AUBURN NATIONAL BANCORPORATION, INC - Annual Report: 2011 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

OR

For the transition period from              to             

Commission File Number: 0-26486

Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (334) 821-9200

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No þ

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

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ

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

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

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter: $45,819,862 as of June 30, 2011.

APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE REGISTRANTS

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date: 3,642,738 shares of common stock as of March 9, 2012.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, scheduled to be held May 8, 2012, are incorporated by reference into Part II, Item 5 and Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I

SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Various of the statements made herein under the captions “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk”, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning and protections of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Forward-looking statements include statements with respect to our beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, expectations, anticipations, assumptions, estimates, intentions and future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may be beyond our control, and which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. You should not expect us to update any forward-looking statements.

All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be forward-looking statements. You can identify these forward-looking statements through our use of words such as “may,” “will,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “should,” “indicate,” “would,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “continue,” “further,” “plan,” “point to,” “project,” “could,” “intend,” “target” and other similar words and expressions of the future. These forward-looking statements may not be realized due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation:

3

Table of Contents

All written or oral forward-looking statements that are made by us or are attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary notice. We have no obligation and do not undertake to update, revise or correct any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this report, or after the respective dates on which such statements otherwise are made.

Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. (the “Company”) is a bank holding company registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”). The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 1990, and in 1994 it succeeded its Alabama predecessor as the bank holding company controlling AuburnBank, an Alabama state member bank with its principal office in Auburn, Alabama (the “Bank”). The Company and its predecessor have controlled the Bank since 1984. As a bank holding company, the Company may diversify into a broader range of financial services and other business activities than currently are permitted to the Bank under applicable laws, regulations and rules. The holding company structure also provides greater financial and operating flexibility than is presently permitted to the Bank.

The Bank has operated continuously since 1907 and currently conducts its business primarily in East Alabama, including Lee County and surrounding areas. The Bank has been a member of the Federal Reserve System since April 1995 (the “Charter Conversion”). The Bank’s primary regulators are the Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent of Banks (the “Alabama Superintendent”). The Bank has been a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (the “FHLB”) since 1991.

General

The Company’s business is conducted primarily through the Bank and its subsidiaries. Although it has no immediate plans to conduct any other business, the Company may engage directly or indirectly in a number of activities that the Federal Reserve has determined to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.

The Company’s principal executive offices are located at 100 N. Gay Street, Auburn, Alabama 36830, and its telephone number at such address is (334) 821-9200. The Company maintains an Internet website at www.auburnbank.com. The Company is not incorporating the information on that website into this report, and the website and the information appearing on the website are not included in, and are not part of, this report. The Company files annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements, and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file with the SEC at the SEC’s public reference room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for more information on the operation of the public reference rooms. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy, and other information Our SEC filings are also available to the public free of charge from the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov.

The Company directly owns all the common equity in one statutory trust, Auburn National Bancorporation Capital Trust I, an Alabama statutory trust, which was formed in 2003 for the purpose of issuing $7.0 million of floating rate capital securities, with net proceeds being used for general corporate purposes, the purchase of investment securities, and the repurchase of the Company’s outstanding common shares.

Services

The Bank offers checking, savings, transaction deposit accounts and certificates of deposit, and is an active residential mortgage lender in its primary service area (“PSA”). The Bank’s PSA includes the cities of Auburn and Opelika,

4

Table of Contents

Alabama and nearby surrounding areas in East Alabama, primarily in Lee County. The Bank also offers commercial, financial, agricultural, real estate construction and consumer loan products and other financial services. The Bank is one of the largest providers of automated teller services in East Alabama and operates ATM machines in 13 locations in its PSA. The Bank offers Visa^® Checkcards, which are debit cards with the Visa logo that work like checks but can be used anywhere Visa is accepted, including ATMs. The Bank’s Visa Checkcards can be used internationally through the Cirrus^® network. The Bank offers online banking and bill payment services through its Internet website, www.auburnbank.com.

Competition

The banking business in East Alabama, including Lee County, is highly competitive with respect to loans, deposits, and other financial services. The area is dominated by a number of regional and national banks and bank holding companies that have substantially greater resources, and numerous offices and affiliates operating over wide geographic areas. The Bank competes for deposits, loans and other business with these banks, as well as with credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and other local and nonlocal financial institutions, including institutions offering services through the mail, by telephone and over the Internet. As more and different kinds of businesses enter the market for financial services, competition from nonbank financial institutions may be expected to intensify further.

Among the advantages that larger financial institutions have over the Bank are their ability to finance extensive advertising campaigns, to diversify their funding sources, and to allocate and diversify their assets among loans and securities of the highest yield in locations with the greatest demand. Many of the major commercial banks or their affiliates operating in the Bank’s service area offer services which are not presently offered directly by the Bank and they may also have substantially higher lending limits than the Bank.

Community banks also have experienced significant competition for deposits from mutual funds, insurance companies and other investment companies and from money center banks’ offerings of high-yield investments and deposits. Certain of these competitors are not subject to the same regulatory restrictions as the Bank.

Selected Economic Data

As described above, the Bank’s PSA is primarily in Lee County. The Bank also has loan production offices in Montgomery, Alabama and in Phenix City, Alabama. Lee County’s population was approximately 140,247 in 2010, and has increased approximately 21.9% from 2000 to 2010. The largest employers in the area are Auburn University, East Alabama Medical Center, a Wal-Mart Distribution Center, Mando America Corporation, and Briggs & Stratton.

Loans and Loan Concentrations

The Bank makes loans for commercial, financial and agricultural purposes, as well as for real estate mortgages, real estate acquisition, construction and development and consumer purposes. While there are certain risks unique to each type of lending, management believes that there is more risk associated with commercial, real estate acquisition, construction and development, agricultural and consumer lending than with residential real estate mortgage loans. To help manage these risks, the Bank has established underwriting standards used in evaluating each extension of credit on an individual basis, which are substantially similar for each type of loan. These standards include a review of the economic conditions affecting the borrower, the borrower’s financial strength and capacity to repay the debt, the underlying collateral and the borrower’s past credit performance. These standards are used to determine the creditworthiness of the borrower at the time a loan is made and are monitored periodically throughout the life of the loan. See “Legislative and Regulatory Changes” for a discussion of regulatory guidance on commercial real estate lending.

The Bank has loans outstanding to borrowers in all industries within its PSA. Any adverse economic or other conditions affecting these industries would also likely have an adverse effect on the local workforce, other local businesses, and individuals in the community that have entered into loans with the Bank. However, management believes that due to the diversified mix of industries located within the Bank’s PSA, adverse changes in one industry may not necessarily affect other area industries to the same degree or within the same time frame. The Bank’s PSA is also subject to both local and national economic conditions and fluctuations. While most loans are made within the PSA, residential mortgage loans are originated outside the PSA, and the Bank has from time to time purchased loans and loan participations from outside its PSA.

Employees

At December 31, 2011, the Company and its subsidiaries had 157 full-time equivalent employees, including 35 officers.

5

Table of Contents

Statistical Information

Certain statistical information is included in response to Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Certain statistical information is also included in response to Item 6, Item 7A and Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The Company and the Bank are extensively regulated under federal and state law applicable to financial institutions. The supervision, regulation and examination of the Company and the Bank and their respective subsidiaries by the bank regulatory agencies are intended primarily for the maintenance of the safety and soundness of financial institutions and the federal deposit insurance system, as well as protection of depositors, rather than holders of Company capital stock and other securities. Any change in applicable law or regulation may have a material effect on the Company’s business. The following discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provisions referred to below.

Bank Holding Company Regulation

The Company, as a bank holding company, is subject to supervision, examination and regulation by the Federal Reserve under the BHC Act. Bank holding companies are generally limited to the business of banking, managing or controlling banks, and other activities that the Federal Reserve determines to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. The Company is required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports and such other information as the Federal Reserve may request. The Federal Reserve examines the Company, and may examine its subsidiaries. The State of Alabama currently does not regulate bank holding companies.

The BHC Act requires prior Federal Reserve approval for, among other things, the acquisition by a bank holding company of direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all the assets of any bank, or for a merger or consolidation of a bank holding company with another bank holding company. With certain exceptions, the BHC Act prohibits a bank holding company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of voting shares of any company that is not a bank or bank holding company and from engaging directly or indirectly in any activity other than banking or managing or controlling banks or performing services for its authorized subsidiary. A bank holding company may, however, engage in or acquire an interest in a company that engages in activities that the Federal Reserve has determined by regulation or order to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (“the GLB Act”) permits bank holding companies that are “well-capitalized” and “well-managed,” as defined in Federal Reserve Regulation Y, and whose subsidiary banks have and maintain satisfactory or better ratings under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as amended (the “CRA”), and meet certain other conditions to elect to become “financial holding companies.” Financial holding companies and their subsidiaries are permitted to acquire or engage in previously impermissible activities such as insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, travel agency activities, broad insurance agency activities, merchant banking and other activities that the Federal Reserve determines to be financial in nature or complementary thereto. In addition, under the merchant banking authority added by the GLB Act and Federal Reserve regulations, financial holding companies are authorized to invest in companies that engage in activities that are not financial in nature, as long as the financial holding company makes its investment with the intention of limiting the terms of its investment, does not manage the company on a day-to-day basis, and the investee company does not cross-market with any depositary institutions controlled by the financial holding company. Financial holding companies continue to be subject to Federal Reserve supervision, regulation and examination, but the GLB Act applies the concept of functional regulation to the activities conducted by subsidiaries. For example, insurance activities would be subject to supervision and regulation by state insurance authorities. While the Company has not elected to become a financial holding company, in order to exercise the broader activity powers provided by the GLB Act, it may elect to do so in the future.

The BHC Act permits acquisitions of banks by bank holding companies, such that the Company and any other bank holding company, whether located in Alabama or elsewhere, may acquire a bank located in any other state, subject to deposit share limits, age of bank charter requirements and other restrictions. Federal law also permits national and state-chartered banks to branch interstate through acquisitions of banks in other states. Alabama permits interstate branching. Under the Alabama Banking Code, with the prior approval of the Alabama Superintendent, an Alabama bank, may acquire and operate one or more banks in other states pursuant to a transaction in which the Alabama bank is the resulting bank. In addition, one or more Alabama banks may enter into a merger transaction with one or more out-of-state banks, and an out-of-state bank resulting from such transaction may continue to operate the acquired branches in Alabama. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), banks, including Alabama banks, may branch anywhere in the United States.

6

Table of Contents

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. Various legal limitations restrict the Bank from lending or otherwise supplying funds to the Company. The Company and the Bank are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve Regulation W there under. Section 23A defines “covered transactions,” which include extensions of credit, and limits a bank’s covered transactions with any affiliate to 10% of such bank’s capital and surplus. All covered and exempt transactions between a bank and its affiliates must be on terms and conditions consistent with safe and sound banking practices, and banks and their subsidiaries are prohibited from purchasing low-quality assets from the bank’s affiliates. Finally, Section 23A requires that all of a bank’s extensions of credit to its affiliates be appropriately secured by permissible collateral, generally United States government or agency securities. The Company and the Bank also are subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which generally requires covered and other transactions among affiliates to be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that are substantially the same as or at least as favorable to the bank or its subsidiary as those prevailing at the time for similar transactions with unaffiliated companies.

Federal Reserve policy, as well as the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to its bank subsidiaries and to take measures to preserve and protect its bank subsidiaries in situations where additional investments in a bank subsidiary may not otherwise be warranted. In addition, where a bank holding company has more than one bank or thrift subsidiary, each of the bank holding company’s subsidiary depository institutions are responsible for any losses to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as a result of an affiliated depository institution’s failure. As a result, a bank holding company may be required to loan money to a bank subsidiary in the form of subordinate capital notes or other instruments which qualify as capital under bank regulatory rules. However, any loans from the holding company to such subsidiary banks likely will be unsecured and subordinated to such bank’s depositors and to other senior creditors of the bank.

The Federal Reserve has adopted guidelines for employee compensation to reduce incentives to take undue risks, and the FDIC and SEC have proposed further compensation guidelines under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Bank Regulation

The Bank is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent, which monitor all areas of the operations of the Bank, including reserves, loans, mortgages, issuances and redemption of capital securities, payment of dividends, establishment of branches, capital adequacy and compliance with laws. The Bank is a member of the FDIC and, as such, its deposits are insured by the FDIC to the maximum extent provided by law. See “FDIC Insurance Assessments.”

Alabama law permits statewide branching by banks. The powers granted to Alabama-chartered banks by state law include certain provisions designed to provide such banks with competitive equality to the powers of national banks.

In 2007, the Alabama legislature amended the Alabama Banking Code to, among other things; strengthen the regulatory and enforcement authority of the Alabama State Banking Department and the Alabama Superintendent of Banks.

The Federal Reserve has adopted the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (“FFIEC”) updated rating system, which assigns each financial institution a confidential composite “CAMELS” rating based on an evaluation and rating of six essential components of an institution’s financial condition and operations including Capital Adequacy, Asset Quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity and Sensitivity to market risk, as well as the quality of risk management practices. For most institutions, the FFIEC has indicated that market risk primarily reflects exposures to changes in interest rates. When regulators evaluate this component, consideration is expected to be given to: management’s ability to identify, measure, monitor and control market risk; the institution’s size; the nature and complexity of its activities and its risk profile; and the adequacy of its capital and earnings in relation to its level of market risk exposure. Market risk is rated based upon, but not limited to, an assessment of the sensitivity of the financial institution’s earnings or the economic value of its capital to adverse changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices or equity prices management’s ability to identify, measure, monitor and control exposure to market risk; and the nature and complexity of interest rate risk exposure arising from non-trading positions.

The GLB Act and related regulations requires banks and their affiliated companies to adopt and disclose privacy policies, including policies regarding the sharing of personal information they obtain from customers with third parties. The GLB Act also permits bank subsidiaries to engage in “financial activities” similar to those permitted to financial holding companies.

The federal bank regulators have updated their guidance several times on overdrafts, including overdrafts incurred at automated teller machines and point of sale terminals, and overdrafts have become a focus of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Among other things, the federal regulators require banks to monitor accounts and to limit the use of overdrafts by customers as a form of short-term, high-cost credit, including, for example, giving customers who overdraw their accounts on more than six occasions where a fee is charged in a rolling 12 month period a

7

Table of Contents

reasonable opportunity to choose a less costly alternative and decide whether to continue with fee-based overdraft coverage. It also encourages the placing appropriate daily limits on overdraft fees, and asks banks to consider eliminating overdraft fees for transactions that overdraw an account by a de minimis amount. Overdraft policies, processes, fees and disclosures are frequently criticized in bank regulatory examinations and are the subject of litigation against banks in various jurisdictions.

Community Reinvestment Act and Consumer Laws

The Bank is subject to the provisions of the CRA and the Federal Reserve’s regulations there under. Under the CRA, all banks and thrifts have a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with their safe and sound operation, to help meet the credit needs for their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The CRA requires a depository institution’s primary federal regulator, in connection with its examination of the institution, to assess the institution’s record of assessing and meeting the credit needs of the community served by that institution, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The bank regulatory agency’s assessment of the institution’s record is made available to the public. Further, such assessment is required of any institution which has applied to: (i) charter a national bank; (ii) obtain deposit insurance coverage for a newly-chartered institution; (iii) establish a new branch office that accepts deposits; (iv) relocate an office; or (v) merge or consolidate with, or acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of, a federally regulated financial institution. In the case of a bank holding company applying for approval to acquire a bank or other bank holding company, the Federal Reserve will assess the records of each subsidiary depository institution of the applicant bank holding company, and such records may be the basis for denying the application. A less than satisfactory CRA rating will slow, if not preclude branch expansion activities and may prevent a company from becoming a financial holding company.

As a result of the GLB Act, CRA agreements with private parties must be disclosed and annual CRA reports must be made to a bank’s primary federal regulator. No new activities authorized under the GLB Act may be commenced by a bank holding company or by a bank financial subsidiary if any of its bank subsidiaries received less than a “satisfactory” CRA rating in its latest CRA examination. The federal CRA regulations require that evidence of discriminatory, illegal or abusive lending practices be considered in the CRA evaluation.

The Bank is also subject to, among other things, the provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (the “ECOA”) and the Fair Housing Act (the “FHA”), both of which prohibit discrimination based on race or color, religion, national origin, sex and familial status in any aspect of a consumer or commercial credit or residential real estate transaction. The Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), and the federal bank regulatory agencies have issued an Interagency Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending in order to provide guidance to financial institutions in determining whether discrimination exists, how the agencies will respond to lending discrimination, and what steps lenders might take to prevent discriminatory lending practices. The DOJ has increased its efforts to prosecute what it regards as violations of the ECOA and FHA.

The Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB, which became able to exercise its regulatory authority upon the recess appointment of its director on January 4, 2012. The CFPB has the authority, previously exercised by the federal bank regulators to adopt regulations and enforce various laws, including the ECOA, and other fair lending laws, the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, mortgage lending rules, Truth in Savings, Fair Credit Reporting and Privacy of Consumer Financial Privacy. Although the CFPB does not examine or supervise banks with less than $10 billion in assets, its exercises broad authority that will affect bank regulation in these areas and bank regulators’ consumer examination and enforcement and Banks of all sizes will be subject to changes as the CFPB reviews and revises the regulation it administers.

Other Laws and Regulations

The International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorism Funding Act of 2001 specifies new “know your customer” requirements that obligate financial institutions to take actions to verify the identity of the account holders in connection with opening an account at any U.S. financial institution. Bank regulators are required to consider compliance with this Act’s money laundering provisions in acting upon acquisition and merger proposals, and sanctions for violations of this Act can be imposed in an amount equal to twice the sum involved in the violating transaction, up to $1 million.

Under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”), financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as to enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with foreign financial institutions and foreign customers.

The USA PATRIOT Act requires financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs, and sets forth minimum standards for these programs, including:

8

Table of Contents

The Company is also required to comply with various corporate governance and financial reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as new rules and regulations adopted by the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and Nasdaq. In particular, the Company is required to report on internal controls as part of its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2011 pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Company has evaluated its controls, including compliance with the SEC rules on internal controls, and has and expects to continue to spend significant amounts of time and money on compliance with these rules. If the Company’s fails to comply with these internal control rules, it may materially adversely affect its reputation, its ability to obtain the necessary certifications to its financial statements, and the values of its securities. The Company’s assessment of its financial reporting controls as of December 31, 2011 are included elsewhere in this report with no material weaknesses reported.

Payment of Dividends

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The Company’s primary source of cash is dividends from the Bank. Prior regulatory approval is required if the total of all dividends declared by a state member bank (such as the Bank) in any calendar year will exceed the sum of such bank’s net profits for the year and its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus.

During 2011, the Bank paid cash dividends of approximately $3.2 million to the Company.

In addition, the Company and the Bank are subject to various general regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including requirements to maintain capital above regulatory minimums. The appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities are authorized to determine when the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice, and may prohibit such dividends. The Federal Reserve has indicated that paying dividends that deplete a state member bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve has indicated that depository institutions and their holding companies should generally pay dividends only out of current year’s operating earnings.

Under a Federal Reserve policy adopted in 2010, the board of directors of a bank holding company must consider different factors to ensure that its dividend level is prudent relative to maintaining a strong financial position, and is not based on overly optimistic earnings scenarios, such as potential events that could affect its ability to pay, while still maintaining a strong financial position. As a general matter, the Federal Reserve has indicated that the board of directors of a bank holding company should consult with the Federal Reserve and eliminate, defer or significantly reduce the bank holding company’s dividends if:

Capital

The Federal Reserve has risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and state member banks, respectively. These guidelines currently require a minimum ratio of capital to risk-weighted assets (including certain off-balance sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) of 8%. At least half of the total capital must consist of common equity, retained earnings and a limited amount of qualifying preferred stock, less goodwill and certain core deposit intangibles (“Tier 1 capital”). Voting common equity must be the predominant form of capital. The remainder may consist of non–qualifying preferred stock, qualifying subordinated, perpetual, and/or mandatory convertible debt, term subordinated debt and intermediate term preferred stock, up to 45% of pretax unrealized holding gains on available for sale equity securities with readily determinable market values that are prudently valued, and a limited amount of general loan loss allowance (“Tier 2 capital” and, together with Tier 1 capital, “Total Capital”). Many of these other capital items may be eliminated or restricted under the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III.

9

Table of Contents

In addition, the Federal Reserve has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and state member banks, which provide for a minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to adjusted average quarterly assets (“leverage ratio”) equal to 3%, plus an additional cushion of 1.0% to 2.0%, if the institution has less than the highest regulatory rating. The minimum capital ratios sought by the regulators are increasing, and a 5% leverage ratio is the minimum for the largest institutions. The guidelines also provide that institutions experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets. Higher capital may be required in individual cases and depending upon a bank holding company’s risk profile. All bank holding companies and banks are expected to hold capital commensurate with the level and nature of their risks including the volume and severity of their problem loans. Lastly, the Federal Reserve’s guidelines indicate that the Federal Reserve will continue to consider a “tangible Tier 1 leverage ratio” (deducting all intangibles) in evaluating proposals for expansion or new activity. The level of Tier 1 capital to risk-adjusted assets is becoming more widely used by the bank regulators to measure capital adequacy. The Federal Reserve has not advised the Company or the Bank of any specific minimum leverage ratio or tangible Tier 1 leverage ratio applicable to them. Under Federal Reserve policies, bank holding companies are generally expected to operate with capital positions well above the minimum ratios. The Federal Reserve believes the risk-based ratios do not take into account the quality of capital and interest rate, liquidity, market and operational risks. Accordingly, supervisory assessments of capital adequacy may differ significantly from conclusions based solely on the level of an organization’s risk-based capital ratio.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), among other things, requires the federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” regarding depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. FDICIA establishes five capital tiers: “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon how its capital levels compare to various relevant capital measures and certain other factors, as established by regulation.

All of the federal bank regulatory agencies have regulations establishing risk-adjusted measures and relevant capital levels implementing the “prompt corrective action” standards. The relevant capital measures are the total capital ratio, Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio, as well as, the leverage capital ratio. Under the regulations, a state member bank will be: (i) well capitalized if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% or greater, a leverage capital ratio of 5% or greater and is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action directive by a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure; (ii) “adequately capitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4% or greater, and generally has a leverage capital ratio of 4% or greater; (iii) “undercapitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4% or generally has a leverage capital ratio of less than 2%; (iv) “significantly undercapitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3% or a leverage capital ratio of less than 3%; or (v) “critically undercapitalized” if its tangible equity is equal to or less than 2% to total assets. The federal bank regulatory agencies have authority to require additional capital, and have been indicating that higher capital levels may be required in light of current market conditions and risk.

The Dodd–Frank Act significantly modified the capital rules applicable to the Company and calls for increased capital, generally.

Information concerning the Company’s and the Bank’s regulatory capital ratios at December 31, 2011 is included in “Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.”

Depository institutions that are no longer “well capitalized” for bank regulatory purposes must receive a waiver from the FDIC prior to accepting or renewing brokered deposits. FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including paying dividends) or paying any management fee to its holding company, if the depository institution would thereafter be undercapitalized. Institutions that are “undercapitalized” are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan for approval. A depository institution’s parent holding

10

Table of Contents

company must guarantee that the institution will comply with such capital restoration plan. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of 5% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized and the amount necessary to bring the institution into compliance with applicable capital standards. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is significantly undercapitalized. If the controlling holding company fails to fulfill its obligations under FDICIA and files (or has filed against it) a petition under the federal Bankruptcy Code, the claim against the holding company’s capital restoration obligation would be entitled to a priority in such bankruptcy proceeding over third party creditors of the bank holding company. Significantly undercapitalized depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become adequately capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. Critically undercapitalized institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Because the Company and the Bank exceed applicable capital requirements, the respective managements of the Company and the Bank do not believe that the provisions of FDICIA have had or will have any material impact on the Company and the Bank or their respective operations.

Historically, the minimum risk-based capital requirements adopted by the federal banking agencies typically followed the Capital Accord of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”). On December 16, 2010, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision issued the final text of a comprehensive update of the 2004 Basel II Accord (“Basel III”). On January 13, 2011, the Basel Committee issued an Annex to Basel III containing the final elements of reform to the definition of regulatory capital. Basel III seeks to significantly increase global capital and liquidity requirements, and adds leverage standards or an international basis. Basel III is not itself binding, but rather must be adopted into United States law or regulation before affecting banks supervised in the United States. Moreover, if adopted in the United States, Basil III likely would be subject to a multi-year transition period.

Basel III significantly revises the definitions of regulatory capital. In addition to higher minimum capital standards, Basel III also institutes new capital conservation and countercyclical buffers that could, if fully implemented, will require additional capital, especially for the largest institutions.

Basel III also introduces new liquidity requirements, including two measures of liquidity based on risk exposure. One measures liquidity on a 30-day time horizon under an acute liquidity stress scenario and one is designed to promote more medium and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banks over a longer horizon. Although United States banking regulators are expected to revise their capital standards and possibly their liquidity guidance in light of Basel III and the new Basel Committee’s liquidity tests, no proposals have been published and the exact terms, effects and timing of the U.S. regulators’ implementation of the new Basel Committee rules cannot be predicted.

FDICIA

FDICIA directs that each federal bank regulatory agency prescribe standards for depository institutions and depository institution holding companies relating to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth composition, a maximum ratio of classified assets to capital, minimum earnings sufficient to absorb losses, a minimum ratio of market value to book value for publicly traded shares, and such other standards as the federal bank regulatory agencies deem appropriate.

Enforcement Policies and Actions

The Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent monitor compliance with laws and regulations. Violations of laws and regulations, or other unsafe and unsound practices, may result in these agencies imposing fines or penalties, cease and desist orders, or taking other enforcement actions. Under certain circumstances, these agencies may enforce these remedies directly against officers, directors, employees and others participating in the affairs of a bank or bank holding company.

Fiscal and Monetary Policy

Banking is a business that depends on interest rate differentials. In general, the difference between the interest paid by a bank on its deposits and its other borrowings, and the interest received by a bank on its loans and securities holdings, constitutes the major portion of a bank’s earnings. Thus, the earnings and growth of the Company and the Bank, as well as the values of, and earnings on, its assets and the costs of its deposits and other liabilities are subject to the influence of economic conditions generally, both domestic and foreign, and also to the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States and its agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve regulates the supply of money through various means, including open market dealings in United States government securities, the discount rate at which banks may borrow from the Federal Reserve, and the reserve requirements on deposits.

11

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve lowered its target federal funds rate from 5.25% per annum on August 7, 2007 to 3.00% on January 30, 2008, and finally to 0-0.25% on December 16, 2008, where it remains today, and which the Federal Reserve has announced it intends to maintain through 2014. The Federal Reserve’s discount rate, at 5.57% per annum on September 17, 2007, was steadily lowered to 4.75% on January 2, 2008, to 1.25% on October 28, 2008, and to 0.50% on December 16, 2008, where it remained until an increase on February 19, 2010 to 0.75%.

On April 30, 2010, the Federal Reserve Board amended Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) authorizing the Reserve Banks to offer term deposits to institutions certain institutions. Term deposits, which are deposits with specified maturity dates, will be offered through a Term Deposit Facility (TDF). Term deposits will be one of several tools that the Federal Reserve could employ to drain reserves when policymakers judge that it is appropriate to begin moving to a less accommodative stance of monetary policy.

Beginning October 6, 2008, the Federal Reserve has been paying interest on depository institutions’ required and excess reserve balances. The payment of interest on excess reserve balances was expected to give the Federal Reserve greater scope to use its lending programs to address conditions in credit markets while also maintaining the federal funds rate close to the target rate established by the Federal Open Market Committee. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it may use this authority to implement a mandatory policy to reduce excess liquidity, in the event of inflation or the threat of inflation.

In 2011, the Federal Reserve repealed Regulation Q to permit banks to pay interest on demand deposits. The Federal Reserve has also engaged in several rounds of quantitative easing (“QE”) to reduce interest rates by buying bonds, and “Operation Twist” to reduce long term interest rates by buying long term bonds, while selling intermediate term securities.

The nature and timing of any changes in such policies and their effect on the Company and the Bank cannot be predicted.

FDIC Insurance Assessments

The Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC’s DIF, and the Bank is subject to FDIC assessments for its deposit insurance, as well as assessments by the FDIC to pay interest on Financing Corporation (“FICO”) bonds.

The FDIC issued a final rule effective April 1, 2009 that changed the way that the FDIC’s assessment system differentiates for risk, made corresponding changes to assessment rates beginning with the second quarter of 2009, and made other changes to the deposit insurance assessment rules. These rules included a decrease for long-term unsecured debt, including senior and subordinated debt and, for small institutions with assets under $10 billion, a portion of Tier 1 capital; (2) an increase for secured liabilities above a threshold amount; and (3) an increase for brokered deposits above a threshold amount. These assessment rules increased assessments for banks that use brokered deposits above a threshold level to fund “rapid asset growth”. As a result, we were required to pay significantly increased premiums or additional special assessments.

In 2009, the Bank paid $1.2 million in FDIC insurance premiums, including $0.4 million for a special industry-wide FDIC deposit insurance assessment of five basis points of an institution’s assets minus Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009. In addition, to restore the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, all FDIC-insured institutions were required to prepay their deposit premiums for the next 3 years on December 30, 2009. The FDIC ruling also provided for maintaining the assessment rates at their current levels through the end of 2010, with a uniform increase of $0.03 per $100 of covered deposits effective January 1, 2011. On December 30, 2009, the Bank prepaid $3.5 million of FDIC insurance premiums for the calendar quarters ending December 31, 2009 through December 31, 2012.

Effective April 1, 2011, and as discussed above (see Recent Regulatory Developments), the FDIC began calculating assessments based on an institution’s average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity in accordance with changes mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Changes to assessment rates were developed to approximate the same inflow of premiums to the FDIC, but with a shifting of the burden of deposit insurance premiums toward those depository institutions that rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits. Initial base assessment rates applicable to second quarter 2011 assessments (and prospectively until the DIF reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent) were as follows:

12

Table of Contents

An institution’s overall rate may be higher by as much as 10 basis points or lower by as much as 5 basis points depending on adjustments to the base rate for unsecured debt and/or brokered deposits. Furthermore, under the new system, different rate schedules will take effect when the DIF reserve ratio reaches certain levels. For example, for banks in risk category II, the initial base assessment rate will be 14 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is below 1.15 percent, 12 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is between 1.15 percent and 2 percent, 10 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is between 2 percent and 2.5 percent and 9 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is 2.5 percent or higher.

Since inception of the new schedule, the Bank’s overall rate for assessment calculations has been 9 basis points or less, which is within the range of assessment rates for Risk Category I. The new methodology has reduced our expense related to FDIC insurance premiums in 2011 compared to 2010. In 2010, the Company recorded $1.0 million to expense for FDIC insurance premiums. In 2011, the Company recorded $0.7 million in expense for FDIC insurance premiums, comprised of expense recognized for the first quarter of 2011 (under the old basis), and expense recognized for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2011, respectively (under the new basis).

In addition, all FDIC-insured institutions are required to pay a pro rata portion of the interest due on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation (“FICO”). FICO assessments are set by the FDIC quarterly and ranged from 1.14 basis points in the first quarter of 2009 to 1.02 basis points in the last quarter of 2009, 1.06 basis points in the first quarter of 2010 to 1.04 basis points in the last quarter of 2010, and 1.02 basis points in the first quarter of 2011 to 0.68 basis points in the last quarter of 2011. The FICO assessment rate for the first quarter of 2012 is 0.66 basis points. FICO assessments of approximately $63,000, $62,000 and $55,000 were paid to the FDIC in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.

TARP Capital Purchase Program and Small Business Lending Fund

The Company elected not to participate in the TARP Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”) or any other TARP Program, or under the Small Business Lending Fund (the “SBLF”), under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. We believed that we did not need funding under these programs.

Lending Practices

The federal bank regulatory agencies released guidance in 2006 on “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending” (the “Guidance”). The Guidance defines commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans as exposures secured by raw land, land development and construction (including 1-4 family residential construction), multi-family property, and non-farm nonresidential property where the primary or a significant source of repayment is derived from rental income associated with the property (that is, loans for which 50% or more of the source of repayment comes from third party, non-affiliated, rental income) or the proceeds of the sale, refinancing, or permanent financing of this property. Loans to REITs and unsecured loans to developers that closely correlate to the inherent risks in CRE markets would also be considered CRE loans under the Guidance. Loans on owner occupied CRE are generally excluded.

The Guidance requires that appropriate processes be in place to identify, monitor and control risks associated with real estate lending concentrations. This could include enhanced strategic planning, CRE underwriting policies, risk management, internal controls, portfolio stress testing and risk exposure limits as well as appropriately designed compensation and incentive programs. Higher allowances for loan losses and capital levels may also be required. The Guidance is triggered when either:

13

Table of Contents

The Guidance also applies when a bank has a sharp increase in CRE loans or has significant concentrations of CRE secured by a particular property type.

The Guidance did not apply to the Bank’s CRE lending activities at year-end 2011. At December 31, 2011, the Bank had outstanding $39.8 million in construction and land development loans and $130.0 million in total CRE loans (excluding owner occupied), which represent approximately 54.5% and 177.7%, respectively, of the Bank’s total risk-based capital at December 31, 2011. The Company has always had significant exposures to loans secured by commercial real estate due to the nature of its markets and the loan needs of both its retail and commercial customers. The Company believes its long term experience in CRE lending, underwriting policies, internal controls, and other policies currently in place, as well as improvements in its loan and credit monitoring and administration procedures, are generally appropriate to managing its concentrations as required under the Guidance. The federal bank regulators are looking more closely at the risks of various assets and asset categories and risk management, and the need for additional rules regarding liquidity, as well as capital rules that better reflect risk, and implement the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III.

Other Dodd-Frank Act Provisions

The Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law on July 21, 2011. In addition to the capital, liquidity and FDIC deposit insurance changes discussed above, some of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act we believe may affect us are set forth below.

Financial Stability Oversight Council. The Dodd-Frank Act creates the Financial Stability Oversight Council or “FSOC”, which is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and composed of expertise from various financial services regulators. The FSOC has responsibility for identifying risks and responding to emerging threats to financial stability.

Executive Compensation. The Dodd-Frank Act provides for a say on pay for shareholders of all public companies. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, each company must give its shareholders the opportunity to vote on the compensation of its executives at least once every three years. The Dodd-Frank Act also adds disclosure and voting requirements for golden parachute compensation that is payable to named executive officers in connection with sale transactions. The SEC has indicated that it intends to issue these rules in the first half of 2012

The SEC is required under the Dodd-Frank Act to issue rules obligating companies to disclose in proxy materials for annual meetings of shareholders information that shows the relationship between executive compensation actually paid to their named executive officers and their financial performance, taking into account any change in the value of the shares of a company’s stock and dividends or distributions. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides that a company’s compensation committee may only select a compensation consultant, legal counsel or other advisor after taking into consideration factors to be identified by the SEC that affect the independence of a compensation consultant, legal counsel or other advisor.

Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Act adds section 10D to the Exchange Act. Section 10D directs the SEC to adopt rules prohibiting a national securities exchange or association from listing a company unless it develops, implements, and discloses a policy regarding the recovery of executive compensation in certain circumstances. The policy must require that, in the event an accounting restatement due to material noncompliance with a financial reporting requirement under the federal securities laws, the company will recover from any current or former executive officer any incentive-based compensation (including stock options) received during the three year period preceding the date of the restatement, which is in excess of what would have been paid based on the restated financial statements. There is no requirement of wrongdoing by the executive, and the claw-back is mandatory and applies to all executive officers. Section 954 augments section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), which requires the CEO and CFO to return any bonus or other incentive or equity-based compensation received during the 12 months following the date of similarly inaccurate financial statements, as well as any profit received from the sale of employer securities during the period, if the restatement was due to misconduct. Unlike section 304, under which only the SEC may seek recoupment, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the company to seek the return of compensation. The SEC currently intends to issue proposed rules under Section 954 in the first half of 2012.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC, by rule, to require that each company disclose in the proxy materials for its annual meetings whether an employee or board member is permitted to purchase financial instruments designed to hedge or offset decreases in the market value of equity securities granted as compensation or otherwise held by the employee or board member.

Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking by covered financial institutions and are deemed to be excessive, or that may lead to material losses. Since it has less than $1 billion in assets the Company will not be subject currently to rules proposed by the federal bank regulators on February 7, 2011 to implement this provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. However, on June 21, 2010, the federal bank

14

Table of Contents

regulators adopted Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies, which is targeted to larger, more complex organizations than the Company, includes principles that have been applied to smaller organizations similar to the Company. This Guidance applies to incentive compensation to executives as well as employees, who, “individually or a part of a group, have the ability to expose the relevant banking organization to material amounts of risk.” Incentive compensation should:

• Provide employees incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward;

• Be compatible with effective controls and risk-management;

• Be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

Other. The Dodd-Frank Act requires approximately 240-300 rulemakings and an estimated 130 studies. Many of the rules have not yet been proposed, and many are complex and require consultation among a variety of agencies, and their effects upon us, whether directly, or indirectly on the regulation and cost imposed on the markets and on others with whom we do business cannot be predicted.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act clarifies that the SEC may, but is not required to promulgate rules that would require that a company’s proxy materials include a nominee for the board of directors submitted by a shareholder.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires stock exchanges to have rules prohibiting their members from voting securities that they do not beneficially own (unless they have received voting instructions from the beneficial owner) with respect to the election of a member of the board of directors (other than an uncontested election of directors of an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940), executive compensation or any other significant matter, as determined by the SEC by rule.

Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act includes a number of provisions that are targeted at improving the reliability of credit ratings. The SEC has been charged with adopting various rules in this regard, and the federal regulators have proposed rules to implement the Act’s requirement to delete references to rating agency ratings for various purposes, including “investment securities,” which are permissible bank investments.

Consumer Issues. The Dodd-Frank Act created the “CFPB” that has the authority to implement regulations pursuant to numerous consumer protection laws and will have supervisory authority, including the power to conduct examination and take enforcement actions, with respect to depository institutions with more than $10 billion in consolidated assets. The federal bank regulators will examine and enforce compliance with the CFPB’s rules for institutions with $10 billion or fewer assets. The CFPB will also have new authority, among other things, to declare acts “unfair, deceptive or abusive” and to require certain consumer disclosures. The Act limits federal pre-emption of state consumer protection laws, and allows state enforcement of federal consumer protection rules.

Debit Card Interchange Fees. The Dodd-Frank Act provides for a set of new rules requiring that interchange transaction fees for electric debit transactions be “reasonable” and proportional to certain costs associated with processing the transactions. The FRB has established standards for assessing whether interchange fees are reasonable and proportional.

Derivatives. The Dodd-Frank Act requires a new regulatory system for the U.S. market for swaps and other over-the counter derivatives, which includes strict capital and margin requirements, central clearing of standardized over-the-counter derivatives, and heightened supervision of over-the-counter derivatives dealers and major market participants. These rules could increase the costs and collateral required to utilize derivatives that we could find useful to reduce our interest rate and other risks.

Other Legislative and Regulatory Changes

Various legislative and regulatory proposals regarding substantial changes in banking, and the regulation of banks, thrifts and other financial institutions, compensation, and the regulation of financial markets and their participants and financial instruments, and the regulators of all of these, as well as the taxation of these entities, are being considered by the executive branch of the federal government, Congress and various state governments, including Alabama. Certain of these proposals, if adopted, could significantly change the regulation or operations of banks and the financial services industry. New regulations and statutes are regularly proposed that contain wide-ranging proposals for altering the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of the nation’s financial institutions.

15

Table of Contents

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Any of the following risks could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition and an investment in our stock. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements, and our actual results may differ substantially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements.

There can be no assurance that recent legislation and administrative actions will improve the long term stability of the U.S. financial system.

Numerous actions by the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the FDIC, the SEC and other governmental authorities have been taken to address the liquidity and credit crisis that commenced in 2007. These measures include various laws regulations and other actions, including, but not limited to, those described under “Supervision and Regulation.”

We cannot predict the actual effects of the Dodd-Frank Act, various governmental, regulatory, and fiscal and monetary initiatives, studies and rulemakings which have been and may be enacted, adopted or proposed will have on the financial markets, our competitors, counterparties and customers and on us. The terms and costs of these activities, or the failure of these actions to continue to stabilize the financial markets, asset prices, market liquidity or a worsening of current financial market and economic conditions could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and the trading prices of our common stock.

Difficult market conditions have adversely affected our industry.

We are exposed to downturns in the U.S. economy, although the local markets in which we operate in East Alabama have not been as adversely affected as various other areas of the country. Although declines in the housing market appear to be stabilizing over the past year, the declines in home prices and high levels of foreclosures, unemployment and under-employment since 2007, have negatively affected the credit performance of mortgage loans and resulted in significant write-downs of asset values by various financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities as well as major commercial and investment banks. This market turmoil and the tightening of available credit have led to increased levels of commercial and consumer delinquencies, reduced consumer confidence, increased market volatility and reductions in business activity, although signs of stabilization and some recovery are beginning to evolve. Failures have increased among financial services companies, and various companies, weakened by market conditions, have merged with other institutions. We believe the following, among other things, may affect us in 2012:

16

Table of Contents

The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.

Our ability to engage in routine investment and banking transactions, as well as the quality and values of our investments in equity securities and obligations of other financial institutions, could be adversely affected by the actions, financial condition, and profitability of such other financial institutions with which we deal, including, without limitation, the FHLB and our correspondent banks. At December 31, 2011, the amortized cost of the Bank’s investments in FHLB common stock, individual issuer trust preferred securities of financial institutions, and pooled trust preferred securities of other financial institutions was approximately $4.4 million, $1.9 million, and $0.2 million, respectively. In 2009, Silverton Bank, N.A., one of our correspondent banks, failed, which had a material adverse effect on our 2009 results of operations. Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty and other relationships. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial institutions, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems, losses of depositor, creditor or counterparty confidence in certain institutions and could lead to losses or defaults by other institutions, and in some cases, failure of such institutions. Any losses, defaults by, or failures of, the institutions we do business with could adversely affect our holdings of the debt of and equity in, such other institutions, our participation interests in loans originated by other institutions, and our business, including our liquidity, financial condition and earnings.

Nonperforming assets take significant time to resolve and may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

At December 31, 2011, our nonaccrual loans totaled $10.4 million, or 2.8% of total loans. In addition, we had approximately $7.9 million of other real estate owned (“OREO”) at December 31, 2011. Our non-performing assets may adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans or OREO, and these assets require higher loan administration and other costs, thereby adversely affecting our income. Decreases in the value of these assets, or the underlying collateral, or in the related borrowers’ performance or financial condition, whether or not due to economic and market conditions beyond our control, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires commitments of time from management, which can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities. There can be no assurance that we will not experience increases in nonperforming loans in the future.

Our allowance for loan losses may prove inadequate or we may be negatively affected by credit risk exposures.

Our business depends on the creditworthiness of our customers. We periodically review our allowance for loan losses for adequacy considering economic conditions and trends, collateral values and credit quality indicators, including past charge-off experience and levels of past due loans and nonperforming assets. We cannot be certain that our allowance for loan losses will be adequate over time to cover credit losses in our portfolio because of unanticipated adverse changes in the economy, market conditions or events adversely affecting specific customers, industries or markets. If the credit quality of our customer base materially decreases, if the risk profile of a market, industry or group of customers changes materially or weaknesses in the real estate markets persist or worsen, borrower payment behaviors change, or if our allowance for loan losses is not adequate, our business, financial condition, including our liquidity and capital, and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Weaknesses in the real estate markets, including the secondary market for residential mortgage loans, may continue to adversely affect us.

The Lee County Association of Realtors (“LCAR”) reported that the average median residential home price in Lee County, Alabama for the quarter ended December 31, 2011 was $139,461, a decrease of 24.2% from the same quarter a year earlier. The number of homes sold during the quarter ended December 31, 2011 increased by 30.8% from the same quarter a year ago. LCAR also reported that residential inventory at December 31, 2011 was 1,047 homes, a decrease of 16.1% from a year earlier. The effects of ongoing mortgage market challenges, combined with the ongoing correction in residential real estate market prices and current levels of home sales, could result in further price reductions in single family home values, further adversely affecting the liquidity and value of collateral securing commercial loans for residential acquisition, construction and development, as well as residential mortgage loans that we hold, mortgage loan originations and gains on sale of mortgage loans. Declining real estate prices and higher interest rates charged on mortgage loans have caused higher delinquencies and losses on certain mortgage loans, generally, particularly second lien mortgages and home equity lines of credit. Significant ongoing disruptions in the secondary market for residential mortgage loans have limited the market for and liquidity of most mortgage loans other than conforming Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and VHA loans. These trends could continue. Continued declines in real estate values, or low home sales volumes and financial stress on

17

Table of Contents

borrowers as a result of job losses, interest rate resets on adjustable rate mortgage loans or other factors could have further adverse effects on borrowers that result in higher delinquencies and greater charge-offs in future periods, which would adversely affect our financial condition, including capital and liquidity, or our results of operations. In the event our allowance for loan losses is insufficient to cover such losses, our earnings, capital and liquidity could be adversely affected. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest purchasers of residential mortgage loans remain in federal conservatorship and the timing and effects of their resolution cannot be predicted.

Weaknesses in real estate markets may adversely affect the length of time required to dispose of, and the values realized from the sale of our OREO. We have no control over the sale of other real estate owned where the FDIC has the controlling interest as a result of the FDIC receivership of Silverton Bank.

Our concentration of commercial real estate loans could result in further increased loan losses, and adversely affect our business, earnings, and financial condition.

Commercial real estate or CRE is cyclical and poses risks of possible loss due to concentration levels and risks of the assets being financed, which include loans for the acquisition and development of land and residential construction. We had 53.9 % of our portfolio in CRE loans, as defined by the Federal Reserve, at year-end 2011 compared to 56.4 % at year-end 2010. The banking regulators continue to give CRE lending greater scrutiny, and require banks with higher levels of CRE loans to implement improved underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as higher levels of allowances for possible losses and capital levels as a result of CRE lending growth and exposures. Continued low demand for CRE, reduced availability of, and higher costs for, CRE lending could adversely affect our CRE loans and sales of our OREO, and therefore our earnings and financial condition, including our capital and liquidity.

We may be contractually obligated to repurchase mortgage loans we sold to third parties on terms unfavorable to us.

As a routine part of its business, the Company originates mortgage loans that it subsequently sells in the secondary market, including to governmental agencies and government sponsored utilities such as Fannie Mae. In connection with the sale of these loans, the Company makes customary representations and warranties, the breach of which could result in the Company being required to repurchase the loan or loans. Furthermore, the amount paid may be greater than the fair value of the loan or loans at the time of the repurchase.

Servicing requirements may change and require us to incur additional costs and risks.

On February 9, 2012, the DOJ and various state attorneys general announced a $25 billion agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers to address mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. While we were not a party to the settlement or a subject of the joint governmental investigation, we cannot be assured that the settlement may ultimately affect mortgage servicing standards generally, which could increase compliance and other costs of servicing residential mortgage loans. This could reduce our income from servicing these types of loans and make it more difficult and costly to timely realize the value of collateral securing such loans upon a borrower default.

Costs of insuring our deposits remain high.

FDIC insurance premiums increased substantially beginning in 2009 and we expect to pay significantly higher FDIC insurance premiums and guarantee fees in the future. Market developments have significantly depleted the FDIC’s DIF and reduced the FDIC’s ratio of reserves to insured deposits. The FDIC has also required all FDIC-insured institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, which we paid on December 30, 2009, and has implemented a new risk-based assessment system upon all liabilities (not just insured deposits) and increased the DIF’s designated reserve ratio, as described more fully under “Supervision and Regulation – FDIC Insurance Assessments.”

We have experienced high levels of market volatility.

The capital and credit markets have experienced volatility and disruption since 2007. In some cases, the markets have produced downward pressure on stock prices and credit availability for certain issuers without regard to those issuers’ underlying financial condition or performance. Although market disruptions and volatility appear more stable currently, there can be no assurance that we will not experience future market conditions and volatility, which may have material adverse effects on our ability to access capital and on our business, financial condition (including liquidity) and results of operations.

18

Table of Contents

Our ability to realize our deferred tax assets may be further reduced in the future if our estimates of future taxable income from our operations and tax planning strategies do not support this amount, and the amount of net operating loss carry-forwards realizable for income tax purposes may be reduced under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code by sales of our capital securities.

We are allowed to carry-back losses for five years for Federal income tax purposes as otherwise permitted generally under the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 which was signed into law on November 6, 2009. As of December 31, 2011, we had net deferred tax assets of $2.4 million after we recorded $0.5 million of valuation allowance based on management’s estimation of the likelihood of those deferred tax assets being realized. These and future deferred tax assets may be further reduced in the future if our estimates of future taxable income from our operations and tax planning strategies do not support the amount of the deferred tax asset. The amount of net operating loss carry-forwards realizable for income tax purposes potentially could be further reduced under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code by a significant offering and/or other sales of our capital securities.

Our future success is dependent on our ability to compete effectively in highly competitive markets.

The East Alabama banking markets in which we do business are highly competitive and our future growth and success will depend on our ability to compete effectively in these markets. We compete for loans, deposits and other financial services in our markets with other local, regional and national commercial banks, thrifts, credit unions, mortgage lenders, and securities and insurance brokerage firms. Many of our competitors offer products and services different from us, and have substantially greater resources, name recognition and market presence than we do, which benefits them in attracting business. In addition, larger competitors may be able to price loans and deposits more aggressively than we are able to and have broader and more diverse customer and geographic bases to draw upon. The Dodd-Frank Act allows others to branch into our markets more easily from other states.

Our success depends on local economic conditions where we operate.

Our success depends on the general economic conditions in the geographic markets we serve in Alabama. The local economic conditions in our markets have a significant effect on our commercial, real estate and construction loans, the ability of borrowers to repay these loans and the value of the collateral securing these loans. Adverse changes in the economic conditions of the Southeastern United States in general, or in one or more of our local markets could negatively affect our results of operations and our profitability.

Our cost of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, interest rates, inflation and competitive pressures.

The Federal Reserve has taken aggressive actions to reduce interest rates generally, and the federal government continues large deficit spending. Our cost of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, interest rates and competitive pressures, and potential inflation resulting from government deficit spending. Traditionally, we have obtained funds principally through local deposits and borrowings from other institutional lenders. Generally, we believe local deposits are a cheaper and more stable source of funds than borrowings because interest rates paid for local deposits are typically lower than interest rates charged for borrowings from other institutional lenders. See “Fiscal and Monetary Policy”.

The Federal Reserve has acknowledged the possibility of further recession and deflation. Should this occur, the financial services industry and our business could be adversely affected.

The recovery of the U.S. economy continues to progress slowly; consumer confidence remains low, unemployment remains high at 8.5 % for December 2011, and the housing market remains an important downside risk, and prices may continue at current low levels or fall further. Given the concerns about the U.S. economy, U.S. employers continue to approach hiring with caution, and as a result unemployment may continue at high levels. Monetary and fiscal policy measures, including the two-year extension of the existing federal personal income tax rates through 2012, may adversely affect the recovery, return unemployment to lower levels, and promote long-term stability in the financial markets. Any shift from fiscal stimulus efforts to fiscal restraint and higher income and other taxes to reduce government deficits could adversely affect the economy and cause instability in the financial markets. Various governments in Europe have announced budget reductions and/or austerity measures as a means to limit fiscal budget deficits as a result of the economic crisis. Additionally, many state and local governments in the U.S. have also implemented budget reductions. Such economic factors could affect us in a variety of substantial and unpredictable ways, as well as affect our borrowers’ ability and willingness to meet their repayment obligations. These factors could have a material adverse effect on our results of operation and financial condition, liquidity and earnings.

19

Table of Contents

Our profitability and liquidity may be affected by changes in interest rates and interest rate levels, the shape of the yield curve and economic conditions.

Our profitability depends upon net interest income, which is the difference between interest earned on assets, and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Net interest income will be adversely affected if market interest rates change such that the interest we pay on deposits and borrowings increases faster than the interest earned on loans and investments. Interest rates, and consequently our results of operations, are affected by general economic conditions (domestic and foreign) and fiscal and monetary policies, as well as expectations of these rates and policies. Decreases in interest rates generally increase the market values of fixed-rate, interest-bearing investments and loans held, and increase the values of loan sales and mortgage loan activities. However, the production of mortgages and other loans and the value of collateral securing our loans, are dependent on demand within the markets we serve, as well as interest rates. The levels of sales, as well as the values of real estate in our markets, have declined. Declining interest rates reflect efforts by the Federal Reserve to stimulate the economy, but such efforts may not be effective, and otherwise adversely affect our net interest margin and thus may negatively affect our results of operations and financial condition, liquidity and earnings.

Increases in interest rates generally decrease the market values of fixed-rate, interest-bearing investments and loans held and the production of mortgage and other loans and the value of collateral securing our loans, and therefore may adversely affect our liquidity and earnings, to the extent not offset by potential increases in our net interest margin.

Liquidity risks could affect operations and jeopardize our financial condition.

Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our funding sources include federal funds purchased securities sold under repurchase agreements, core and non-core deposits, and short- and long-term debt. We are also members of the FHLB and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, where we can obtain advances collateralized with eligible assets. We maintain a portfolio of securities that can be used as a source of liquidity. There are other sources of liquidity available to the Company or the Bank should they be needed, including our ability to acquire additional non-core deposits. We may be able, depending upon market conditions, to issue and sell debt securities, and preferred or common securities in public or private transactions. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities or on terms which are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry or economy in general. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as further disruption in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry in light of the recent turmoil faced by banking organizations and the continued deterioration in credit markets, as well as the financial condition, liquidity and profitability of the financial institutions we deal with.

We are subject to extensive regulation that could limit or restrict our activities and adversely affect our earnings.

We and our subsidiaries are regulated by several regulators, including the Federal Reserve, the Alabama Superintendent, the SEC and the FDIC. Our success is affected by state and federal regulations affecting banks and bank holding companies, and the securities markets, and our costs of compliance could adversely affect our earnings. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors, not shareholders. The financial services industry also is subject to frequent legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes, the effects of which cannot be predicted. Federal bank regulatory agencies and the Treasury, as well as the Congress and the President, are evaluating the regulation of banks, other financial services providers and the financial markets and such changes, if any, could require us to maintain more capital and liquidity, and restrict our activities, which could adversely affect our growth, profitability and financial condition.

Changes in accounting and tax rules applicable to banks could adversely affect our financial conditions and results of operations.

From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes can be hard to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in us restating prior period financial statements.

20

Table of Contents

We are subject to internal control reporting requirements that increase compliance costs and failure to comply timely could adversely affect our reputation and the value of our securities.

We are required to comply with various corporate governance and financial reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules and regulations adopted by the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and Nasdaq. In particular, we are required to report on internal controls as part of our annual report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We expect to continue to spend significant amounts of time and money on compliance with these rules. Our failure to comply with these internal control rules may materially adversely affect our reputation, ability to obtain the necessary certifications to financial statements, and the value of our securities.

We are required to maintain capital to meet regulatory requirements, and if we fail to maintain sufficient capital, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be adversely affected.

We and the Bank must meet regulatory capital requirements and maintain sufficient liquidity, including liquidity at the Company, as well as the Bank. If we fail to meet these capital and other regulatory requirements, including more rigorous requirements arising from our regulators implementation of Basel III, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected. Our failure to remain “well capitalized” and “well managed” for bank regulatory purposes could affect customer confidence, our ability to grow, our costs of funds and FDIC insurance, our ability to raise brokered deposits, our ability to pay dividends on common stock, our ability to make acquisitions, and we would no longer meet the requirements for becoming a financial holding company.

The Dodd-Frank Act restricts our future issuance of trust preferred securities and cumulative preferred securities as eligible Tier 1 risk-based capital for purposes of the regulatory capital guidelines for bank holding companies.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, banks and thrift holding companies with assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009 will be permitted to include trust preferred securities that were issued before May 19, 2010 as Tier 1 capital, only bank holding companies with assets of less than $500 million will be permitted to continue to issue trust preferred securities and have them count as Tier 1 capital. Accordingly, should we determine it is advisable, or should our regulators require us, based upon new capital or liquidity regulations or otherwise, to raise additional Tier 1 risk-based capital, we would not be able to issue additional trust preferred securities, and would instead have to issue preferred stock or common equity. To the extent we issue new equity, it could result in dilution to our shareholders. To the extent we issue preferred stock, dividends on the preferred stock, unlike distributions paid on trust preferred securities, would not be tax deductible.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed or on favorable terms.

We anticipate that our current capital resources will satisfy our capital requirements for the foreseeable future under currently effective rules. We may, however, need to raise additional capital to support our growth or currently unanticipated losses, or to meet the needs of our communities, resulting from failures or cutbacks by our competitors, and new capital rules being considered, including Basel III. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend, among other things, on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are currently disrupted and limited by events outside our control, and on our financial performance. If we cannot raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be limited.

Future acquisitions and expansion activities may disrupt our business, dilute shareholder value and adversely affect our operating results.

We regularly evaluate potential acquisitions and expansion opportunities. To the extent that we grow through acquisitions, we cannot assure you that we will be able to adequately or profitably manage this growth. Acquiring other banks, branches, or businesses, as well as other geographic and product expansion activities, involve various risks including:

21

Table of Contents

We may engage in FDIC-assisted transactions, which could present additional risks to our business.

We may have opportunities to acquire the assets and liabilities of failed banks in FDIC-assisted transactions, which present the risks of acquisitions, although generally, as well as some risks specific to these transactions. Although these FDIC-assisted transactions typically provide for FDIC assistance to an acquiror to mitigate certain risks, which may include loss-sharing, where the FDIC absorbs most losses on covered assets and provides some indemnity, we would be subject to many of the same risks we would face in acquiring another bank in a negotiated transaction, without FDIC assistance, including risks associated with pricing such transactions, the risks of loss of deposits and maintaining customer relationships and failure to realize the anticipated acquisition benefits in the amounts and within the timeframes we expect. In addition, because these acquisitions provide for limited diligence and negotiation of terms, these transactions may require additional resources and time, servicing acquired problem loans and costs related to integration of personnel and operating systems, the establishment of processes to service acquired assets, require us to raise additional capital, which may be dilutive to our existing shareholders. If we are unable to manage these risks, FDIC-assisted acquisitions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Attractive acquisition opportunities may not be available to us in the future.

While we seek continued organic growth, we also may consider the acquisition of other businesses. We expect that other banking and financial companies, many of which have significantly greater resources, will compete with us to acquire financial services businesses. This competition could increase prices for potential acquisitions that we believe are attractive. Also, acquisitions are subject to various regulatory approvals. If we fail to receive the appropriate regulatory approvals, we will not be able to consummate an acquisition that we believe is in our best interests, and regulatory approvals could contain conditions that reduce the anticipated benefits of any transaction. Among other things, our regulators consider our capital, liquidity, profitability, regulatory compliance and levels of goodwill and intangibles when considering acquisition and expansion proposals. Any acquisition could be dilutive to our earnings and shareholders’ equity per share of our common stock.

Technological changes affect our business, and we may have fewer resources than many competitors to invest in technological improvements.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to serving clients better, the effective use of technology may increase efficiency and may enable financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to use technology to provide products and services that provide convenience to customers and to create additional efficiencies in operations. We may need to make significant additional capital investments in technology in the future, and we may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services. Many competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements.

Our information systems may experience a interruption or security breach.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems, including those provided by third-party service providers, to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption, or security breach of these systems could result in failures or disruptions which could affect our customers’ privacy and our customer relationships, generally. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the possible failure interruption, “cyber-attack”, or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. In addition to the immediate costs of any failure, interruption or security breach, including those at our third-party service providers, these events could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

22

Table of Contents

Severe weather, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism or other external events could have significant effects on our business.

Severe weather and natural disasters, including hurricanes and tornados, acts of war or terrorism or other external events could have a significant effect on our ability to conduct business. Such events could affect the stability of our deposit base; impair the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, impair the value of collateral securing loans, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue and/or cause us to incur additional expenses. Although management has established disaster recovery policies and procedures, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to continue to pay dividends to shareholders in the future is subject to profitability, capital, liquidity and regulatory requirements and these limitations may prevent us from paying dividends in the future.

Cash available to pay dividends to our shareholders is derived primarily from dividends paid to the Company by the Bank. The ability of the Bank to pay dividends, as well as our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, will continue to be subject to and limited by the results of operations of our subsidiaries and our need to maintain appropriate liquidity and capital at all levels of our business consistent with regulatory requirements and the needs of our businesses. See “Supervision and Regulation”.

A limited trading market exists for our common shares, which could lead to price volatility.

Your ability to sell or purchase common shares depends upon the existence of an active trading market for our common stock. Although our common stock is quoted on the Nasdaq Global Market, the volume of trades on any given day has been limited historically. As a result, you may be unable to sell or purchase shares of our common stock at the volume, price and time that you desire. Additionally, a fair valuation of the purchase or sales price of our common stock also depends upon an active trading market, and thus the price you receive for a thinly-traded stock such as common stock, may not reflect its true value. The limited trading market for our common stock may cause fluctuations in the market value of our common stock to be exaggerated, leading to price volatility in excess of that which would occur in a more active trading market.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

The Bank conducts its business from its main office and ten full-service branches. The Bank also operates loan production offices in Montgomery and Phenix City, Alabama. The bank owns its main office building, which is located in downtown Auburn, Alabama, and has approximately 16,150 square feet of space. The original building was constructed in 1964, and an addition was completed in 1981. Portions of the building have been renovated to accommodate growth and changes in the Bank’s operational structure and to adapt to technological changes. The main office building has paved parking for 84 vehicles. The main office offers the full line of the Bank’s services and has two ATMs, including one walk-up ATM and one drive-through ATM. The Bank leases a drive-in facility located directly across the street from its main office. This drive-in facility has five drive-through lanes and a walk-up window.

The Bank’s Auburn Kroger branch was opened in August 1988 and is located in the Kroger supermarket in the Corner Village Shopping Center in Auburn, Alabama. The bank leases approximately 500 square feet of space for this branch. In September 2008, the Bank entered into a new lease agreement with the Kroger Corporation for five years with options for two 5-year extensions. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s deposit and other services including an ATM, except safe deposit boxes.

The Opelika branch is located in Opelika, Alabama. This branch, built in 1991, is owned by the Bank and has approximately 4,000 square feet of space. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services and has drive-through windows and an ATM. This branch offers parking for approximately 36 vehicles.

The Bank’s Phenix City branch was opened in August 1998 in the Wal-Mart shopping center in Phenix City, Alabama, about 35 miles southeast of Auburn, Alabama. The bank leases approximately 500 square feet of space in the Wal-Mart. In September 2010, the Bank entered into a new three-year lease agreement. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s deposit and other services including an ATM, except safe deposit boxes.

23

Table of Contents

The Bank’s Hurtsboro branch was opened in June 1999. This branch is located in Hurtsboro, Alabama, about 35 miles south of Auburn, Alabama. The Bank owns this branch, which has approximately 1,000 square feet of space. The Bank leases the land for this branch from a third party. In June 2009, the Bank exercised its option to extend the lease for another five years. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services including safe deposit boxes, a drive-through window and an ATM. This branch offers parking for approximately 12 vehicles, including a handicapped ramp.

The Bank’s Auburn Wal-Mart Supercenter branch was opened in September 2000 inside the Wal-Mart shopping center on the south side of Auburn, Alabama. The lease is for approximately 700 square feet of space in the Wal-Mart. In September 2010, the Bank exercised its option to extend the lease for another five years. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s deposit and other services, including an ATM, except safe deposit boxes.

The Bank’s Notasulga branch was opened in August 2001. This branch is located in Notasulga, Alabama, about 15 miles south of Auburn, Alabama. This branch is owned by the Bank and has approximately 1,344 square feet of space. The Bank leased the land for this branch from a third party. In May 2009, the Bank’s land lease renewed for another three year term.This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services including safe deposit boxes and a drive-through window. This branch offers parking for approximately 11 vehicles, including a handicapped ramp.

In July 2002, the Bank’s Opelika Wal-Mart Supercenter branch was opened inside the Wal-Mart shopping center in Opelika, Alabama. In July 2007, the Bank exercised its option to extend the lease for another five years. The lease is for approximately 700 square feet of space in the Wal-Mart. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s deposits and other services including an ATM, except safe deposit boxes.

In November 2002, the Bank opened a loan production office in Phenix City, Alabama, about 35 miles south of Auburn, Alabama. In November 2011, the Bank renewed its lease for another year.

In July 2007, the Bank opened a new branch located in the Kroger supermarket in the TigerTown retail center in Opelika, Alabama. The Bank entered into a lease agreement with the Kroger Corporation for five years with options for two 5-year extensions. The Branch offers the full line of bank deposit and other services including an ATM, except for safe deposit boxes.

In February 2009, the Bank opened a branch located on Bent Creek Road in Auburn, Alabama. This branch is owned by the Bank and has approximately 4,000 square feet of space. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services and has drive-through windows and a drive-up ATM. This branch offers parking for approximately 29 vehicles.

In September 2011, the Bank opened a loan production office in Montgomery, Alabama, about 50 miles west of Auburn, Alabama. The Bank’s lease agreement will expire in two years.

In December 2011, the Bank opened a branch located on Fob James Drive in Valley, Alabama, about 30 miles northeast of Auburn, Alabama. This branch is owned by the Bank and has approximately 5,000 square feet of space. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services and has drive-through windows and a drive-up ATM. This branch offers parking for approximately 35 vehicles. Prior to December 2011, the Bank leased office space for a loan production office in Valley, Alabama. The loan production office was originally opened in September 2004.

In addition, the Bank owns a commercial office building, the AuburnBank Center (the “Center”), which is located next to the Bank’s main office. The Center has approximately 23,000 square feet of space and the Bank occupies approximately 80% of the building’s leasable square footage. The remaining leasable space is rented to outside third parties. The Bank’s mortgage division, data processing activities, as well as other operations, are located in the Center. The parking lot provides parking for approximately 120 vehicles.

The Bank also owns several parcels of land adjoining the main office and the Center. In 2012, the Bank plans to remove any unoccupied buildings located on these tracts in order to consolidate its main campus and build a new drive-through facility to replace the location it currently leases.

The Company owns a commercial office building (the “Hudson Building”) located across the street from the main office in downtown Auburn. The Hudson Building has two floors and a basement which contain approximately 14,500 square feet of leasable space. This building is rented by unaffiliated third-party tenants.

24

Table of Contents

In the normal course of its business, the Company and the Bank from time to time are involved in legal proceedings. The Company’s management believe there are no pending or threatened legal proceedings that, upon resolution, are expected to have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s or the Bank’s financial condition or results of operations.

Not applicable.

PART II

The Company’s Common Stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, under the symbol “AUBN”. As of March 9, 2012, there were approximately 3,642,738 shares of the Company’s Common Stock issued and outstanding, which were held by approximately 416 shareholders of record. The following table sets forth, for the indicated periods, the high and low closing sale prices for the Company’s Common Stock as reported on the Nasdaq Global Market, and the cash dividends declared to shareholders during the indicated periods.

The Company has paid cash dividends on its capital stock since 1985. Prior to this time, the Bank paid cash dividends since its organization in 1907, except during the Depression years of 1932 and 1933. Holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive such dividends as may be declared by the Company’s Board of Directors. The amount and frequency of cash dividends will be determined in the judgment of the Board based upon a number of factors, including the Company’s earnings, financial condition, capital requirements and other relevant factors. The Board currently intends to continue its present dividend policies.

Federal Reserve policy could restrict future dividends on our Common Stock, depending on our earnings and capital position and likely needs. See “SUPERVISION AND REGULATION – Payment of Dividends” and “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — CAPITAL ADEQUACY.”

The amount of dividends payable by the Bank is limited by law and regulation. The need to maintain adequate capital in the Bank also limits dividends that may be paid to the Company.

25

Table of Contents

Performance Graph

The following performance graph compares the cumulative, total return on the Company’s Common Stock from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2011, with that of the Nasdaq Composite Index and SNL Southeast Bank Index (assuming a $100 investment on December 31, 2006). Cumulative total return represents the change in stock price and the amount of dividends received over the indicated period, assuming the reinvestment of dividends.

26

Table of Contents

ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

See the information included under Part III, Item 12, which is incorporated in response to this item by reference.

See Table 2 “Selected Financial Data” and general discussion in Item 7, “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS”.

27

Table of Contents

The following is a discussion of our financial condition at December 31, 2011 and 2010 and our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009. The purpose of this discussion is to provide information about our financial condition and results of operations which is not otherwise apparent from the consolidated financial statements. The following discussion and analysis should be read along with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere herein. In addition, this discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements, so you should refer to Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and “Special Cautionary Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”.

Certain amounts reported in prior periods have been reclassified to conform to the current-period presentation. These reclassifications had no effect on the Company’s previously reported stockholders’ equity or net earnings during the periods involved.

OVERVIEW

The Company was incorporated in 1990 under the laws of the State of Delaware and became a bank holding company after it acquired its Alabama predecessor, which was a bank holding company established in 1984. The Bank, the Company’s principal subsidiary, is an Alabama state-chartered bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System and has operated continuously since 1907. Both the Company and the Bank are headquartered in Auburn, Alabama. The Bank conducts its business primarily in East Alabama, including Lee County and surrounding areas. The Bank operates full-service branches in Auburn, Opelika, Hurtsboro, Notasulga and Valley, Alabama. In-store branches are located in the Auburn and Opelika Kroger stores, as well as Wal-Mart SuperCenter stores in Auburn, Opelika and Phenix City, Alabama. Loan production offices are located in Montgomery and Phenix City, Alabama.

Summary of Results of Operations

Financial Summary

The Company’s net earnings were $5.5 million, or $1.52 per share, for the full year 2011, compared to $5.3 million, or $1.47 per share, for the full year 2010.

Tax-equivalent net interest income increased 1% in 2011 from 2010 as improvement in the Company’s net interest margin offset a decrease in average total interest earning assets in 2011 compared to 2010. Average total interest earning assets decreased 2% in 2011 when compared to 2010 as cash proceeds from securities sold, called, and matured in 2011 were used to reduce the level of wholesale funding (such as brokered certificates of deposit and Federal Home Loan Bank advances) on our balance sheet. Average loans decreased slightly in 2011 compared to 2010 due to weak loan demand and a challenging economic environment. Average loans were $373.9 million in 2011, a decrease of 1%, compared to 2010.

In 2011, the Company’s net charge-off ratio was 0.86%, compared to 0.64% in 2010. The provision for loan losses was $2.5 million for 2011, compared to $3.6 million in 2010. Despite the increase in net charge-offs during 2011, the provision for loan losses decreased during 2011 primarily due to the reduced level of allowance for loan losses related to the construction and land development loan portfolio segment. The decline in the allowance for loan losses was due to declines in total construction and land development loans outstanding as well as a decline in adversely risk-graded construction and land development loans.

28

Table of Contents

Noninterest income was $5.2 million in 2011, compared to $6.7 million in 2010. The decrease in noninterest income was primarily due to a decrease in mortgage lending income of $0.6 million, a decrease in net securities gains of $0.5 million, and an increase in losses related to affordable housing investments of $0.3 million.

Noninterest expense was $16.4 million in 2011, compared to $15.9 million in 2010. The increase in noninterest expense was primarily due to an increase in salaries and benefits expense of $0.8 million and an increase in net expenses related to OREO of $0.6 million. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in FDIC and other regulatory assessments of $0.3 million and a decrease in prepayment penalties on long-term debt of $0.7 million.

Income tax expense for 2011 was $0.1 million, compared to $0.8 million in 2010. The Company’s effective income tax rate was 1.02% in 2011, compared to 12.99% in 2010. The decrease in the Company’s effective tax rate during 2011 compared to 2010 was due to a decline in the level of earnings before taxes and an increase in federal tax credits related to the Company’s investments in affordable housing limited partnerships, which increased in 2011.

In 2011, the Company paid cash dividends of $2.9 million, or $0.80 per share. The Company remains well capitalized under current regulatory guidelines with a total risk-based capital ratio of 16.66%, a tier one risk-based capital ratio of 15.40%, and a tier one leverage capital ratio of 8.82% at December 31, 2011.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The accounting and financial reporting policies of the Company conform with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, and with general practices within the banking industry. In connection with the application of those principles, we have made judgments and estimates which, in the case of the determination of our allowance for loan losses, our assessment of other-than-temporary impairment, recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements, valuation of OREO, and the valuation of deferred tax assets, were critical to the determination of our financial position and results of operations. Other policies also require subjective judgment and assumptions and may accordingly impact our financial position and results of operations.

Allowance for Loan Losses

The Company assesses the adequacy of its allowance for loan losses prior to the end of each calendar quarter. The level of the allowance is based upon management’s evaluation of the loan portfolios, past loan loss experience, current asset quality trends, known and inherent risks in the portfolio, adverse situations that may affect the borrower’s ability to repay (including the timing of future payment), the estimated value of any underlying collateral, composition of the loan portfolio, economic conditions, industry and peer bank loan loss rates and other pertinent factors, including regulatory recommendations. This evaluation is inherently subjective as it requires material estimates including the amounts and timing of future cash flows expected to be received on impaired loans that may be susceptible to significant change. Loan losses are charged off when management believes that the full collectability of the loan is unlikely. A loan may be partially charged-off after a “confirming event” has occurred which serves to validate that full repayment pursuant to the terms of the loan is unlikely. Allocation of the allowance may be made for specific loans, but the entire allowance is available for any loan that, in management’s judgment, is deemed to be uncollectible.

The Company deems loans impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Collection of all amounts due according to the contractual terms means that both the interest and principal payments of a loan will be collected as scheduled in the loan agreement.

An impairment allowance is recognized if the fair value of the loan is less than the recorded investment in the loan. The impairment is recognized through the allowance. Loans that are impaired are recorded at the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, or if the loan is collateral dependent, impairment measurement is based on the fair value of the collateral, less estimated disposal costs.

The level of allowance maintained is believed by management to be adequate to absorb probable losses inherent in the portfolio at the balance sheet date. The allowance is increased by provisions charged to expense and decreased by charge-offs, net of recoveries of amounts previously charged-off.

In assessing the adequacy of the allowance, the Company also considers the results of its ongoing independent loan review process. The Company’s loan review process assists in determining whether there are loans in the portfolio whose credit quality has weakened over time and evaluating the risk characteristics of the entire loan portfolio. The Company’s

29

Table of Contents

loan review process includes the judgment of management, the input from our independent loan reviewers, and reviews that may have been conducted by bank regulatory agencies as part of their examination process. The Company incorporates loan review results in the determination of whether or not it is probable that we will be able to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of a loan.

As part of the Company’s quarterly assessment of the allowance, management divides the loan portfolio into five segments: commercial and industrial loans, construction and land development loans, commercial real estate, residential real estate, and consumer installment loans. The Company analyzes each segment and estimates an allowance allocation for each loan segment.

The allocation of the allowance for loan losses begins with a process of estimating the probable losses inherent for these types of loans. The estimates for these loans are established by category and based on the Company’s internal system of credit risk ratings and historical loss data. The estimated loan loss allocation rate for the Company’s internal system of credit risk grades is based on its experience with similarly graded loans. For loan segments where the Company believes it does not have sufficient historical loss data, the Company may make adjustments based, in part, on loss rates of peer bank groups. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, and for the years then ended, the Company adjusted its historical loss rates for the commercial real estate portfolio segment based, in part, on loss rates of peer bank groups.

The estimated loan loss allocation for all five loan portfolio segments is then adjusted for management’s estimate of probable losses for several “qualitative and environmental” factors. The allocation for qualitative and environmental factors is particularly subjective and does not lend itself to exact mathematical calculation. This amount represents estimated probable inherent credit losses which exist, but have not yet been identified, as of the balance sheet date, and are based upon quarterly trend assessments in delinquent and nonaccrual loans, credit concentration changes, prevailing economic conditions, changes in lending personnel experience, changes in lending policies or procedures and other influencing factors. These qualitative and environmental factors are considered for each of the five loan segments and the allowance allocation, as determined by the processes noted above, is increased or decreased based on the incremental assessment of these factors.

The Company constantly re-evaluates its practices in determining the allowance for loan losses. During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company’s management decided to eliminate a previously unallocated component of the allowance. As a result, the Company had no unallocated amount included in the allowance at December 31, 2011, compared to an unallocated amount of $0.1 million, or 1.4% of the total allowance, at December 31, 2010. During 2010, the Company implemented certain refinements to its allowance for loan losses methodology, specifically the way that historical loss factors are calculated. Prior to September 30, 2010, the Company calculated average losses by loan segment using a rolling 12 quarter historical period. In order to better capture the effect of current economic conditions on the Company’s loan loss experience, the Company calculated average losses by loan segment using a rolling 6 quarter historical period beginning with the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Correspondingly, the Company reduced the level of adjustments made to historical losses for “qualitative and environmental factors” since the updated historical losses are more representative of current economic conditions.

Assessment for Other-Than-Temporary Impairment of Securities

On a quarterly basis, management makes an assessment to determine whether there have been events or economic circumstances to indicate that a security on which there is an unrealized loss is other-than-temporarily impaired. For equity securities with an unrealized loss, the Company considers many factors including the severity and duration of the impairment; the intent and ability of the Company to hold the security for a period of time sufficient for a recovery in value; and recent events specific to the issuer or industry. Equity securities for which there is an unrealized loss that is deemed to be other-than-temporary are written down to fair value with the write-down recorded as a realized loss in securities gains (losses).

For debt securities with an unrealized loss, an other-than-temporary impairment write-down is triggered when (1) the Company has the intent to sell the debt security, (2) it is more likely than not that the entity will be required to sell the debt security before recovery of its amortized cost basis, or (3) the entity does not expect to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the debt security. If the Company has the intent to sell a debt security or if it is more likely than not that that it will be required to sell the debt security before recovery, the other-than-temporary write-down is equal to the entire difference between the debt security’s amortized cost and its fair value. If the Company does not intend to sell the security or it is not more likely than not that it will be required to sell the security before recovery, the other-than-temporary impairment write-down is separated into the amount that is credit related (credit loss component) and the amount due to all other factors. The credit loss component is recognized in earnings, as a realized loss in securities gains (losses), and is the difference between the security’s amortized cost basis and the present value of its expected future cash flows. The remaining difference between the security’s fair value and the present value of future expected cash flows is due to factors that are not credit related and is recognized in other comprehensive income, net of applicable taxes.

30

Table of Contents

The Company assesses impairment for pooled trust preferred securities using a cash flow model. The key assumptions include default probabilities of the underlying collateral and recoveries on collateral defaults. These assumptions may have a significant effect on the determination of the present value of expected future cash flows and the resulting amount of other-than-temporary impairment. As such, the use of different models and assumptions, as well as changes in market conditions, could result in materially different net earnings and retained earnings results.

Fair Value Determination

GAAP requires management to value and present at fair value certain of the Company’s assets and liabilities, including investments classified as available-for-sale and derivatives. FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value under GAAP and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. For more information regarding fair value measurements and disclosures, please refer to Note 17, Fair Value Disclosures, of the consolidated financial statements that accompany this report.

Fair values are based on market prices when available. However, some of the Company’s transactions lack an available trading market characterized by frequent transactions between a willing buyer and seller. In these cases, such values are estimated using pricing models that use discounted cash flows and other pricing techniques. Pricing models and their underlying assumptions are based upon management’s best estimates for appropriate discount rates, default rates, prepayments, market volatility and other factors, taking into account current observable market data and experience.

These assumptions may have a significant effect on the reported fair values of assets and liabilities and the related income and expense. As such, the use of different models and assumptions, as well as changes in market conditions, could result in materially different net earnings and retained earnings results.

Other Real Estate Owned

OREO consists of properties obtained through foreclosure or in satisfaction of loans, is reported at the lower of cost or fair value, less estimated costs to sell at the date acquired with any loss recognized as a charge-off through the allowance for loan losses. Additional OREO losses for subsequent valuation adjustments are determined on a specific property basis and are included as a component of other noninterest expense along with holding costs. Any gains or losses on disposal realized at the time of disposal are also reflected in noninterest expense. Significant judgments and complex estimates are required in estimating the fair value of OREO, and the period of time within which such estimates can be considered current is significantly shortened during periods of market volatility, as experienced during 2011 and 2010. As a result, the net proceeds realized from sales transactions could differ significantly from appraisals, comparable sales, and other estimates used to determine the fair value of OREO.

Deferred Tax Asset Valuation

A valuation allowance is recognized for a deferred tax asset if, based on the weight of available evidence, it is more-likely-than-not that some portion or the entire deferred tax asset will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of future taxable income during the periods in which those temporary differences become deductible. Management considers the scheduled reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income and tax planning strategies in making this assessment. Based upon the level of taxable income over the last three years and projections for future taxable income over the periods in which the deferred tax assets are deductible, management believes it is more likely than not that the we will realize the benefits of these deductible differences at December 31, 2011. The amount of the deferred tax assets considered realizable, however, could be reduced in the near term if estimates of future taxable income during the future periods are reduced.

31

Table of Contents

Average Balance Sheet and Interest Rates

(a) Tax-equivalent. See “Table 1 - Explanation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures”.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Net Interest Income and Margin

2011 vs. 2010 comparison

Tax-equivalent net interest income increased 1% in 2011 from 2010 as improvement in the Company’s net interest margin offset a decrease in total interest earning assets.

The tax-equivalent yield on total interest earning assets decreased 30 basis points in 2011 from 2010 to 4.57%. This decrease was primarily due to a decline of 64 basis points in the yield on taxable securities to 2.69%.

The cost of total interest-bearing liabilities decreased 43 basis points in 2011 from 2010, to 1.87%. This decrease was primarily due to a 40 basis point decrease in the cost of total interest-bearing deposits to 1.54%.

2010 vs. 2009 comparison

Tax-equivalent net interest income increased 1% in 2010 from 2009 as improvement in the Company’s net interest margin offset the decrease in total interest earning assets.

The tax-equivalent yield on total interest earning assets decreased 36 basis points in 2010 from 2009 to 4.87%. The decrease was mainly due to a decline of 104 basis points in the yield on taxable securities to 3.33%.

The cost of total interest-bearing liabilities decreased 48 basis points in 2010 from 2009, to 2.30%. This decrease was primarily due to a 60 basis point decrease in the cost of total interest-bearing deposits to 1.94%.

Provision for Loan Losses

The provision for loan losses represents a charge to earnings necessary to provide an allowance for loan losses that, in management’s evaluation, should be adequate to provide coverage for the probable losses on outstanding loans. The provision for loan losses amounted to $2.5 million, $3.6 million, and $5.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

32

Table of Contents

The provision for loan losses decreased in 2011 compared to 2010 due to a decline in the level of allowance for loan losses related to the construction and land development portfolio segment. The decline in the allowance for loan losses was due to declines in total construction and development loans outstanding as well as a decline in adversely risk-graded construction and land development loans. The provision for losses declined in 2010 when compared to 2009 due to a decline in net charge-offs and nonperforming loan inflows. Also, the provision for loan losses in 2009 was impacted by $2.8 million in impairments related to the deterioration of two construction and land development loans.

Based upon its assessment of the loan portfolio, management adjusts the allowance for loan losses to an amount it believes should be appropriate to adequately cover probable losses in the loan portfolio. The Company’s allowance for loan losses to total loans decreased to 1.87% at December 31, 2011 from 2.05% at December 31, 2010. Based upon our evaluation of the loan portfolio, management believes the allowance for loan losses to be adequate to absorb our estimate of probable losses existing in the loan portfolio at December 31, 2011. While our policies and procedures used to estimate the allowance for loan losses, as well as the resultant provision for loan losses charged to operations, are believed adequate by management and are reviewed from time to time by our regulators, they are necessarily approximate and imprecise. There exist factors beyond our control, such as conditions in the local and national economy, a local real estate market or particular industry conditions which may negatively impact, materially, our asset quality and the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses and, thus, the resulting provision for loan losses.

Noninterest Income

The Company’s income from mortgage lending is primarily attributable to the (1) origination and sale of new mortgage loans and (2) servicing of mortgage loans. Origination income, net, is comprised of gains or losses from the sale of the mortgage loans originated, origination fees, underwriting fees and other fees associated with the origination of loans, which are netted against the commission expense associated with these originations. The Company’s normal practice is to originate mortgage loans for sale in the secondary market and to either release or retain the associated mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”) when the loan is sold.

MSRs are recognized based on the fair value of the servicing right on the date the corresponding mortgage loan is sold. Subsequent to the date of transfer, the Company has elected to measure its MSRs under the amortization method. Servicing fee income is reported net of any related amortization expense.

MSRs are also evaluated for impairment periodically. Impairment is determined by grouping MSRs by common predominant characteristics, such as interest rate and loan type. If the aggregate carrying amount of a particular group of MSRs exceeds the group’s aggregate fair value, a valuation reserve for that group is established. The valuation reserve is adjusted as the fair value changes. An increase in mortgage interest rates typically results in an increase in the fair value of the MSRs while a decrease in mortgage interest rates typically results in a decrease in the fair value of MSRs. Despite an increase in the balance of loans serviced by the Company in 2011, the fair value of the Company’s MSRs decreased due to a decline in mortgage interest rates. As a result, the Company established a valuation reserve of $117,000 at December 31, 2011, compared to none at December 31, 2010.

The following table presents a breakdown of the Company’s mortgage lending income for 2011, 2010 and 2009.

33

Table of Contents

2011 vs. 2010 comparison

Service charges on deposit accounts were $1.2 million in 2011, compared to $1.3 million in 2010. The decrease is primarily due to a decline in insufficient funds charges, reflecting changes in customer behavior and spending patterns.

Mortgage lending income was $1.9 million in 2011, compared to $2.5 million in 2010. A decline in the level of mortgage refinance activity during 2011 when compared to the levels experienced during 2010 contributed to the decrease in mortgage lending income. The Company’s income from mortgage lending typically fluctuates as mortgage interest rates change and is primarily attributable to origination and sale of new mortgage loans.

Losses related to affordable housing partnership investments were $0.6 million in 2011, compared to $0.3 million in 2010. The increase in losses on affordable housing partnership investments was primarily due to the Company’s increased total investment in these projects in 2011. While the losses incurred by the partnerships are recognized in pre-tax earnings, these investments are designed to generate a return primarily through the realization of federal tax credits. As a result, these investments have significantly reduced the Company’s income tax expense during 2011 when compared to 2010. In January of 2012, the Company sold its interests in three affordable housing partnership investments. The Company will recognize a pre-tax gain on sale of $3.2 million related to these investments in 2012. Accordingly, the Company expects it will not incur any losses related to affordable housing partnership investments subsequent to the sale. In addition, the Company does not expect to receive any federal tax credits related to affordable housing partnership investments in 2012.

The net gain on securities was $0.9 million in 2011, compared to a net gain of $1.4 million in 2010. Gross realized gains of $1.7 million in 2011 were reduced by gross realized losses of $0.5 million and other-than-temporary impairment charges of $0.3 million related to trust preferred securities. Gross realized gains of $3.5 million in 2010 were primarily reduced by approximately $2.0 million in other-than-temporary impairment charges related to trust preferred securities and corporate debt securities.

2010 vs. 2009 comparison

Service charges on deposit accounts were $1.3 million in 2010, compared to $1.2 million in 2009. The increase was primarily due to increased insufficient funds charges, reflecting changes in customer behavior and spending patterns.

Mortgage lending income was $2.5 million in 2010, compared to $3.3 million in 2009. A significant decline in the level of mortgage refinance activity during 2010 when compared to the record levels experienced during 2009 contributed to the decrease in mortgage lending income. The Company’s income from mortgage lending typically fluctuates as mortgage interest rates change and is primarily attributable to origination and sale of new mortgage loans.

Losses related to affordable housing partnership investments were $0.3 million in 2010, compared to $0.2 million in 2009. The increase in losses on affordable housing partnership investments was primarily due to the Company’s increased total investment in these projects. While the losses incurred by the partnerships are recognized in pre-tax earnings, these investments are designed to generate a return primarily through the realization of federal tax credits.

The net gain on securities was $1.4 million in 2010, compared to a net loss of $3.7 million in 2009. Gross realized gains of $3.5 million in 2010 were offset by gross realized losses of $2.1 million. Gross realized losses in 2010 primarily related to other-than-temporary impairment charges for trust preferred securities and corporate debt securities. Gross realized losses of $6.6 million in 2009 primarily related to other-than-temporary impairment charges for trust preferred securities and an investment in the common stock of Silverton Financial Services, Inc. These losses were offset by gross realized gains of $2.9 million during the same period.

34

Table of Contents

Noninterest Expense

2011 vs. 2010 comparison

Salaries and benefits expense was $8.2 million in 2011, compared to $7.4 million in 2010. The increase in 2011 when compared to 2010 was primarily due to increased costs related to salaries, bonus compensation, and group medical insurance. No cash bonuses were accrued for Company or Bank officers in 2010.

FDIC and other regulatory assessments expense was $0.8 million in 2011, compared to $1.1 million in 2010. The decrease in 2011 when compared to 2010 was primarily due to the FDIC redefining the deposit insurance assessment base effective April 1, 2011. Most FDIC insured institutions with less than $10 billion in assets experienced a reduction in their FDIC deposit insurance assessments during 2011.

Other real estate owned expense, net was $2.0 million in 2011, compared to $1.4 million in 2010. Approximately $2.0 million and $1.3 million of other real estate owned expense, net, in 2011 and 2010, respectively, related to realized holding losses due to reduced valuations of certain OREO properties. These properties could also be subject to future valuation adjustments as a result of updated appraisal information and further deterioration in real estate values, thus causing additional fluctuations in other real estate owned expense, net. Also, the Company will continue to incur expenses associated with maintenance costs and property taxes associated with these assets. In 2011, rental income on OREO properties largely offset these costs.

The Company incurred no prepayment penalties on long-term debt in 2011, compared to $0.7 million in 2010. In 2010, the Company repaid $10.0 million of securities sold under agreements to repurchase prior to their maturity that had been included in long-term debt. In January 2012, the Company repaid $38.0 million of FHLB advances with a weighted average rate of 4.26% and a weighted average duration of 2.6 years. Accordingly, the Company will incur approximately $3.7 million in prepayment penalties on long-term debt in 2012 related to the repayment of these FHLB advances.

2010 vs. 2009 comparison

Salaries and benefits expense was $7.4 million in 2010, compared to $7.1 million in 2009. The increase in 2010 when compared to 2009 was primarily due to increased salaries expense and group medical insurance costs. No cash bonuses were accrued for Company or Bank officers in 2010 or 2009.

FDIC and other regulatory assessments expense was $1.1 million in 2010, compared to $1.3 million in 2009. The decrease in 2010 when compared to 2009 was primarily due to the impact of the $0.4 million special assessment from the FDIC included in FDIC and other regulatory assessments expense in 2009.

Other real estate owned expense, net increased by $1.3 million in 2010 when compared to 2009. The increase was primarily due to write-downs of the carrying value of certain foreclosed properties due to deterioration in real estate values.

Prepayment penalties on long-term debt were approximately $0.7 million during 2010 compared to nil during 2009. As part of its strategy to reduce wholesale funding and interest expense, the Company repaid $10.0 million of securities sold under agreements to repurchase prior to their maturity that had been included in long-term debt during 2010.

Income Tax Expense

2011 vs. 2010 comparison

In 2011, the Company recorded income tax expense of $0.1 million, compared to $0.8 million in 2010. The effective income tax rate was 1.02% in 2011, compared to 12.99% in 2010. The decrease in income tax expense and the effective

35

Table of Contents

tax rate from 2010 to 2011 was primarily due to a decrease in the level of earnings before taxes and an increase in federal tax credits related to the Company’s increased investments in affordable housing limited partnerships in 2011. In January of 2012, the Company sold its interests in three affordable housing partnership investments. Accordingly, the Company expects that income tax expense will increase in 2012 when compared to 2011 since the Company currently does not expect to receive any federal tax credits related to affordable housing partnership investments in 2012.

2010 vs. 2009 comparison

In 2010, the Company recorded income tax expense of $0.8 million, compared to an income tax benefit of $0.3 million in 2009. This change was primarily due to an increase in the level of earnings before taxes. The effective income tax rate was 12.99% in 2010, compared to an effective income tax benefit rate of 16.47% in 2009. The increase in the effective tax rate from 2009 to 2010 was primarily due to a 198% increase in earnings before taxes. Also reflected in the Company’s effective income tax benefit rate for 2009 was a change in valuation allowance of $0.5 million related to nondeductible capital losses and an income tax benefit of $0.3 million related to the correction of an accounting error in prior periods. Information concerning the correction of an accounting error is included in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

BALANCE SHEET ANALYSIS

Securities

Securities available-for-sale were $299.6 million and $315.2 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The decrease from December 31, 2010 primarily reflects management’s decision to utilize a portion of the cash proceeds from securities sold, called, and matured during 2011 to reduce the level of wholesale funding (such as brokered certificates of deposit and FHLB advances) on our balance sheet. Unrealized net gains on securities available-for-sale were $6.7 million as of December 31, 2011 compared to unrealized net losses of $3.5 million as of December 31, 2010. The change in net unrealized gains (losses) of $10.2 million from December 31, 2010 was primarily due to changes in interest rates and a narrowing of credit spreads on securities of U.S. states and political subdivisions during 2011. The average tax-equivalent yields earned on total securities were 3.65% in 2011 and 4.09% in 2010.

The following table shows the carrying value and weighted average yield of securities available-for-sale as of December 31, 2011 according to contractual maturity. Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities of mortgage-backed securities because the mortgages underlying the securities may be called or prepaid with or without penalty.

36

Table of Contents

Total loans, net of unearned income, were $370.3 million as of December 31, 2011, a decrease of $3.9 million, or 1%, from $374.2 million at December 31, 2010. The loan portfolio decreased slightly in 2011 as new loans were unable to offset the impact of pay-downs, charge-offs, foreclosures and other problem loan resolutions. In particular, construction and land development loans decreased by $8.0 million, or 17%, in 2011. Four loan categories represented the majority of the loan portfolio as December 31, 2011: commercial real estate mortgage loans (44%), residential real estate mortgage loans (27%), commercial and industrial loans (15%) and construction and land development loans (11%).

Within its residential real estate mortgage portfolio, the Company had junior lien mortgages of approximately $23.9 million, or 6%, and $24.3 million, or 6%, of total loans, net of unearned income at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. For residential real estate mortgage loans with a consumer purpose, approximately $1.8 million and $4.1 million required interest-only payments at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The Company’s residential real estate mortgage portfolio does not include any option ARM loans, subprime loans, or any material amount of other high-risk consumer mortgage products.

Purchased loan participations included in the Company’s loan portfolio were approximately $3.8 million and $7.2 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. All purchased loan participations are underwritten by the Company independent of the selling bank. In addition, all loans, including purchased participations, are evaluated for collectability during the course of the Company’s normal loan review procedures. If the Company deems a participation loan impaired, it applies the same accounting policies and procedures as described in “CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES.”

The average yield earned on loans and loans held for sale was 5.67% in 2011 and 5.73% in 2010.

The specific economic and credit risks associated with our loan portfolio include, but are not limited to, the impact of recessionary economic conditions on our borrowers’ cash flows, real estate market sales volumes, valuations, and availability and cost of financing for properties, real estate industry concentrations, deterioration in certain credits, interest rate fluctuations, reduced collateral values or non-existent collateral, title defects, inaccurate appraisals, financial deterioration of borrowers, fraud, and any violation of laws and regulations.

The Company attempts to reduce these economic and credit risks by adhering to loan to value (“LTV”) guidelines for collateralized loans, investigating the creditworthiness of borrowers and monitoring borrowers’ financial position. Also, we establish and periodically review our lending policies and procedures. Banking regulations limit our credit exposure by prohibiting unsecured loan relationships that exceed 10% of the capital accounts of the Bank; or 20% of the capital accounts if loans in excess of 10% are fully secured, which would approximate $14.6 million. Furthermore, we have an internal limit for aggregate credit exposure (loans outstanding plus unfunded commitments) to a single borrower of $13.2 million. Our loan policy requires that the Loan Committee of the Board of Directors approve any loan relationships that exceed this internal limit. At December 31, 2011, the Company had no loan relationships exceeding these limits.

37

Table of Contents

We periodically analyze our commercial loan portfolio to determine if a concentration of credit risk exists in any one or more industries. We use broadly accepted industry classification systems in order to classify borrowers into various industry classifications. Loan concentrations to borrowers in the following industries exceeded 25% of the Bank’s total risk-based capital at December 31, 2011 (and related balances at December 31, 2010).

Allowance for Loan Losses

The Company maintains the allowance for loan losses at a level that management deems appropriate to adequately cover the Company’s estimate of probable losses in the loan portfolio. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, the allowance for loan losses was $6.9 million and $7.7 million, respectively, which management deemed to be adequate at each of the respective dates. The judgments and estimates associated with the determination of the allowance for loan losses are described under “CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES”.

A summary of the changes in the allowance for loan losses and certain asset quality ratios for each of the five years in the five year period ended December 31, 2011 is presented below.

As noted in the Company’s critical accounting policies, management assesses the adequacy of the allowance prior to the end of each calendar quarter. The level of the allowance is based upon management’s evaluation of the loan portfolios, past loan loss experience, known and inherent risks in the portfolio, adverse situations that may affect the borrower’s ability to repay (including the timing of future payment), the estimated value of any underlying collateral, composition of the loan portfolio, economic conditions, industry and peer bank loan quality indications and other pertinent factors. This evaluation is inherently subjective as it requires various material estimates and judgments including the amounts and timing of future cash flows expected to be received on impaired loans that may be susceptible to significant change. The ratio of our allowance for loan losses to total loans outstanding was 1.87% at December 31, 2011, compared to 2.05% at December 31, 2010. In the future, the allowance to total loans outstanding ratio will increase or decrease to the extent the factors that influence our quarterly allowance assessment in their entirety either improve or weaken.

38

Table of Contents

Net charge-offs were $3.2 million, or 0.86% of average loans, in 2011, compared to net charge-offs of $2.4 million, or 0.84%, in 2010. In both 2011 and 2010, net charge-offs were affected by a few individually significant charge-offs. In 2011, the Company charged off $1.9 million related to one borrowing relationship and approximately $0.6 million related to two A/B note restructurings. In 2010, the Company charged off $1.3 million related to one construction and land development loan.

At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the ratio of our allowance for loan losses as a percentage of nonperforming loans was 67% and 65%, respectively.

At December 31, 2011, the Company’s recorded investment in loans considered impaired was $11.0 million, with a corresponding valuation allowance (included in the allowance for loan losses) of $1.2 million. At December 31, 2010, the Company’s recorded investment in loans considered impaired was $11.7 million, with a corresponding valuation allowance (included in the allowance for loan losses) of $1.3 million.

In addition, our regulators, as an integral part of their examination process, will periodically review the Company’s allowance for loan losses, and may require the Company to make additional provisions to the allowance for loan losses based on their judgment about information available to them at the time of their examinations.

Nonperforming Assets

At December 31, 2011 the Company had $18.3 million in nonperforming assets compared to $20.0 million at December 31, 2010. Included in nonperforming assets were nonperforming loans of $10.4 million and $11.8 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Nonperforming assets decreased during 2011 due to continued efforts by management to reduce or resolve problem assets. The majority of the balance in nonperforming assets at December 31, 2011 related to deterioration in the construction and land development loan portfolio.

The table below provides information concerning total nonperforming assets and certain asset quality ratios.