and contain net settlement terms qualifying as derivatives under ASC Topic 815 - Derivatives and Hedging. The fair value of equity warrant assets is determined using a Black-Scholes option pricing model and are classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy due to the extent of unobservable inputs. The key assumptions used in determining the fair value include the exercise price of the warrants, valuation of the underlying entity's outstanding stock, expected term, risk-free interest rate, marketability discount for private company warrants, and price volatility.

Foreign Exchange Contracts – The Company enters into foreign exchange contracts to accommodate the business needs of its customers. The Company also enters into offsetting contracts with institutional counterparties to mitigate the Company’s foreign exchange exposure with its customers, or enters into bilateral collateral and master netting agreements with certain customer counterparties to manage its credit exposure. The Company measures the fair value of foreign exchange contracts based on quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets, a Level 1 measurement.

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis

Individually Evaluated Loans – A loan is individually evaluated for expected credit losses when it is probable that payment of interest and principal will not be made in accordance with the contractual terms of the loan agreement and it does not share similar risk characteristics with other loans. Individually evaluated loans are measured at fair value when they are deemed collateral dependent. Fair value on such loans is measured based on the underlying collateral. Collateral generally consists of accounts receivable, inventory, fixed assets, real estate, and cash. The Company measures impairment on all individually evaluated loans for which it has reduced the principal balance to the value of the underlying collateral less the anticipated selling costs.

Other Real Estate Owned – OREO is initially recorded at the fair value less estimated costs to sell at the date of transfer. This amount becomes the property’s new basis. Any fair value adjustments based on the property’s fair value less estimated costs to sell at the date of acquisition are charged to the allowance for credit losses.

The fair value of individually evaluated collateral dependent loans and other real estate owned were determined using Level 3 assumptions, and represents individually evaluated loan for which a specific reserve has been established or on which a write down has been taken. For real estate loans, generally, the Company obtains third party appraisals (or property valuations) and/or collateral audits in conjunction with internal analysis based on historical experience on its individually evaluated loans and other real estate owned to determine fair value. In determining the net realizable value of the underlying collateral for individually evaluated loans, the Company then discounts the valuation to cover both market price fluctuations and selling costs, typically ranging from 7% to 10% of the collateral value, that the Company expects would be incurred in the event of foreclosure. In addition to the discounts taken, the Company’s calculation of net realizable value considered any other senior liens in place on the underlying collateral. For non-real estate loans, fair value of the loan’s collateral may be determined using an appraisal, net book value per the borrower’s financial statements, or aging reports, adjusted or discounted based on management’s historical knowledge, changes in market conditions, and management’s expertise and knowledge of the client and client’s business.