14.

New Authoritative Accounting Pronouncements

August 2017,

the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”)

No.

2017

12,

“Derivatives and Hedging (Topic

815

)”

providing targeted improvements to the accounting for hedging activities, which is effective

January 1, 2019,

with early adoption permitted in any interim period or fiscal year before the effective date. The guidance introduces a number of amendments, several of which are optional, that are designed to simplify the application of hedge accounting, improve financial statement transparency and more closely align hedge accounting with an entity’s risk management strategies.

We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this new guidance on our consolidated results of operations, financial

condition and cash flows.

March 2017,

the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”)

No.

2017

08,

“Premium Amortization on Purchased Callable Debt Securities” which shortens the amortization period for premiums on purchased callable debt securities to the earliest call date, rather than amortizing over the full contractual term. The ASU does

not

change the accounting for securities held at a discount. The amendments in this ASU require companies to reset the effective yield using the payment terms of the debt security if the call option is

not

exercised on the earliest call date. If the security has additional future call dates, any excess of the amortized cost basis over the amount repayable by the issuer at the next call date should be amortized to the next call date. The amendments in this update are effective for fiscal years beginning after

December 15, 2018,

including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period. The guidance is

not

expected to have an impact on the Company's financial positions, results of operations or disclosures as we currently amortize our callable debt securities to the

first

call date.

March 2017,

the FASB issued ASU

No.

2017

07,

“Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost”, which requires that an employer disaggregate the service cost component from the other components of net benefit cost, as follows:

Service cost must be presented in the same line item(s) as other employee compensation costs. These costs are generally included within income from continuing operations, but in some cases

may

be eligible for capitalization, if certain criteria are met.

All other components of net benefit cost must be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component and outside a subtotal of income from operations, if

one

is presented. These generally include interest cost, actual return on plan assets, amortization of prior service cost included in accumulated other comprehensive income, and gains or losses from changes in the value of the projected benefit obligation or plan assets. If a separate line item is used to present the other components of net benefit cost, it must be appropriately described. If a separate line item is

not

used, an entity must disclose the line item(s) in the income statement that includes the other components of net benefit cost. The ASU clarifies that these costs are

not

eligible for capitalization.

The amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after

December 15, 2017,

including interim periods within those years. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of an annual period. The guidance is

not

expected to have a significant impact on the Company's financial positions, results of operations or disclosures.

January 2017,

the FASB issued ASU

No.

2017

04,

“Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic

350

): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment”. The ASU simplifies the subsequent measurement of goodwill and eliminates Step

from the goodwill impairment test. The Company should perform its goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. An impairment charge should be recognized for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit's fair value. The impairment charge is limited to the amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. The amendments in this update are effective for fiscal years beginning after

December 15, 2019,

including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted for goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after

January 1, 2017.

The guidance is

not

expected to have a significant impact on the Company's financial positions, results of operations or disclosures.

August 2016,

the FASB issued ASU

No.

2016

“Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments”, to clarify how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statements of cash flows. The amendments are intended to reduce diversity in practice by clarifying whether the following items should be categorized as operating, investing or financing in the statement of cash flows: (i) debt prepayments and extinguishment costs, (ii) settlement of

zero

-coupon debt, (iii) settlement of contingent consideration, (iv) insurance proceeds, (v) settlement of corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) and bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policies, (vi) distributions from equity method investees, (vii) beneficial interests in securitization transactions, and (viii) receipts and payments with aspects of more than

one

class of cash flows. The ASU will be effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after

December 15, 2017.

Early adoption is permitted. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period. An entity that elects early adoption must adopt all of the amendments in the same period. The Company does

not

expect adoption of this ASU will have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

June 2016,

the FASB issued ASU

No.

2016

13,

“Financial Instruments – Credit Losses” which sets forth a “current expected credit loss” (“CECL”) model which requires the Company to measure all expected credit losses for financial instruments held at the reporting date based on historical experience, current conditions and reasonable supportable forecasts. This replaces the existing incurred loss model and will apply to the measurement of credit losses on financial assets measured at amortized cost and to some off-balance sheet credit exposures. This ASU will be effective for fiscal years beginning after

December 15, 2019,

including interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company has begun collecting and evaluating data and system requirements to implement this standard. The adoption of this update could have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition. The extent of the impact is still unknown and will depend on many factors, such as the composition of the Company’s loan portfolio and expected loss history at adoption. Management has developed committees to evaluate and implement CECL.

February 2016,

the FASB issued ASU

No.

2016

02,

“Leases”. From the lessee's perspective, the new standard establishes a right-of-use (“ROU”) model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than

months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement for a lessee. From the lessor's perspective, the new standard requires a lessor to classify leases as either sales-type, finance or operating. A lease will be treated as a sale if it transfers all of the risks and rewards, as well as control of the underlying asset, to the lessee. If risks and rewards are conveyed without the transfer of control, the lease is treated as a financing. If the lessor doesn’t convey risks and rewards or control, an operating lease results. The new standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after

December 15, 2018,

including interim periods within those fiscal years. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessees for capital and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessors for sales-type, direct financing, and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. The Company has

not

adopted a new accounting policy as of the filing date. Management is continuing to evaluate the standard, but the effects of recognizing most operating leases on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition is expected to be material. The Company expects to recognize right-of-use assets and lease liabilities for substantially all of its operating lease commitments based on the present value of unpaid lease payments as of the date of adoption.

January

2016,

FASB issued ASU

No.

2016

“Financial Instruments” which requires an entity to: (i) measure equity investments at fair value through net income, with certain exceptions; (ii) present in other comprehensive income the changes in instrument-specific credit risk for financial liabilities measured using the fair value option; (iii) present financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset; (iv) calculate the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes based on an exit price and; (v) assess a valuation allowance on deferred tax assets related to unrealized losses of available for sale debt securities in combination with other deferred tax assets. The ASU provides an election to subsequently measure certain nonmarketable equity investments at cost less any impairment and adjusted for certain observable price changes. The ASU also requires a qualitative impairment assessment of such equity investments and amends certain fair value disclosure requirements. The amendments are effective for public business entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after

December 15, 2017.

e do

not

believe the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows

May 2014,

the FASB issued ASU

2014

09,

“Revenue from Contracts with Customers”. This ASU establishes a comprehensive revenue recognition standard for virtually all industries under U.S. GAAP, including those that previously followed industry-specific guidance such as real estate, construction and software industries. The revenue standard’s core principle is built on the contract between a vendor and a customer for the provision of goods and services. It attempts to depict the exchange of rights and obligations between the parties in the pattern of revenue recognition based on the consideration to which the vendor is entitled. The guidance in this ASU for public companies is effective for the annual periods beginning after

December 15, 2016,

including interim periods therein. ASU

2014

does

not

apply to the majority of our revenue streams. In

August 2015,

the FASB approved a

one

-year delay of the effective date of this standard. The deferral would require public entities to apply the standard for annual reporting periods beginning after

December 15, 2017.

Public companies would be permitted to elect to early adopt for annual reporting periods beginning after

December 15, 2016.

The Company has completed a review of its income streams determining that a significant portion of its income is derived from sources scoped out of this guidance, therefore, we do

not

believe the adoption of this standard will have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows