COLONY BANKCORP INC - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Fee Required)

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2017

(No Fee Required)

For the Transition Period from _____________to ______________

Commission File Number 000-12436

COLONY BANKCORP, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant Specified in its Charter)

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

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 [ X ]

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate 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 [ X ] No [   ]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained 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. [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a nonaccelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. [   ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act): Yes[   ] No [ X ]

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by nonaffiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked prices of such common equity, as of June 30, 2017: $84,569,114 based on stock price of $13.70.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common equity, as of the latest practicable date: 8,439,258 shares of $1.00 par value common stock as of March 15, 2018.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I

Item 1

Business

COLONY BANKCORP, INC.

General

Colony Bankcorp, Inc. (the “Company” or “Colony”) is a Georgia business corporation which was incorporated on November 8, 1982. The Company was organized for the purpose of operating as a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and the bank holding company laws of Georgia (Georgia Laws 1976, p. 168, et. seq.). On July 22, 1983, the Company, after obtaining the requisite regulatory approvals, acquired 100 percent of the issued and outstanding common stock of Colony Bank (formerly Colony Bank of Fitzgerald and The Bank of Fitzgerald), Fitzgerald, Georgia (the “Bank” or “Colony Bank”), through the merger of the Bank with a subsidiary of the Company which was created for the purpose of organizing the Bank into a one-bank holding company. Since that time, Colony Bank has operated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Our business is conducted primarily through our wholly-owned bank subsidiary, which provides a broad range of banking services to its retail and commercial customers. The company headquarters is located at 115 South Grant Street, Fitzgerald, Georgia 31750, its telephone number is 229-426-6000 and its Internet address is http://www.colonybank.com. We operate twenty-seven domestic banking offices and one corporate operations office and, at December 31, 2017, we had approximately $1.23 billion in total assets, $765.28 million in total loans, $1.07 billion in total deposits and $90.32 million in stockholder’s equity. Deposits are insured, up to applicable limits, by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The Parent Company

Because the Company is a bank holding company, its principal operations are conducted through the Bank. It has 100 percent ownership of its subsidiary and maintains systems of financial, operational and administrative controls that permit centralized evaluation of the operations of the subsidiary bank in selected functional areas including operations, accounting, marketing, investment management, purchasing, human resources, computer services, auditing, compliance and credit review. As a bank holding company, we perform certain stockholder and investor relations functions.

Colony Bank - Banking Services

Our principal subsidiary is the Bank. The Bank, headquartered in Fitzgerald, Georgia, offers traditional banking products and services to commercial and consumer customers in our markets. Our product line includes, among other things, loans to small and medium-sized businesses, residential and commercial construction and land development loans, commercial real estate loans, commercial loans, agri-business and production loans, residential mortgage loans, home equity loans, consumer loans and a variety of demand, savings and time deposit products. We also offer internet banking services, electronic bill payment services, safe deposit box rentals, telephone banking, credit and debit card services, remote depository products and access to a network of ATMs to our customers. The Bank conducts a general full service commercial, consumer and mortgage banking business through twenty-seven offices located in central, south and coastal Georgia cities of Fitzgerald, Warner Robins, Centerville, Ashburn, Leesburg, Cordele, Albany, Thomaston, Columbus, Sylvester, Tifton, Moultrie, Douglas, Broxton, Savannah, Eastman, Soperton, Rochelle, Quitman, Valdosta and Statesboro, Georgia.

For additional discussion of our loan portfolio and deposit accounts, see “Management’s Discussion of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Loans and Deposits.”

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Subordinated Debentures (Trust Preferred Securities)

During the second quarter of 2004, the Company formed Colony Bankcorp Statutory Trust III for the sole purpose of issuing $4,500,000 in Trust Preferred Securities through a pool sponsored by FTN Financial Capital Market. The securities have a maturity of thirty years and are redeemable after five years with certain exceptions.

During the second quarter of 2006, the Company formed Colony Bankcorp Capital Trust I for the sole purpose of issuing $5,000,000 in Trust Preferred Securities through a pool sponsored by SunTrust Bank Capital Markets. The securities have a maturity of thirty years and are redeemable after five years with certain exceptions.

During the first quarter of 2007, the Company formed Colony Bankcorp Capital Trust II for the sole purpose of issuing $9,000,000 in Trust Preferred Securities through a pool sponsored by Trapeza Capital Management, LLC. The securities have a maturity of thirty years and are redeemable after five years with certain exceptions. Proceeds from this issuance were used to pay off trust preferred securities issued on March 26, 2002 through Colony Bankcorp Statutory Trust I.

During the third quarter of 2007, the Company formed Colony Bankcorp Capital Trust III for the sole purpose of issuing $5,000,000 in Trust Preferred Securities through a pool sponsored by Trapeza Capital Management, LLC. The securities have a maturity of thirty years and are redeemable after five years with certain exceptions. Proceeds from this issuance were used to pay off trust preferred securities issued on December 19, 2002 through Colony Bankcorp Statutory Trust II.

Markets and Competition

The banking industry in general is highly competitive. Our market areas of central, south and coastal Georgia have experienced good economic and population growth the past several years. In contrast to our rural markets, in which we typically rank in the top three in terms of market share, in our larger markets, we face competitive pressures in attracting deposits and making loans from larger regional banks and smaller community banks, thrift institutions, credit unions, consumer finance companies, mortgage bankers, brokerage firms and insurance companies. The principal factors in competing for deposits and loans include interest rates, fee structures, range of products and services offered and convenience of office and ATM locations. The banking industry is also experiencing increased competition for deposits from less traditional sources such as money market and mutual funds. In addition, intense market demands, economic concerns, volatile interest rates and customer awareness of product and services have forced banks to be more competitive - often resulting in margin compression and a decrease in operating efficiency.

Correspondents

Colony Bank has correspondent relationships with the following banks: Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta; SunTrust Bank in Atlanta, Georgia; FTN Financial in Memphis, Tennessee, CenterState Bank in Lake Wales, Florida and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta. These correspondent relationships facilitate the transactions of business by means of loans, collections, investment services, lines of credit and exchange services, particularly in markets in which Colony Bank does not have a physical presence. As compensation for these services, the Bank maintains balances with its correspondents in primarily interest-bearing accounts and pays some service charges.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Employees

On December 31, 2017, the Company had a total of 326 employees, 318 of which are full-time employees.   We consider our relationship with our employees to be satisfactory.

The Company has a profit-sharing plan covering all employees, subject to certain minimum age and service requirements. In addition, the Company maintains a comprehensive employee benefit program providing, among other benefits, hospitalization, major medical, life insurance and disability insurance. Management considers these benefits to be competitive with those offered by other financial institutions in our market area. Colony’s employees are not represented by any collective bargaining group.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

BANK HOLDING COMPANY REGULATION

General

As a bank holding company under federal and state law, we are subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”). Our bank subsidiary, Colony Bank, is chartered in the State of Georgia and is subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance (the “Georgia Department”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). In addition, as discussed in more detail below, Colony Bank is subject to regulation by, and potentially supervision and examination by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Supervision, regulation, and examination of the company and the Bank by the bank regulatory agencies are intended primarily for the protection of consumers, bank depositors and the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC, rather than holders of our capital stock.

This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provisions described below and is not intended to be an exhaustive description of the statutes or regulations applicable to the Company and the Bank’s business. Any change in laws, regulations, or supervisory actions, whether by the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the Georgia Department, the CFPB, Congress or the Georgia legislature, could have a material adverse impact on the Company and the Bank.

We are also 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. We have evaluated our controls, including compliance with the SEC rules on internal controls, and have and 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 values of our securities. The assessments of our financial reporting controls as of December 31, 2017 are included in this report under “Section 9A. Controls and Procedures.”

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or any of its subsidiaries could have a material effect on the business of the Company.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Recent Regulatory Developments-- The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act has and will continue to have a broad impact on the financial services industry, imposing significant regulatory and compliance changes, the imposition of increased capital, leverage and liquidity requirements, and numerous other provisions designed to improve supervision and oversight of, and strengthen safety and soundness within, the financial services sector. Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that have affected or are likely to affect our operations or the operations of Colony Bank include:

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

While most of the requirements called for in the Dodd-Frank Act have been implemented, others will continue to be implemented over time. Given the extent of the changes brought about by the Dodd-Frank Act and the significant discretion afforded to federal regulators to implement those changes, we cannot fully predict the extent of the impact such requirements will have on our operations. The changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with the new requirements may negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. While we cannot predict what effect any presently contemplated or future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on us, these changes could be materially adverse to our investors.

The following items and information provided in subsequent sections provide a further description of certain relevant provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and their potential impact on our operations and activities, both currently and prospectively.

Creation of New Governmental Authorities.  The Dodd-Frank Act created various new governmental authorities such as the CFPB, an independent regulatory authority housed within the Federal Reserve. The CFPB has broad authority to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products. The CFPB’s authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, such as us, for compliance with federal consumer laws remains largely with those institutions’ primary regulators. However, the CFPB may participate in examinations of these smaller institutions on a “sampling basis” and may refer potential enforcement actions against such institutions to their primary regulators. The CFPB also may participate in examinations of Colony Bank, which currently has assets of less than $10 billion, and could supervise and examine other direct or indirect subsidiaries that offer consumer financial products or services. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and regulations that are stricter than those regulations promulgated by the CFPB, and state attorneys general are permitted to enforce consumer protection rules adopted by the CFPB against certain institutions.

Corporate Governance.  The Dodd-Frank Act addresses many investor protection, corporate governance, and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd-Frank Act (1) grants shareholders of U.S. publicly traded companies an advisory vote on executive compensation; (2) enhances independence requirements for Compensation Committee members; and (3) requires companies listed on national securities exchanges to adopt incentive-based compensation clawback policies for executive officers.

Incentive Compensation. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the banking agencies and the SEC to establish joint rules or guidelines for financial institutions with more than $1 billion in assets, such as us and Colony Bank, which prohibit incentive compensation arrangements that the agencies determine encourage inappropriate risks by the institution. The banking agencies issued proposed rules in 2011 and previously issued guidance on sound incentive compensation policies. In 2016, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have also proposed rules that would, depending upon the assets of the institution, directly regulate incentive compensation arrangements and would require enhanced oversight and recordkeeping. As of December 31, 2017, these rules have not been implemented.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Shareholder Say-On-Pay Votes. The Dodd-Frank Act requires public companies to take shareholders' votes on proposals addressing compensation (known as say-on-pay), the frequency of a say-on-pay vote, and the golden parachutes available to executives in connection with change-in-control transactions. Public companies must give shareholders the opportunity to vote on the compensation at least every three years and the opportunity to vote on frequency at least every six years, indicating whether the say-on-pay vote should be held annually, biennially, or triennially. The first say-on-pay vote occurred at our 2011 annual shareholders meeting. The say-on-pay, the say-on-parachute and the say-on-frequency votes are explicitly nonbinding and cannot override a decision of our board of directors.

Volcker Rule. In December 2013, the Federal Reserve and other regulators jointly issued final rules implementing requirements of a new Section 13 to the Bank Holding Company Act, commonly referred to as the “Volcker Rule.” The Volcker Rule generally prohibits us and our subsidiaries from (i) engaging in proprietary trading for our own account, and (ii) acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in or sponsoring a “covered fund,” all subject to certain exceptions. The Volcker Rule also specifies certain limited activities in which we and our subsidiaries may continue to engage. The regulators provided for a Volcker Rule conformance date of July 21, 2015. The Federal Reserve extended the conformance deadline to July 21, 2016 for certain legacy “covered funds” activities and investments in place before December 31, 2013, and the Federal Reserve expressed its intention to grant the last available statutory extension for such covered funds activities until July 21, 2017. Further, the Federal Reserve Board permits limited exemptions, upon application, for divestiture of certain “illiquid” covered funds, for an additional period of up to 5 years beyond that date.

Bank Holding Company Regulation

As a bank holding company, we are subject to supervision and regulation by the Federal Reserve under the BHCA. Bank holding companies generally are 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. We are required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports and such other information as the Federal Reserve may request. Ongoing supervision is provided through regular examinations by the Federal Reserve and other means that allow the regulators to gauge management’s ability to identify, assess and control risk in all areas of operations in a safe and sound manner and to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. The Federal Reserve may also examine our non-bank subsidiaries.

Expansion and Activity Limitations. The BHCA permits acquisitions of banks by bank holding companies, such that we and any other bank holding company, whether located in Georgia or elsewhere, may acquire a bank located in any other state, subject to certain deposit-percentage, 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, subject to certain requirements.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Subject to prior notice or Federal Reserve approval, under the BHCA, a bank holding company is generally permitted to engage in, or acquire direct or indirect control of more than 5 percent of the voting shares of, any company engaged in the following activities:

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Bank holding companies that elect and retain “financial holding company” status pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (“GLBA”) may engage in broader securities, insurance, merchant banking and other activities that are determined to be “financial in nature” or are incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature without prior Federal Reserve approval. Pursuant to the GLBA and the Dodd-Frank Act, in order to elect and retain financial holding company status, a bank holding company and all depository institution subsidiaries of that bank holding company must be well capitalized and well managed, and, except in limited circumstances, depository subsidiaries must be in satisfactory compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), which requires banks to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate. Failure to sustain compliance with these requirements or correct any non-compliance within a fixed time period could lead to the required divestiture of subsidiary banks or the termination of all activities that do not conform to those permissible for a bank holding company. The Company has not elected financial holding company status and neither Company nor the Bank has engaged in any activities determined by the Federal Reserve to be financial in nature or incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature.

Other Restrictions on the Company’s Activities

As contained in both federal and state banking laws and regulations, a wide range of requirements and restrictions apply to bank holding companies and their subsidiaries which:

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Source of Strength

Federal Reserve policy requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength and to support its bank subsidiary in situations where additional investments in a troubled bank may not otherwise be warranted. The holding company could be required to guarantee the capital plan of the Bank if it becomes undercapitalized for purposes of banking regulations. Any capital loans by a bank holding company to its subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. The BHCA provides that, in the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a bank subsidiary will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment. Notably, the Dodd-Frank Act has codified the Federal Reserve’s “source of strength” doctrine. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act’s new provisions authorize the Federal Reserve to require a company that directly or indirectly controls a bank to submit reports that are designed both to assess the ability of such company to comply with its “source of strength” obligations and to enforce the company’s compliance with these obligations.

Change in Control

As a general proposition, other companies seeking to acquire control of a bank holding company would require the approval of the Federal Reserve under the BHCA. In addition, individuals or groups of individuals seeking to acquire control of a bank holding company would need to file a prior notice with the Federal Reserve (which the Federal Reserve may disapprove under certain circumstances) under the Change in Bank Control Act. Control is conclusively presumed to exist if an individual or company acquires 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of the bank holding company. Control may exist under the Change in Bank Control Act if the individual or company acquires 10 percent or more of any class of voting securities of the bank holding company.

Capital Adequacy Requirements

We and Colony Bank were required to comply with higher minimum capital requirements as of January 1, 2015. These new rules (“Revised Capital Rules”) implement the Dodd-Frank Act and a separate international regulatory regime known as “Basel III” (which is discussed below). Prior to January 1, 2015, we and Colony Bank were subject to risk-based capital guidelines issued by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC for bank holding companies and state non-member banks, respectively. The risk-based capital guidelines that applied to us and Colony Bank through December 31, 2014 were based upon the 1988 capital accord of the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors, as implemented by the U.S. federal banking agencies on an interagency basis.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

The following is a brief description of the relevant provisions of the Revised Capital Rules and their impact on our capital levels. Among other things, the Revised Capital Rules (i) introduced a new capital measure called “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), (ii) specified that Tier 1 Capital consist of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 Capital” instruments meeting certain requirements, (iii) defined CET1 narrowly by requiring that most deductions/adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital and (iv) expanded the scope of the deductions/adjustments from capital as compared to existing regulation that apply to us and other banking organizations.

New Minimum Capital Requirements. The Revised Capital Rules required the following initial minimum capital ratios as of January 1, 2015:

Capital Conservation Buffer.  The Revised Capital Rules also introduced a new “capital conservation buffer,” composed entirely of CET1, on top of the minimum risk-weighted asset ratios, which is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking organizations with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the capital conservation buffer will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of this difference.

When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the Revised Capital Rules will require us and Colony Bank to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 7% (4.5% attributable to CET1 plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer); (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.5% (6.0% attributable to Tier 1 capital plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer), (iii) a minimum ratio of Total capital (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2) to risk-weighted assets of at least 10.5% (8.0% attributable to Total capital plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer) and (iv) a minimum leverage ratio of 4%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average assets (as compared to a current minimum leverage ratio of 3% for banking organizations that either have the highest supervisory rating or have implemented the appropriate federal regulatory authority's risk-adjusted measure for market risk).

Regulatory Deductions.  The Revised Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1, including the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets that arise from operating loss and tax credit carryforwards, net of associated DTLs, and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1. Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 began on January 1, 2015 and will be phased-in over a three-year period (beginning at 40% on January 1, 2015 and an additional 20% per year thereafter until fully phased-in at January 1, 2018).

Under the Revised Capital Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive items (except gains and losses on cash flow hedges where the hedged item is not recognized on a banking organization’s balance sheet at fair value) are not excluded; however, certain banking organizations, including us and Colony Bank, may make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. We and Colony Bank each made this election as of January 1, 2015. The Revised Capital Rules also preclude counting certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities, as Tier 1 capital of bank or thrift holding companies. However, for bank or thrift holding companies that had assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009 like us, trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010 can be treated as Tier 1 capital to the extent that they do not exceed 25% of Tier 1 capital after applying all capital deductions and adjustments.

Management believes, at December 31, 2017, that we and Colony Bank meet all capital adequacy requirements under the Revised Capital Rules on a fully phased-in basis if such requirements were currently effective.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Dividends

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The principal source of the Company’s cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to its stockholders, is dividends that the Bank pays to it. A variety of federal and state laws and regulations affect the ability of the Bank and the Company to pay dividends. For example, Georgia law requires prior approval for a bank to pay dividends where the aggregate amount of dividends to be declared or anticipated to be declared during the current calendar year exceeds 50 percent of its net after-tax profits before dividends for the previous calendar year. A depository institution may not pay any dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized. The federal banking agencies may prevent the payment of a dividend if they determine that the payment would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Moreover, the federal agencies have issued policy statements that provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings. Under a Federal Reserve policy adopted in 2009, 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:

Neither the Company nor Colony Bank can give assurances that it will receive all required regulatory approvals to pay dividends. Subject to these regulatory restrictions, future cash dividends by the Company and the Bank will depend upon management’s assessment of future capital requirements, contractual restrictions and other factors.

Colony Bank received regulatory approvals in 2015 to pay total dividend payments of $10 million to the Company, and the Company used these proceeds to redeem $9.979 million of Preferred Stock during 2015. The Bank was granted approval to pay total dividend payments of $9.1 million to the Company during 2016, and the Company used these proceeds to redeem $8.661 million of Preferred Stock during 2016. The Bank was also granted approval to pay total dividend payments of $8.7 million to the Company during 2017, and the Company used these proceeds to redeem $9.360 million of Preferred Stock during 2017.

The Company paid a cash dividend of $843,934, or $0.10 per share of common stock in 2017. No cash dividends were paid on its common stock in 2016 and 2015.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

BANK REGULATION

General

The Bank is a commercial bank chartered under the laws of the State of Georgia, and as such is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Georgia Department. The Bank is a member of the FDIC, and their deposits are insured by the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund up to the amount permitted by law. The FDIC and the Georgia Department routinely examine the Bank and monitor and regulate all of the Bank’s operations, including such things as adequacy of reserves, quality and documentation of loans, payments of dividends, capital adequacy, adequacy of systems and controls, credit underwriting and asset liability management, compliance with laws and establishment of branches. Interest and other charges collected or contracted for by the Bank are subject to state usury laws and certain federal laws concerning interest rates. The Bank files periodic reports with the FDIC and the Georgia Department.

FDICIA and Prompt Corrective Action

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), among other things, requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to take “prompt corrective action” regarding depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. FDICIA establishes five regulatory 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. The FDICIA imposes progressively more restrictive restraints on operations, management and capital distributions, depending on the category in which an institution is classified.

All of the federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted regulations establishing relevant capital measures and relevant capital levels for federally insured depository institutions. Notably, the Revised Capital Rule updated the prompt corrective action framework to correspond to the rule’s new minimum capital thresholds, which took effect on January 1, 2015. Under this new framework, (i) a well-capitalized insured depository institution is one having a total risk-based capital ratio of 10 percent or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8 percent or greater, a CET1 capital ratio of 6.5 percent or greater, a leverage capital ratio of 5 percent or greater and that is not subject to any order or written directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure; (ii) an adequately-capitalized depository institution is one having a total risk based capital ratio of 8 percent or more, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6 percent or more, a CET1 capital ratio of 4.5 percent or more, and a leverage ratio of 4 percent or more; (iii) an undercapitalized depository institution is one having a total capital ratio of less than 8 percent, a Tier 1 capital ratio of less than 6 percent, a CET1 capital ratio of less than 4.5 percent, or a leverage ratio of less than 4 percent; and (iv) a significantly undercapitalized institution is one having a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6 percent, a Tier 1 capital ratio of less than 4 percent, a CET1 ratio of less than 3 percent or a leverage capital ratio of less than 3 percent. The Revised Capital Rules retain the 2 percent threshold for critically undercapitalized institutions, but make certain changes to the framework for calculating an institution’s ratio of tangible equity to total assets.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

As of December 31, 2017, Colony Bank was considered “well capitalized,” and the consolidated capital ratios of the Company were as follows:

The federal banking agencies may require banks and bank holding companies subject to enforcement actions to maintain capital ratios in excess of the minimum ratios otherwise required to be deemed well capitalized, in which case institutions may no longer be deemed to be well capitalized and may therefore be subject to applicable restrictions.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be undercapitalized. Undercapitalized depository institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan for approval within 90 days of becoming undercapitalized. For a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding 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 for such liability would be entitled to a priority in such bankruptcy proceeding over third party creditors of the bank holding company. In addition, an undercapitalized institution is subject to increased monitoring and asset growth restrictions and is required to obtain prior regulatory approval for acquisitions, new lines of business, and branching. Such an institution also is barred from soliciting, taking or rolling over brokered deposits.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

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 within 90 days of becoming significantly undercapitalized, except under limited circumstances. Because our company and Colony Bank exceed applicable capital requirements, the respective managements of our company and Colony Bank do not believe that the provisions of FDICIA have had any material effect on our company and Colony Bank or our respective operations.

FDICIA also contains a variety of other provisions that may affect the operations of our company and Colony Bank, including reporting requirements, regulatory standards for real estate lending, “truth in savings” provisions, the requirement that a depository institution give 90 days’ prior notice to customers and regulatory authorities before closing any branch, and a prohibition on the acceptance or renewal of brokered deposits by depository institutions that are not well capitalized, or are adequately capitalized and have not received a waiver from the FDIC. Colony Bank was well capitalized at December 31, 2017, and brokered deposits are not restricted.

Standards for Safety and Soundness

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to prescribe, by regulation or guideline, operational and managerial standards for all insured depository institutions relating to: (1) internal controls; (2) information systems and audit systems; (3) loan documentation; (4) credit underwriting; (5) interest rate risk exposure; and (6) asset quality.

The agencies also must prescribe standards for asset quality, earnings, and stock valuation, as well as standards for compensation, fees and benefits. The federal banking agencies have adopted regulations and Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness to implement these required standards. These guidelines set forth the safety and soundness standards used to identify and address problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. Under the regulations, if a regulator determines that a bank fails to meet any standards prescribed by the guidelines, the regulator may require the bank to submit an acceptable plan to achieve compliance, consistent with deadlines for the submission and review of such safety and soundness compliance plans.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

The federal and Georgia regulatory structures give the bank regulatory agencies extensive discretion in connection with their supervisory and enforcement activities and examination policies, including policies with respect to the classification of assets and the establishment of adequate loan loss reserves for regulatory purposes. If, as a result of an examination, the Georgia Department or the FDIC should determine that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, or other aspects of the Bank’s operations are unsatisfactory or that the Bank or its management is violating or has violated any law or regulation, the Georgia Department and the FDIC, and separately the FDIC as insurer of the Bank’s deposits, have residual authority to:

FDIC Insurance Assessments

Colony Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC’s DIF, and Colony 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.

Effective April 1, 2011, 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. The FDIC also established a new assessment rate schedule, as well as alternative rate schedules that become effective when the DIF reserve ratio reaches certain levels. In determining the deposit insurance assessments to be paid by insured depository institutions, the FDIC generally assigns institutions to one of four risk categories based on supervisory ratings and capital ratios. Under the FDIC’s risk-based assessment system, insured institutions are assigned to risk categories based on supervisory evaluations, regulatory capital levels and certain other factors. The FDIC’s current system represents a change, required by the Dodd-Frank Act, from its prior practice of basing the assessment on an institution’s aggregate deposits.

The Dodd-Frank Act also increased the minimum designated reserve ratio of the DIF from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. Under FDIC rules, banks with at least $10 billion in assets would also pay a surcharge to enable the reserve ratio to reach 1.35%. In addition, the FDIC collects FICO deposit assessments, which are calculated off of the assessment base described above.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

The Bank’s FDIC insurance expense totaled $387 thousand for 2017. We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures or if the FDIC otherwise determines, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums. Any future increases in FDIC insurance premiums may have a material and adverse effect on our earnings and could have a material adverse effect on the value of, or market for, our common stock.

Other Regulations

Anti-Money Laundering. The International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorism Funding Act of 2001 specifies “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. Banking regulators will consider compliance with the Act’s money laundering provisions in acting upon acquisition and merger proposals. Sanctions for violations of the 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 (“USA PATRIOT”) Act of 2001, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as 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 with minimum standards that include:

Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these anti-money laundering obligations and recently have been active in imposing “cease and desist” and other regulatory orders and money penalty sanctions against institutions found to be in violation of these requirements. In addition, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has proposed new regulations that would require financial institutions to obtain beneficial ownership information for certain accounts, however, it has yet to establish final regulations on this topic.

Economic Sanctions. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is responsible for helping to ensure that U.S. entities do not engage in transactions with certain prohibited parties, as defined by various Executive Orders and acts of Congress. OFAC publishes, and routinely updates, lists of names of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts, including the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. If we find a name on any transaction, account or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, we must undertake certain specified activities, which could include blocking or freezing the account or transaction requested, and we must notify the appropriate authorities.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Transactions with Related Parties. We are a legal entity separate and distinct from Colony Bank and our other subsidiaries. Various legal limitations restrict our banking subsidiary from lending or otherwise supplying funds to us or our non-bank subsidiaries. We and our banking subsidiary are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act and the corresponding provisions of Federal Reserve Regulation W thereunder. Section 23A defines “covered transactions” to include, among other types of transactions, extensions of credit, and limits a bank’s covered transactions with any of its “affiliates” 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 operating 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 acceptable collateral, generally United States government or agency securities.

We and our bank subsidiary also are subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and the corresponding provisions of Federal Reserve Regulation W thereunder, which generally require covered transactions and certain other transactions between a bank and its affiliates to be on terms, including credit standards, that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to, the bank as those prevailing at the time for similar transactions with unaffiliated companies.

The Dodd-Frank Act generally enhanced the restrictions on banks’ transactions with affiliates under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered credit transactions must be satisfied. Specifically, Section 608 of the Dodd-Frank Act broadened the definition of “covered transactions” to include derivative transactions and the borrowing or lending of securities if the transaction will cause a bank to have credit exposure to an affiliate. The revised definition also includes the acceptance of debt obligations of an affiliate as collateral for a loan or extension of credit to a third party. Furthermore, reverse repurchase transactions will be viewed as extensions of credit (instead of asset purchases) and thus become subject to collateral requirements. The ability of the Federal Reserve to grant exemptions from these restrictions is also narrowed by the Dodd-Frank Act, including with respect to the requirement for the OCC, FDIC and Federal Reserve to coordinate with one another.

Concentrations in Lending. During 2006, the federal bank regulatory agencies released guidance on “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending” (the “Guidance”) and advised financial institutions of the risks posed by commercial real estate (“CRE”) lending concentrations. The Guidance requires that appropriate processes be in place to identify, monitor and control risks associated with real estate lending concentrations. Higher allowances for loan losses and capital levels may also be required. The Guidance is triggered when CRE loan concentrations exceed either:

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.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Community Reinvestment Act. We and our banking subsidiary are subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) and related federal bank regulatory agencies’ regulations. 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 communities 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; (v) merge or consolidate with, or acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of, a federally regulated financial institution, or (vi) expand other activities, including engaging in financial services activities authorized by the GLBA. A less than satisfactory CRA rating will slow, if not preclude, expansion of banking activities and prevent a company from becoming or remaining a financial holding company.

Following the enactment of the GLBA, CRA agreements with private parties must be disclosed and annual CRA reports must be made to a bank’s primary federal regulator. A bank holding company will not be permitted to become or remain a financial holding company and no new activities authorized under GLBA may be commenced by a 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. Federal CRA regulations require, among other things, that evidence of discrimination against applicants on a prohibited basis, and illegal or abusive lending practices be considered in the CRA evaluation.

Privacy and Data Security.  The GLBA generally prohibits disclosure of consumer information to non-affiliated third parties unless the consumer has been given the opportunity to object and has not objected to such disclosure. Financial institutions are further required to disclose their privacy policies to consumers annually. Financial institutions, however, will be required to comply with state law if it is more protective of consumer privacy than the GLBA. The GLBA also directed federal regulators, including the FDIC and the OCC, to prescribe standards for the security of consumer information. Colony Bank is subject to such standards, as well as standards for notifying customers in the event of a security breach. Under federal law, Colony Bank must disclose its privacy policy to consumers, permit customers to opt out of having nonpublic customer information disclosed to third parties in certain circumstances, and allow customers to opt out of receiving marketing solicitations based on information about the customer received from another subsidiary. States may adopt more extensive privacy protections. We are similarly required to have an information security program to safeguard the confidentiality and security of customer information and to ensure proper disposal. Customers must be notified when unauthorized disclosure involves sensitive customer information that may be misused.

Consumer Regulation.  The Bank must also comply with numerous federal and state consumer protection statutes and implementing regulations, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the National Flood Insurance Act, and various federal and state privacy protection laws. Noncompliance with these laws could subject the Bank to lawsuits and could also result in administrative penalties, including, fines and reimbursements. The Bank and the Company are also subject to federal and state laws prohibiting unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure and reporting requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits, making loans, servicing, collecting, and foreclosure of loans, and providing other services. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations can subject the Bank to various penalties, including but not limited to enforcement actions, injunctions, fines or criminal penalties, punitive damages to consumers, and the loss of certain contractual rights.

These laws and regulations include, among numerous other things, provisions that:

Mortgage-Related Reforms. The CFPB adopted a rule that implements the ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act (the “ATR/QM rule”), which took effect on January 10, 2014, and has impacted our residential mortgage lending practices, and the residential mortgage market generally. The ATR/QM rule requires lenders to consider, among other things, income, employment status, assets, payment amounts, and credit history before approving a mortgage, and provides a compliance “safe harbor” for lenders that issue certain “qualified mortgages.” The ATR/QM rule defines a “qualified mortgage” to have certain specified characteristics, and generally prohibit loans with negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, or terms exceeding 30 years from being qualified mortgages. The rule also establishes general underwriting criteria for qualified mortgages, including that monthly payments be calculated based on the highest payment that will apply in the first five years of the loan and that the borrower have a total debt-to-income ratio that is less than or equal to 43 percent. While “qualified mortgages” will generally be afforded safe harbor status, a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ability-to-repay requirements will attach to “qualified mortgages” that are “higher priced mortgages” (which are generally subprime loans). In particular, it will prevent banks from making “no doc” and “low doc” home loans, as the rules require that banks determine a consumer’s ability to pay based in part on verified and documented information. Because we do not originate “no doc” or “low doc” loans, we do not believe this regulation will have a significant effect on our operations.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

In addition, under rules that became effective December 24, 2015, the securitizer of asset-backed securities must retain not less than 5 percent of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing the asset-backed securities, unless subject to an exemption for asset-backed securities that are collateralized exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as “qualified residential mortgages.” These definitions are expected to significantly shape the parameters for the majority of consumer mortgage lending in the U.S.

Reflecting the CFPB's focus on the residential mortgage lending market, the CFPB has also issued rules to implement requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act pertaining to mortgage loan origination (including with respect to loan originator compensation and loan originator qualifications) and has finalized integrated mortgage disclosure rules that replace and combine certain requirements under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. In addition, the CFPB has issued rules that require servicers to comply with new standards and practices with regard to: error correction; information disclosure; force-placement of insurance; information management policies and procedures; requiring information about mortgage loss mitigation options be provided to delinquent borrowers; providing delinquent borrowers access to servicer personnel with continuity of contact about the borrower’s mortgage loan account; and evaluating borrowers’ applications for available loss mitigation options. These rules also address initial rate adjustment notices for adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), periodic statements for residential mortgage loans, and prompt crediting of mortgage payments and response to requests for payoff amounts. The CFPB has indicated that it expects to issue additional mortgage-related rules in the future.

The CFPB has indicated that, in addition to specific statutory mandates, it is working on a wide range of initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services. The CFPB has also undertaken an effort to “streamline” consumer regulations and has established a database to collect, track and make public consumer complaints, including complaints against individual financial institutions.

The CFPB also has broad authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices (“UDAAP”) and to investigate and penalize financial institutions that violate this prohibition. While the statutory language of the Dodd-Frank Act sets forth the standards for acts and practices that violate this prohibition, certain aspects of these standards are untested, which has created some uncertainty regarding how the CFPB will exercise this authority. The CFPB has, however, brought enforcement actions against certain financial institutions for UDAAP violations and issued some guidance on the topic, which provides insight into the agency’s expectations regarding these standards. Among other things, CFPB guidance and its UDAAP-related enforcement actions have emphasized that management of third-party service providers is essential to effective UDAAP compliance and that the CFPB is particularly focused on marketing and sales practices.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

We cannot fully predict the effect that implementing regulations or revisions to existing regulations enforcement actions or other activity of the CFPB may have on our businesses. 

The deposit operations of Colony Bank are also subject to laws and regulations that:

Non-Discrimination Policies. Colony 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 that provides 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.

Enforcement Authority. Colony Bank and its “institution-affiliated parties,” including management, employees, agents, independent contractors and consultants, such as attorneys and accountants and others who participate in the conduct of the institution’s affairs, are subject to potential civil and criminal penalties for violations of law, regulations or written orders of a government agency. Violations can include failure to timely file required reports, filing false or misleading information or submitting inaccurate reports. Civil penalties may be as high as $1,000,000 a day for such violations, and criminal penalties for some financial institution crimes may include imprisonment for 20 years. Regulators have flexibility to commence enforcement actions against institutions and institution-affiliated parties, and the FDIC has the authority to terminate deposit insurance. When issued by a banking agency, cease-and-desist orders may, among other things, require affirmative action to correct any harm resulting from a violation or practice, including restitution, reimbursement, indemnifications or guarantees against loss. A financial institution may also be ordered to restrict its growth, dispose of certain assets, rescind agreements or contracts, or take other actions determined to be appropriate by the ordering agency. The federal banking agencies also may remove a director or officer from an insured depository institution (or bar them from the industry) if a violation is willful or reckless.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1 (Continued)

Evolving Legislation and Regulatory Action. Proposals for new statutes and regulations are frequently circulated at both the federal and state levels, and may include wide-ranging changes to the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of financial institutions. We cannot predict whether new legislation will be enacted and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any regulations, would have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Other Regulatory Matters. We and our subsidiaries are subject to oversight by the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”), Nasdaq and various state securities regulators. We and our subsidiaries have from time to time received requests for information from regulatory authorities in various states, including state attorneys general, securities regulators and other regulatory authorities, concerning our business practices. Such requests are considered incidental to the normal conduct of business.

Iran Sanctions Related Disclosure

Under the Iran Threat Reduction and Syrian Human Rights Act of 2012, which added Section 13(r) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, we are required to include certain disclosures in our periodic reports if we or any of our “affiliates” knowingly engaged in certain specified activities during the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Because the SEC defines the term “affiliate” broadly, it includes any entity controlled by us as well as any person or entity that controls us or is under common control with us. We do not believe we and our consolidated subsidiary have knowingly engaged in any transaction or dealing reportable under Section 13(r) of the Exchange Act during fiscal year 2015.

Risk Factors

Strong competition and changing banking environment may limit growth and profitability.

Competition in the banking and financial services industry is intense. We compete with commercial banks, savings institutions, mortgage brokerage firms, credit unions, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage and investment banking firms operating locally and elsewhere, and non-traditional financial institutions, including non-depository financial services providers. Many of these competitors (whether regional or national institutions) have substantially greater resources and lending limits than we have and may offer certain services that we do not or cannot provide. Additionally, non-traditional financial institutions may not have the same regulatory requirements or burdens as we do. Despite playing a rapidly increasing role in the financial services industry including providing services previously limited to commercial banks. Such competition could ultimately limit our growth, profitability and shareholder value. Our profitability depends upon our ability to successfully compete in our market areas and adapt to the ever changing banking environment.

Any future economic downturn could have a material adverse effect on our capital, financial condition, results of operations, and future growth.

Our management continually monitors market conditions and economic factors throughout our footprint. While recent economic data suggests that overall economic conditions have improved, as supported by our improved credit trends, we cannot make any assurance that these economic conditions - both nationally and in our principal markets - will not worsen in the future. If these conditions were to worsen, then we could see a sharp increase in our total net charge-offs and also be required to significantly increase our allowance for loan losses. Furthermore, the demand for loans and our other products and services could decline. Any future increase in our non-performing assets and related increases in our provision for loan losses, coupled with a potential decrease in the demand for loans and our other products and services, could negatively affect our business and could have a material adverse effect on our capital, financial condition, results of operations and future growth.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A 

A reduction in consumer confidence could negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

The beginning of 2017 has seen significant market volatility driven in part by concerns relating to, among other things, the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The continued impact of this issue could adversely affect the U.S. or global economies, with direct or indirect impacts on the Company and its business. Results could include drops in consumer and business confidence, credit deterioration, diminished capital markets activity, and delays in the Federal Reserve Board increases in interest rates.

Our business may be adversely affected by downturns in our national and local economies.

Our operations are significantly affected by national and local economic conditions. Substantially all of our loans are to businesses and individuals in Georgia. All of our branches and most of our deposit customers are also located in this area. A decline in the economies in which we operate could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A deterioration in economic conditions in the market areas we serve could result in the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations:

Changes in interest rates could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our results of operations and financial condition are significantly affected by changes in interest rates. Our results of operations depend substantially on our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income we earn on our interest-earning assets, such as loans and securities, and the interest expense we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Because our interest-bearing liabilities generally reprice or mature more quickly than our interest-earning assets, a sustained increase in interest rates generally would tend to reduce our interest income.

In an attempt to help the overall economy, the Federal Reserve Board has kept interest rates low through its targeted Fed Funds rate. In December 2017, the Federal Reserve Board increased the Fed Funds rate by 25 basis points and intends further increases during 2018, subject to economic conditions. As the Federal Reserve Board increases the Fed Funds rate, overall interest rates will likely rise, which may negatively impact the U.S. economic recovery. Further, changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence (i) the amount of interest we receive on loans and securities, (ii) the amount of interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, (iii) our ability to originate loans and obtain deposits, (iv) the fair value of our assets and liabilities, and (v) the reinvestment risk associated with a reduced duration of our mortgage-backed securities portfolio as borrowers refinance to reduce borrowing costs. When interest-bearing liabilities reprice or mature more quickly than interest-earning assets, an increase in interest rates generally would tend to result in a decrease in net interest income.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

Changes in interest rates also affect the current fair value of our interest-earning securities portfolio. Generally, the value of securities moves inversely with changes in interest rates. At December 31, 2017, the fair value of our portfolio of investment securities totaled $354,246,904. Net unrealized losses on these securities totaled $8,217,657 at December 31, 2017.

Additionally, 6.30% of our one- to four-family loan portfolio is comprised of adjustable-rate loans. Any rise in market interest rates may result in increased payments for borrowers who have adjustable-rate mortgage loans, which would increase the possibility of default.

Although management believes it has implemented an effective asset and liability management strategy to manage the potential effects of changes in interest rates, including the use of adjustable rate and/or short-term assets, and FHLB advances or longer term repurchase agreements, any substantial, unexpected, prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of our operation and/or our strategies may not always be successful in managing the risk associated with changes in interest rates.

Our allowance for loan losses may not cover actual losses, and we may be required to materially increase our allowance, which may adversely affect our capital, financial condition and results of operations.

We derive the most significant portion of our revenues from our lending activities. When we lend money, commit to lend money or enter into a letter of credit or other contract with a counterparty, we incur credit risk, which is the risk of losses if our borrowers do not repay their loans or our counterparties fail to perform according to the terms of their contracts. We estimate and maintain an allowance for loan losses, which is a reserve established through a provision for loan losses charged to expenses, which represents management's best estimate of probable credit losses that have been incurred within the existing portfolio of loans, as described under [Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in this Report and under “Allowance for Loan Losses” under “Part II - Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Report.]

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

The allowance, in the judgment of management, is established to reserve for estimated loan losses and risks inherent in the loan portfolio. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks using existing qualitative and quantitative information, all of which may undergo material changes. Changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans, risk ratings, and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses.

Because the risk rating of the loans is dependent on some subjective information and subject to changes in the borrower's credit risk profile, evolving local market conditions and other factors, it can be difficult for us to predict the effects that those factors will have on the classifications assigned to the loan portfolio, and thus difficult to anticipate the velocity or volume of the migration of loans through the classification process and effect on the level of the allowance for loan losses. An increase in the allowance for loan losses would result in a decrease in net income and capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our capital, financial condition and results of operations. Accordingly, we monitor our credit quality and our reserve requirements and use that as a basis for capital planning and other purposes. [See “Part II - Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Capital and Liquidity” of this Report for further information.]

Our commercial real estate, real estate construction, and commercial business loans increase our exposure to credit risks.

Over the last several years, we have increased our non-residential lending in order to improve the yield and reduce the average duration of our assets. At December 31, 2017, our portfolio of commercial real estate, commercial real estate construction, and commercial business loans totaled $444,507,891, or 58.08% of total loans, compared to $426,473,271, or 56.54% of total loans at December 31, 2016 and $434,150,355, or 57.23% of total loans at December 31, 2015. At December 31, 2017, the amount of nonperforming commercial real estate, commercial real estate construction, and commercial business loans was $3,247,577, or 43.29% of total nonperforming loans. These loans may expose us to a greater risk of non-payment and loss than residential real estate loans because, in the case of commercial loans, repayment often depends on the successful operation and earnings of the borrower's businesses and, in the case of consumer loans, the applicable collateral is subject to rapid depreciation. Additionally, commercial real estate loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers compared to residential real estate loans. If loans that are collateralized by real estate become troubled and the value of the real estate has been significantly impaired, then we may not be able to recover the full contractual amount of principal and interest due on the loan, which could cause us to increase our provision for loan losses and adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.

We hold certain intangible assets that in the future could be classified as either partially or fully impaired, which would reduce our earnings and the book values of these assets.

Pursuant to applicable accounting requirements, we are required to periodically test our goodwill and core deposit intangible assets for impairment. The impairment testing process considers a variety of factors, including the current market price of our common shares, the estimated net present value of our assets and liabilities and information concerning the terminal valuation of similarly situated insured depository institutions. Future impairment testing may result in a partial or full impairment of the value of our goodwill or core deposit intangible assets, or both. If an impairment determination is made in a future reporting period, our earnings and the book value of these intangible assets will be reduced by the amount of the impairment.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

Acquisitions could disrupt our business and adversely affect our operating results.

To the extent that we grow through acquisitions, we may not be able to adequately or profitably manage this growth. In addition, such acquisitions may involve the issuance of securities, which may have a dilutive effect on earnings per share. Acquiring banks, bank branches or businesses involves risks commonly associated with acquisitions, including:

Reductions in service charge income or failure to comply with payment network rules could negatively impact our earnings.

We derive significant revenue from service charges on deposit accounts, the bulk of which comes from overdraft-related fees. Changes in banking regulations could have an adverse impact on our ability to derive income from service charges. Increased competition from other financial institutions or changes in consumer behavior could lead to declines in our deposit balances, which would result in a decline in service charge fees. Such a reduction could have a material impact on our earnings.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

Reductions in interchange income could negatively impact our earnings. 

Interchange income is derived from fees paid by merchants to the interchange network in exchange for the use of the network's infrastructure and payment facilitation. These fees are paid to card issuers to compensate them for the costs associated with issuance and operation. We earn interchange fees on card transactions from debit cards, including $2,588,678 during the year ended December 31, 2017. Merchants have attempted to negotiate lower interchange rates, and the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act limits the amount of interchange fees that may be charged for certain debit card transactions. Merchants may also continue to pursue alternative payment platforms, such as Apple Pay, to lower their processing costs. Any such new payment system may reduce our interchange income. Our failure to comply with the operating regulations set forth by payment card networks, which may change, could subject us to penalties, fees or the termination of our license to use the networks. Any of these scenarios could have a material impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because the nature of the financial services business involves a high volume of transactions, we face significant operational risks.

We are exposed to many types of operation risks, including reputational risk, legal and regulatory and compliance risk, the risk of fraud or theft by employees or persons outside our company, including the execution of unauthorized transactions by employees or operational errors, clerical or record-keeping errors or those resulting from faulty or disabled computer or telecommunications systems. Negative public opinion can result from our actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices, corporate governance and acquisitions and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public opinion can adversely affect our ability to attract and keep customers and can expose us to litigation and regulatory action. Actual or alleged conduct by Colony Bank can result in negative public opinion about our business. Negative public opinion could also affect our credit ratings, which are important to our access to unsecured wholesale borrowings.

Our business involves storing and processing sensitive consumer and business customer data. If personal, non-public, confidential or proprietary information of customers in our possession were to be mishandled or misused, we could suffer significant regulatory consequences, reputational damage and financial loss. Such mishandling or misuse could include, for example, if such information were erroneously provided to parties who were not permitted to have that information, either by fault of our systems, employees, or counterparties, or where such information is intercepted or otherwise inappropriately taken by third parties. Furthermore, a cybersecurity breach could result in theft of such data.

Because we operate in diverse markets and rely on the ability of our employees and systems to process a high number of transactions, certain errors may be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and successfully rectified. Our necessary dependence upon automated systems to record and process transactions, and our large transaction volume, may further increase the risk that technical flaws or employee tampering or manipulation of those systems will result in losses that are difficult to detect. We also may be subject to disruptions of our operating systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (for example, security breaches, denial of service attacks, viruses, worms and other disruptive problems caused by hackers, computer break-ins, phishing and other disruptions or electrical or telecommunications outages, or natural disasters, disease pandemics or other damage to property or physical assets) which may result in violations of consumer privacy laws including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, cause significant liability to us and give reason for existing and potential customers to refrain from doing business with us. Although we, with the help of third-party service providers, intend to continue to implement security technology and establish operational procedures to prevent such damage and potential liability, there can be no assurance that these security measures will be successful. In addition, advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries in the field of cryptography or other developments could result in a compromise or breach of the algorithms we and our third-party service providers use to encrypt and protect customer transaction data. We are further exposed to the risk that our external vendors may be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations (or will be subject to the same risk of fraud or operational errors by their respective employees as we are) and to the risk that our (or our vendors’) business continuity and data security systems prove to be inadequate. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in a diminished ability of us to operate our business (for example, by requiring us to expend significant resources to correct the defect), as well as potential liability to clients, reputational damage and regulatory intervention, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition or operations results, perhaps materially.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

As an issuer of debit cards, we are exposed to losses in the event that holders of our cards experience fraud on their card accounts.

Our customers regularly use Colony Bank-issued debit cards to pay for transactions with retailers and other businesses. There is the risk of data security breaches at these retailers and other businesses that could result in the misappropriation of our customers’ debit card information. When our customers use Colony Bank-issued cards to make purchases from those businesses, card account information is provided to the business. If the business’s systems that process or store card account information are subject to a data security breach, holders of our cards who have made purchases from that business may experience fraud on their card accounts. Colony Bank may suffer losses associated with reimbursing our customers for such fraudulent transactions on customers’ card accounts, as well as for other costs related to data security compromise events, such as replacing cards associated with compromised card accounts.

The financial services market is undergoing rapid technological changes, and if we are unable to stay current with those changes, we will not be able to effectively compete.

The financial services market, including banking services, is undergoing rapid changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to keep pace with the technological changes and to use technology to satisfy and grow customer demand for our products and services and to create additional efficiencies in our operations. We expect that we will need to make substantial investments in our technology and information systems to compete effectively and to stay current with technological changes. Some of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements and will be able to invest more heavily in developing and adopting new technologies, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage.

We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. As a result, our ability to effectively compete to retain or acquire new business may be impaired, and our business, financial condition or results of operations may be adversely affected.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

We face significant cyber and data security risk that could result in the dissemination of confidential and sensitive information, adversely affecting our business or reputation and exposing us to material liabilities.

Our business model enables our customers to utilize the Internet and other remote channels to transact business. As a financial institution, we are under continuous threat of loss due to the swiftness and sophistication of hacking and cyber-attacks. This risk, although considerable at the present, will only increase in the future. Two of the most significant cyber-attack risks that we face are electronic fraud and loss of sensitive customer data. Loss from electronic fraud occurs when cybercriminals breach and extract funds directly from customer accounts or our own accounts. The attempts to breach sensitive customer data, such as account numbers, social security numbers, or other personal information are less frequent but would present significant legal and/or regulatory costs to us if successful, as well as potentially damage our reputation among the markets we serve. Our risk and exposure to these matters will remain relevant because of the evolving nature and complexity of the threats posed by cybercriminals and hackers along with our plans to continue to provide Internet banking and mobile banking avenues for transacting business. While we have not experienced material losses relating to cyber-attacks or other information security breaches to date, we have been the subject of attempted hacking and cyber-attacks and there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future.

The occurrence of any cyber-attack or information security breach could result in material adverse consequences including damage to our reputation and the loss of current or potential customers. We also could face litigation or additional regulatory scrutiny due to such an occurrence. Litigation or regulatory actions in turn could lead to material liability, including, but not limited to, fines and penalties or reimbursement to customers adversely affected by a data breach. Even if we do not suffer any material adverse consequences as a result of events affecting us directly, successful attacks or systems failures at other financial institutions could lead to a general loss of customer confidence in our company.

We continually review our network and systems security and make the necessary investments to improve the resiliency of our systems and their security from attack. Nonetheless, there remains the risk that we may be materially harmed by a cyber-attack or information security breach. Methods used to attack information systems continue to evolve in sophistication, swiftness, and frequency and can occur from a variety of sources, such as foreign governments, hacktivists, or other well-financed entities, and may originate from remote and less regulated areas of the world. If such an attack or breach were to occur, we might not be able to address and find a solution in a timely and adequate manner. We will, however, promptly take reasonable and customary measures to address the situation.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

As a community bank, our recruitment and retention efforts may not be sufficient enough to implement our business strategy and execute successful operations.

Our financial success depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly motivated, well-qualified personnel. We face significant competition in the recruitment of qualified employees from financial institutions and others. As we continue to grow, we may find our recruitment and retention efforts more challenging. If we do not succeed in attracting, hiring, and integrating experienced or qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy, and we may be required to substantially increase our overall compensation or benefits to attract and retain such employees. Furthermore, in June 2010, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the FDIC jointly issued comprehensive final guidance designed to ensure that incentive compensation policies do not undermine the safety and soundness of banking organizations by encouraging employees to take imprudent risks. This regulation significantly restricts the amount, form, and context in which we pay incentive-based compensation and may put us at a competitive disadvantage compared to non-financial institutions in terms of attracting and retaining senior level employees.

We are a community bank and our ability to maintain our reputation is critical to the success of our business and the failure to do so may materially adversely affect our performance.

Our reputation is one of the most valuable components of our business. As such, we strive to conduct our business in a manner that enhances our reputation. This is done, in part, by recruiting, hiring and retaining employees who share our core values of being an integral part of the communities we serve, delivering superior service to our customers and caring about our customers and associates. If our reputation is negatively affected, by the actions of our employees or otherwise, our business and, therefore, our operating results may be materially adversely affected.

We rely on third-party vendors for key components of our business.

Many key components of our operations, including data processing, recording and monitoring transactions, online interfaces and services, internet connections and network access are provided by other companies. Our vendor management process selects third-party vendors carefully, but we do not control their actions. Problems, including disruptions in communication, security breaches, or failure of a vendor to provide services, could hurt our operations or our relationships with customers. If our vendors suffer financial or operational issues, our operations and reputation could suffer if it harms the vendors’ ability to serve us and our customers. Third-party vendors are also a source of operational and information security risk to us. Replacing or renegotiating contracts with vendors could entail significant operational expense and delays. The use of third-party vendors represents an unavoidable inherent risk to our company.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

Hurricanes or other adverse weather events would negatively affect our local economies or disrupt our operations, which would have an adverse effect on our business or results of operations.

Our market area is located in the southeastern region of the United States and is susceptible to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, other severe weather events and related flooding and wind damage, and man-made disasters. These natural disasters could negatively impact regional economic conditions, cause a decline in the value or destruction of mortgaged properties and an increase in the risk of delinquencies, foreclosures or loss on loans originated by us, damage our banking facilities and offices and negatively impact our growth strategy. Such weather events can disrupt operations, result in damage to properties and negatively affect the local economies in the markets where they operate. We cannot predict whether or to what extent damage that may be caused by future hurricanes or tornadoes will affect our operations or the economies in our current or future market areas, but such weather events could negatively impact economic conditions in these regions and result in a decline in local loan demand and loan originations, a decline in the value or destruction of properties securing our loans and an increase in delinquencies, foreclosures or loan losses. Our business or results of operations may be adversely affected by these and other negative effects of natural or man-made disasters.

We may be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Regulation of the financial services industry continues to undergo major changes, and future legislation could increase our cost of doing business or harm our competitive position.

The Dodd-Frank Act brought about a significant overhaul of many aspects of the regulation of the financial services industry, addressing, among other things, systemic risk, capital adequacy, deposit insurance assessments, consumer financial protection, interchange fees, derivatives, lending limits, mortgage lending practices, registration of investment advisors and changes among the bank regulatory agencies.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

Major changes in the law could materially impact the profitability of our business, the value of assets we hold or the collateral available for our loans, require changes to business practices or force us to discontinue businesses and expose us to additional costs, taxes, liabilities, enforcement actions and reputational risk. We cannot fully predict the effect that compliance with changing laws or any implementing regulations will have on the Company’s or the Bank’s businesses or our ability to pursue future business opportunities, our financial condition or results of operations. [See “Part I - Item 1. Business - Supervision, Regulation and Other Factors” of this Report for further information.] We cannot predict whether new legislation will be enacted and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any regulations, would have on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

New regulations could restrict our ability to originate and sell mortgage loans.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a rule designed to clarify for lenders how they can avoid monetary damages under the Dodd-Frank Act, which would hold lenders accountable for ensuring a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage. Loans that meet this “qualified mortgage” definition will be presumed to have complied with the new ability-to-repay standard. Under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule, a “qualified mortgage” loan must not contain certain specified features, including:

Also, to qualify as a “qualified mortgage,” a borrower’s total monthly debt-to-income ratio may not exceed 43%. Lenders must also verify and document the income and financial resources relied upon to qualify the borrower for the loan and underwrite the loan based on a fully amortizing payment schedule and maximum interest rate during the first five years, taking into account all applicable taxes, insurance and assessments. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule on qualified mortgages could limit our ability or desire to make certain types of loans or loans to certain borrowers, or could make it more expensive/and or time consuming to make these loans, which could limit our growth or profitability.

Changes in laws and regulations and the cost of regulatory compliance with new laws and regulations may adversely affect our operations and our income.

Bank regulatory agencies, such as the FDIC, govern the activities in which we may engage, primarily for the protection of depositors, and not for the protection or benefit of potential investors. In addition, new laws and regulations are likely to increase our costs of regulatory compliance and costs of doing business, and otherwise affect our operations. New laws and regulations may significantly affect the markets in which we do business, the markets for and value of our loans and investments, the fees we can charge, and our ongoing operations, costs and profitability. For example, regulatory changes to our overdraft protection programs could decrease the amount of fees we receive for these services. We cannot fully predict the effect that changes in law or regulation will have on the Company’s or the Bank’s businesses or our ability to pursue future business opportunities, our financial condition or results of operations.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1A (Continued)

Our management team’s strategies for the enhancement of shareholder value may not succeed.

Our management team is taking and considering actions to enhance shareholder value, including reviewing personnel, developing new products, issuing dividends and exploring acquisition opportunities. These actions may not enhance shareholder value. For example, holders of our common stock are only entitled to receive such dividends as our Board of Directors may declare out of funds legally available for such payments. We are not legally required to do so. Further, the Federal Reserve could decide at any time that paying any dividends on our common stock could be an unsafe or unsound banking practice. The reduction or elimination of dividends paid on our common stock could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our stock price may be volatile due to limited trading volume.

Our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. However, the average daily trading volume in the Company’s common stock has been relatively small, averaging approximately 19 total trades per day during 2017. As a result, trades involving a relatively small number of shares may have a significant effect on the market price of the common stock, and it may be difficult for investors to acquire or dispose of large blocks of stock without significantly affecting the market price.

The costs and effects of litigation, investigations or similar matters involving us or other financial institutions or counterparties, or adverse facts and developments related thereto, could materially affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

We may be involved from time to time in a variety of litigation, investigations, inquiries or similar matters arising out of our business, including those described in [“Part I - Item 3. Legal Proceedings” and "Part II - Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" of this Report.] We cannot predict the outcome of these or any other legal matters. We establish reserves for legal claims when payments associated with the claims become probable and the losses can be reasonably estimated. We may still incur legal costs for a matter even if we have not established a reserve. In addition, the actual cost of resolving a legal claim may be substantially higher than any amounts reserved for that matter. In addition, in the future, we may need to record additional litigation reserves with respect to these matters. Further, regardless of how these matters proceed, it could divert our management's attention and other resources away from our business. Our insurance may not cover all claims that may be asserted against it and indemnification rights to which we are entitled may not be honored, and any claims asserted against us, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, may harm our reputation. Should the ultimate judgments or settlements in any litigation or investigation significantly exceed our insurance coverage, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, premiums for insurance covering the financial and banking sectors are rising. We may not be able to obtain appropriate types or levels of insurance in the future, nor may we be able to obtain adequate replacement policies with acceptable terms or at historic rates, if at all.

Our stock price is subject to fluctuations, and the value of your investment may decline.

The trading price of our common stock is subject to wide fluctuations. The stock market in general, and the market for the stocks of commercial banks and other financial services companies in particular, has experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that sometimes have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance, and the value of your investment may decline.

Part I (Continued)

Item 1B

Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2

Properties

The principal properties of the Registrant consist of the properties of the Bank. The Bank owns all of the banking offices occupied except one office in Valdosta and one office in Douglas which are leased. In addition, the Company owns the corporate offices located in Fitzgerald, Georgia.

Item 3

Legal Proceedings

The Company and its subsidiary may become parties to various legal proceedings arising from the normal course of business. As of December 31, 2017, there are no material pending legal proceedings to which Colony or its subsidiary are a party or of which any of its property is the subject.

Item 4

Mine Safety Disclosures

Not Applicable.

Part II

Item 5

Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities

Effective April 2, 1998, Colony Bankcorp, Inc. common stock is quoted on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “CBAN.” Prior to this date, there was no public market for the common stock of the registrant.

The following table sets forth the high, low and close sale prices per share of the common stock as reported on the NASDAQ Global Market, and the dividends declared per share for the periods indicated.

During 2017, the Company paid $843,934 in cash dividends on its common stock. No cash dividends were paid on its common stock in 2016. For a description of the restrictions and limitations on the Company’s ability to pay dividends, please see “Dividends” on Page 14.

As of December 31, 2017, the Company had approximately 1,814 common stockholders of record.

Issuer Purchase of Equity Securities

The Company purchased no shares of the Company’s common stock during the quarter ended December 31, 2017.

Part II (Continued)

Item 5 (Continued)

Performance Graph

The performance graph below compares the cumulative total shareholder return on the Company’s Common Stock with the cumulative total return on the equity securities of companies included in the NASDAQ Composite Index and the SNL Southeast Bank Index, measured at the last trading day of each year shown. The graph assumes an investment of $100 on December 31, 2012. The performance graph represents past performance and should not be considered to be an indication of future performance.

Part II (Continued)

Item 6

Selected Financial Data

Part II (Continued)

Item 6 (Continued)

Part II (Continued)

Item 7

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Forward-Looking Statements and Factors that Could Affect Future Results

Certain statements contained in this Annual Report that are not statements of historical fact constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), notwithstanding that such statements are not specifically identified. In addition, certain statements may be contained in the Company’s future filings with the SEC, in press releases, and in oral and written statements made by or with the approval of the Company that are not statements of historical fact and constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Act. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: (i) projections of revenues, income or loss, earnings or loss per share, the payment or nonpayment of dividends, capital structure and other financial items; (ii) statements of plans and objectives of Colony Bankcorp, Inc. or its management or Board of Directors, including those relating to products or services; (iii) statements of future economic performance; and (iv) statements of assumptions underlying such statements. Words such as “believes,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “targeted” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements.

Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in such statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to:

Part II (Continued)

Item 7 (Continued)

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

Future Outlook

During the recent financial crisis, the financial industry experienced tremendous adversities as a result of the collapse of the real estate markets across the country. Colony, like most banking companies, has been affected by these economic challenges that started with a rapid stall of real estate sales and developments throughout the country. While much has been accomplished in addressing problem assets the past several years, there is still work to be done in bringing our problem assets to an acceptable level. A focus in 2018 will be directed toward further reduction of problem assets.

As we look forward to 2018 we are committed to improving earnings and reducing problem assets. Given the improved condition of the company we are also considering product and market expansion. In January 2017, the Company opened its third office in Savannah. Currently, the Company is performing due diligence on a property for a new office in Statesboro.

While the Company has improved earnings, reduced problem assets and maintained strong capital levels, we have reinstated dividend payments beginning first quarter 2017. The Company’s board of directors suspended the payment of dividends in the third quarter of 2009.

We continue to explore opportunities to improve core non-interest income. Revenue enhancement initiatives to accomplish this include new product lines and services. The Company will also invest in new technology with implementation of a new loan platform which will offer much efficiency with our “back-office” operations.

In addition, we continue to make efforts to attract and retain top talent to improve business operations. To that end, the Company entered into Retention Agreements with members of management in the first quarter of 2015. The Company expects that these agreements will facilitate the retention of key individuals responsible for maintaining current operations and spearheading future product and market expansion.

Part II (Continued)

Item 7 (Continued)

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJ Act”) was enacted. The TCJ Act made broad changes to the U.S. tax code, including, but not limited to, a reduction of the U.S. federal corporate tax rate to 21 percent. As a result of the enactment of the TCJ Act, we have remeasured our deferred tax assets and liabilities based upon the new U.S. statutory federal income tax rate of 21%, which is the tax rate at which these assets and liabilities are expected to reverse in the future. We recognized additional income tax expense of $2,040,946 in the fourth quarter of 2017 related to the remeasurement of our deferred tax assets and liabilities. Currently, we are still analyzing certain aspects of the new law and refining our calculations, which could affect the measurement of these assets and liabilities or give rise to new deferred tax amounts. The table below illustrates the effect the additional tax expense resulting from the TCJ Act had on our results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Our accounting and reporting policies conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States and prevailing practices in the banking industry. However, certain non-GAAP measures are used by management to supplement the evaluation of our performance. These include the fully-taxable equivalent measures: tax-equivalent net interest income, tax-equivalent net interest margin and tax-equivalent net interest spread, which include the effects of taxable-equivalent adjustments using a federal income tax rate of 34% to increase tax-exempt interest income to a tax-equivalent basis.  Tax-equivalent adjustments are reported in Notes 1 and 2 to the Average Balances with Average Yields and Rates table under Rate/Volume Analysis. Tangible book value per common share is also a non-GAAP measure used in the selected Financial Data Section.

Tax-equivalent net interest income, net interest margin and net interest spread.  Net interest income on a tax-equivalent basis is a non-GAAP measure that adjusts for the tax-favored status of net interest income from loans and investments. We believe this measure to be the preferred industry measurement of net interest income and it enhances comparability of net interest income arising from taxable and tax-exempt sources. The most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with GAAP is our net interest income. Net interest margin on a tax-equivalent basis is net interest income on a tax-equivalent basis divided by average interest-earning assets on a tax-equivalent basis. The most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with GAAP is our net interest margin. Net interest spread on a tax-equivalent basis is the difference in the average yield on average interest-earning assets on a tax equivalent basis and the average rate paid on average interest-bearing liabilities. The most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with GAAP is our net interest spread.

Part II (Continued)

Item 7 (Continued)

Non-GAAP Financial Measures (Continued)

These non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered alternatives to GAAP-basis financial statements, and other bank holding companies may define or calculate these non-GAAP measures or similar measures differently.

A reconciliation of these performance measures to GAAP performance measures is included in the tables below.

Part II (Continued)

Item 7 (Continued)

The Company

Colony Bankcorp, Inc. (“Colony” or the “Company”) is a bank holding company headquartered in Fitzgerald, Georgia that provides, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Colony Bank (collectively referred to as the Company), a broad array of products and services throughout central, south and coastal Georgia markets. The Company offers commercial, consumer and mortgage banking services.

Overview

The following discussion and analysis presents the more significant factors affecting the Company’s financial condition as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and results of operations for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2017. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements, notes thereto and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this report.

Taxable-equivalent adjustments are the result of increasing income from tax-free loans and investments by an amount equal to the taxes that would be paid if the income were fully taxable based on a 34 percent federal tax rate, thus making tax-exempt yields comparable to taxable asset yields.

Dollar amounts in tables are stated in thousands, except for per share amounts.

Part II (Continued)

Item 7 (Continued)

Results of Operations

The Company’s results of operations are determined by its ability to effectively manage interest income and expense, to minimize loan and investment losses, to generate noninterest income and to control noninterest expense. Since market forces and economic conditions beyond the control of the Company determine interest rates, the ability to generate net interest income is dependent upon the Company’s ability to obtain an adequate spread between the rate earned on interest-earning assets and the rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities. Thus, the key performance for net interest income is the interest margin or net yield, which is taxable-equivalent net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets. Net income available to common shareholders totaled $7.54 million, or $0.87 per diluted shares in 2017, compared to $7.18 million, or $0.84 per diluted common share in 2016 and compared to $6.00 million, or $0.71 per diluted common share in 2015.

Selected income statement data, returns on average assets and average equity and dividends per share for the comparable periods were as follows:

Part II (Continued)

Item 7 (Continued)

Net Interest Income

Net interest income is the difference between interest income on earning assets, such as loans and securities, and interest expense on liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings, which are used to fund those assets. Net interest income is the Company’s largest source of revenue, representing 80.04 percent of total revenue during 2017, 79.96 percent of total revenue during 2016, and 80.65 percent of total revenue during 2015.

Net interest margin is the taxable-equivalent net interest income as a percentage of average interest-earning assets for the period. The level of interest rates and the volume and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities impact net interest income and net interest margin.

The Company’s loan portfolio is significantly affected by changes in the prime interest rate. The prime interest rate, which is the rate offered on loans to borrowers with strong credit, is currently 4.50 percent. The Federal Reserve Board sets general market rates of interest, including the deposit and loan rates offered by many financial institutions. For the first time in several years, the prime interest rate increased by 25 basis points in the fourth quarter of 2015, followed by a similar 25-point increase in the fourth quarter of 2016. During 2017, the prime interest rate increased overall by 75 basis points. Given that the federal funds rate moves in accordance with the movement of the prime interest rate, we anticipate that the federal funds rate will also increase from its current 1.5 percent.

The following table presents the changes in taxable-equivalent net interest income and identifies the changes due to differences in the average volume of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and the changes due to changes in the average interest rate on those assets and liabilities. The changes in net interest income due to changes in both average volume and average interest rate have been allocated to the average volume change or the average interest rate change in proportion to the absolute amounts of the change in each. The Company’s consolidated average balance sheets along with an analysis of taxable-equivalent net interest earnings are presented in the Rate/Volume Analysis.

Part II (Continued)

Item 7 (Continued)

Rate/Volume Analysis

The rate/volume analysis presented hereafter illustrates the change from year to year for each component of the taxable equivalent net interest income separated into the amount generated through volume changes and the amount generated by changes in the yields/rates.