ENB Financial Corp - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

OR

For the transition period from _____________ to _____________

Commission File Number 000-53297

ENB Financial Corp

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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

Title of each class

Common Stock, Par Value $0.20 Per Share

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes o          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 o          No x

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

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 Regulations 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 o

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes o          No x

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2016, was approximately $57,345,047.

The number of shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of February 15, 2017, was 2,850,382.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 9, 2017, is incorporated into Parts III and IV hereof.

ENB FINANCIAL CORP

Table of Contents

Part I

Forward-Looking Statements

The U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides safe harbor in regard to the inclusion of forward-looking statements in this document and documents incorporated by reference. Forward-looking statements pertain to possible or assumed future results that are made using current information. These forward-looking statements are generally identified when terms such as; “believe,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “project,” “forecast,” and other similar wordings are used. The readers of this report should take into consideration that these forward-looking statements represent management’s expectations as to future forecasts of financial performance, or the likelihood that certain events will or will not occur. Due to the very nature of estimates or predictions, these forward-looking statements should not be construed to be indicative of actual future results. Additionally, management may change estimates of future performance, or the likelihood of future events, as additional information is obtained. This document may also address targets, guidelines, or strategic goals that management is striving to reach but may not be indicative of actual results.

Readers should note that many factors affect this forward-looking information, some of which are discussed elsewhere in this document and in the documents that are incorporated by reference into this document. These factors include, but are not limited to, the following:

Readers should be aware if any of the above factors change significantly, the statements regarding future performance could also change materially. The safe harbor provision provides that ENB Financial Corp is not required to publicly update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date of this report. Readers should review any changes in risk factors in documents filed by ENB Financial Corp periodically with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Item 1A. of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K.

Item 1. Business

General

ENB Financial Corp (“the Corporation”) is a bank holding company that was formed on July 1, 2008. The Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary, Ephrata National Bank (“the Bank”), also referred to as ENB, is a full service commercial bank organized under the laws of the United States. Presently, no other subsidiaries exist under

the bank holding company. The Corporation and the Bank are both headquartered in Ephrata, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The Bank was incorporated on April 11, 1881, pursuant to The National Bank Act under a charter granted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures deposit accounts to the maximum extent provided by law. The Corporation’s retail, operational, and administrative offices are predominantly located in Lancaster County, southeastern Lebanon County, and southern Berks County, Pennsylvania. Ten full service offices are located in Lancaster County with one full service office in Lebanon County and one full service office in Berks County, Pennsylvania.

The basic business of the Corporation is to provide a broad range of financial services to individuals and small-to-medium-sized businesses in Lancaster County as well as Berks and Lebanon Counties. The Corporation utilizes funds gathered through deposits from the general public to originate loans. The Corporation offers a range of demand accounts, in addition to savings and time deposits. The Corporation also offers secured and unsecured commercial, real estate, and consumer loans. Ancillary services that provide added convenience to customers include direct deposit and direct payments of funds through Electronic Funds Transfer, ATMs linked to the Star® network, telephone banking, MasterCard® debit cards, Visa® or MasterCard credit cards, and safe deposit box facilities. In addition, the Corporation offers internet banking including bill pay and wire transfer capabilities, remote deposit capture, and an ENB Bank on the Go! app for iPhones or Android phones. The Corporation also offers a full complement of trust and investment advisory services through ENB’s Money Management Group.

As of December 31, 2016, the Corporation employed 270 persons, consisting of 231 full-time and 39 part-time employees. The number of full-time employees increased by thirty-six employees, and the number of part-time employees decreased by five from the previous year-end. The increase in the number of full-time employees is attributable to various items in 2016; the addition of two full-service branch offices and back office personnel to support the new locations, growth in the mortgage sales and support staff, additional commercial relationship managers, and general staff increases due to bank asset and loan growth.  The Bank expects to continue growing in 2017 but at a lower rate than in 2016.  A collective bargaining agent does not represent the employees.

Operating Segments

The Corporation’s business is providing financial products and services. These products and services are provided through the Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Bank. The Bank is presently the only subsidiary of the Corporation, and the Bank only has one reportable operating segment, community banking, as described in Note A of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Report. The segment reporting information in Note A is incorporated by reference into this Part I, Item 1.

Business Operations

Products and Services with Reputation Risk

The Corporation offers a diverse range of financial and banking products and services. In the event one or more customers and/or governmental agencies becomes dissatisfied with or objects to any product or service offered by the Corporation, negative publicity with respect to any such product or service, whether legally justified or not, could have a negative impact on the Corporation’s reputation. The discontinuance of any product or service, whether or not any customer or governmental agency has challenged any such product or service, could have a negative impact on the Corporation’s reputation.

Market Area and Competition

The Corporation’s primary market area is Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where ten full service offices are located. However, the Corporation’s market area also extends into contiguous Lebanon and Berks Counties. The Corporation opened a full service office in southeastern Lebanon County in 2013 and a full service office in southern Berks County in 2016 to extend physical presence to those counties. The Corporation’s greater service area is considered to be Lancaster, Lebanon, and Berks Counties of Pennsylvania. The area served by the Corporation is a mix of rural communities and small to mid-sized towns.

The Corporation’s headquarters and main campus are located in Ephrata, Pennsylvania. The Corporation’s main office and drive-up are located in downtown Ephrata, while the Cloister office is also located within Ephrata Borough. As such, the Corporation has a very strong presence in Ephrata Borough, a community with a population of approximately 13,000. When surrounding areas that also share an Ephrata address and zip code are included, the population is over 32,000 based on 2010 census data. The Corporation ranks a commanding first in deposit market

share in the Ephrata area with 43.7% of deposits as of June 30, 2016, based on data compiled annually by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The Corporation’s deposit market share in the Ephrata area was 43.3% as of June 30, 2015. The Corporation’s very high market share in the Ephrata area equates to a saturation of the local market that has led to the expansion of the Corporation’s branch network.

In the past 15 years, the Corporation’s market area has expanded beyond the greater Ephrata area to encompass most of northern Lancaster County, with the exception of the most western parts of the County. The majority of this expansion has occurred in recent history with the addition of eight new branch offices since 1999, bringing the total offices to twelve. Lancaster County ranks high nationally as a favored place to reside due to its scenic and fertile farmland, low cost of living, diverse local economy, and proximity to several large metropolitan areas. As a result, the area has experienced significant population growth and development. The population growth of Lancaster County has remained above both Pennsylvania and national growth levels over the past fifty years. Additionally, the population of Lancaster County has recently eclipsed half a million, with 2010 census information showing an estimated population of 508,000. The FDIC deposit market share data ranked the Corporation 5^th in deposit market share in Lancaster County, with 7.1% of deposits as of June 30, 2016. The Corporation held 6.3% of deposit market share as of June 30, 2015.

In the course of attracting and retaining deposits and originating loans, the Corporation faces considerable competition. The Corporation competes with other commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, and credit unions for traditional banking products, such as deposits and loans. Based on FDIC summary of deposit data, there were 20 banks and savings associations and 12 credit unions operating in Lancaster County as of June 30, 2016, representing one less bank and the same number of credit unions compared to the prior year. The Corporation competes with consumer finance companies for loans, mutual funds, and other investment alternatives for deposits. The Corporation competes for deposits based on the ability to provide a range of products, low fees, quality service, competitive rates, and convenient locations and hours. The competition for loan origination generally relates to interest rates offered, products available, quality of service, and loan origination fees charged. Several competitors within the Corporation’s primary market have substantially higher legal lending limits that enable them to service larger loans and larger commercial customers.

The Corporation continues to assess the competition and market area to determine the best way to meet the financial needs of the communities it serves. Management also continues to pursue new market opportunities based on the strategic plan to efficiently grow the Corporation, improve earnings performance, and bring the Corporation’s products and services to customers currently not being reached. Management strategically addresses growth opportunities versus competitive issues by determining the new products and services to be offered, expansion of existing footprint with new locations, as well as investing in the expertise of staffing for expansion of these services.

Subsequent to December 31, 2016, but prior to the filing of this document, the Corporation settled on a parcel of land in January 2017 in Strasburg, Pennsylvania for a planned full-service branch office. Branch construction is scheduled to begin in the second quarter of 2017 with planned completion and opening by year-end 2017. Management estimates the aggregate of the purchase price and other costs related to building the branch to be approximately $3.6 million.

Concentrations and Seasonality

The Corporation does not have any portion of its businesses dependent on a single or limited number of customers, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on its businesses. No substantial portion of loans or investments is concentrated within a single industry or group of related industries, although a significant amount of loans are secured by real estate located in northern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Agricultural purpose loans make up approximately 32% of the loan portfolio; however, these loans are further diversified according to type of agriculture, of which dairy is the largest component accounting for approximately 15% of the loan portfolio. The business activities of the Corporation are generally not seasonal in nature. The sizable agricultural portfolio has minority elements that are predominately seasonal in nature due to typical farming operations. Financial instruments with concentrations of credit risk are described in Note P of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in this Report. The concentration of credit risk information in Note P is incorporated by reference into this Part I, Item 1.

Supervision and Regulation

Bank holding companies operate in a highly regulated environment and are routinely examined by federal and state regulatory authorities. The following discussion concerns various federal and state laws and regulations and the potential impact of such laws and regulations on the Corporation and the Bank.

To the extent that the following information describes statutory or regulatory provisions, it is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory or regulatory provisions themselves. Proposals to change laws and regulations are frequently introduced in Congress, the state legislatures, and before the various bank regulatory agencies. The Corporation cannot determine the likelihood or timing of any such proposals or legislation, or the impact they may have on the Corporation and the Bank. A change in law, regulations, or regulatory policy may have a material effect on the Corporation and the Bank’s business.

The operations of the Bank are subject to federal and state statutes applicable to banks chartered under the banking laws of the United States, to members of the Federal Reserve System, and to banks whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. Bank operations are subject to regulations of the OCC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the FDIC.

Bank Holding Company Supervision and Regulation

The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956

The Corporation is subject to the provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board. The following restrictions apply:

General Supervision by the Federal Reserve Board

As a bank holding company, the Corporation’s activities are limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking. Bank holding companies are required to file periodic reports with and are subject to examination by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted a risk-focused supervision program for small shell bank holding companies that is tied to the examination results of the subsidiary bank. The Federal Reserve Board has issued regulations under the Bank Holding Company Act that require a bank holding company to serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks. As a result, the Federal Reserve Board may require that the Corporation stand ready to provide adequate capital funds to the Bank during periods of financial stress or adversity.

Restrictions on Acquiring Control of Other Banks and Companies

A bank holding company may not:

In addition, a bank holding company may not:

unless the Federal Reserve Board determines the business to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to banking. In making this determination, the Federal Reserve Board considers whether these activities offer benefits to the public that outweigh any possible adverse effects.

Anti-Tie-In Provisions

A bank holding company and its subsidiaries may not engage in tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit or provision of any property or services. These anti-tie-in provisions state generally that a bank may not:

on the condition that the customer provides additional credit or service to a bank or its affiliates, or on the condition that the customer not obtain other credit or service from a competitor of the bank.

Restrictions on Extensions of Credit by Banks to their Holding Companies

Subsidiary banks of a holding company are also subject to restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Act on:

Risk-Based Capital Guidelines

Bank holding companies must comply with the Federal Reserve Board’s current risk-based capital guidelines, which are amended provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The required minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets, including some off-balance sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit, is 8%. At least half of the total capital is required to be Tier I Capital, consisting principally of common shareholders’ equity, less certain intangible assets. The remainder, Tier II Capital, may consist of:

The risk-based capital guidelines are required to take adequate account of interest rate risk, concentrations of credit risk, and risks of nontraditional activities.

Capital Leverage Ratio Requirements

The Federal Reserve Board requires a bank holding company to maintain a leverage ratio of a minimum level of Tier I capital, as determined under the risk-based capital guidelines, equal to 3% of average total consolidated assets for those bank holding companies that have the highest regulatory examination rating and are not contemplating or experiencing significant growth or expansion. All other bank holding companies are required to maintain a ratio of at least 1% to 2% above the stated minimum. The Bank is subject to similar capital requirements pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Restrictions on Control Changes

The Change in Bank Control Act of 1978 requires persons seeking control of a bank or bank holding company to obtain approval from the appropriate federal banking agency before completing the transaction. The law contains a presumption that the power to vote 10% or more of voting stock confers control of a bank or bank holding company. The Federal Reserve Board is responsible for reviewing changes in control of bank holding companies. In doing so, the Federal Reserve Board reviews the financial position, experience and integrity of the acquiring person, and the effect the change of control will have on the financial condition of the Corporation, relevant markets, and federal deposit insurance funds.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), also known as the “Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act,” was established in 2002 and introduced major changes to the regulation of financial practice. SOX was established as a reaction to the outbreak of corporate and accounting scandals, including Enron and WorldCom. SOX represents a comprehensive revision of laws affecting corporate governance, accounting obligations, and corporate reporting. SOX is applicable to all companies with equity or debt securities that are either registered, or file reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Section 404 of SOX requires publicly held companies to document and test their internal controls that impact financial reporting and report on the findings, known as Section 404a. External auditors also must test and report on the effectiveness of a company’s internal controls to ensure accurate financial reporting, which is known as Section 404b. Companies must report any deficiencies or material weaknesses in their internal controls, as well as their

remediation efforts. To ensure greater investor confidence in corporate disclosures from public companies, SOX restricts the services that public accounting firms can provide to publicly traded companies. The Corporation does not engage the same professional accounting firm for external and internal auditing.

The provisions of Sections 404a and 404b of SOX vary according to the publically traded market capitalization, referred to as accelerated or non-accelerated filers. While accelerated filers had to comply with Section 404a and 404b since 2004, with their auditors required to report on the effectiveness of internal controls, the Corporation has been a non-accelerated filer with a publicly traded market capitalization under $75 million, and therefore was not required to comply with Section 404b. The Corporation has always been subject to Section 404a.

In 2008, the SEC expanded the definitions of smaller public companies beyond non-accelerated filers to include a new definition of smaller reporting company. The smaller reporting company definition was more favorable to smaller businesses that qualified under certain conditions. On July 1, 2008, the Corporation came into existence as ENB Financial Corp, which succeeded Ephrata National Bank. With the new entity and new SEC registration, the Corporation changed the filing status from non-accelerated filer to smaller reporting company. The Corporation continues to meet the definition of a smaller reporting company as it has a public equity float of approximately $57.3 million as of June 30, 2016.

On July 21, 2010, when the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law, Section 404b was permanently deferred for all smaller reporting companies. The Corporation would become subject to Section 404b requirements of SOX at the end of 2017 if public float exceeds $75 million on June 30, 2017, at which time the Corporation would be considered an accelerated filer.

Bank Supervision and Regulation

Safety and Soundness

The primary regulator for the Bank is the OCC. The OCC has the authority under the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to prevent a national bank from engaging in any unsafe or unsound practice in conducting business or from otherwise conducting activities in violation of the law.

Federal and state banking laws and regulations govern, but are not limited to, the following:

The Corporation is a member of the Federal Reserve System. Therefore, the policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve Board have a significant impact on many elements of the Corporation’s operations, including:

Management cannot predict the effect of changes to such policies and regulations upon the Corporation’s business model and the corresponding impact they may have on future earnings.

FDIC Insurance Assessments

The FDIC imposes a risk-related premium schedule for all insured depository institutions that results in the assessment of premiums based on the Bank’s capital and supervisory measures. Under the risk-related premium schedule, the FDIC assigns, on a semi-annual basis, each depository institution to one of three capital groups, the best of these being “Well Capitalized.” For purposes of calculating the insurance assessment, the Bank was considered “Well Capitalized” as of December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2015. This designation has benefited

the Bank in the past and continues to benefit it in terms of a lower quarterly FDIC rate. The FDIC adjusts the insurance rates when necessary. FDIC insurance rates have been significantly higher in recent years compared to years prior to the financial crisis. In 2008, during the financial crisis, the FDIC insurance limit was increased from $100,000 to $250,000 along with unlimited insurance coverage on non-interest bearing deposits and interest bearing deposit balances with interest rates less than or equal to 0.50%. Significant increases in the FDIC insurance costs were assessed in 2009 to both cover the increased level of bank failures that were occurring and the higher level of coverage. Since then the number of bank failures has significantly declined and the FDIC has been able to decrease the cost of the insurance. The total FDIC assessments paid by the Bank in 2016 were $370,000, compared to $440,000 in 2015.

In addition to FDIC insurance costs, the Bank is subject to assessments to pay the interest on Financing Corporation Bonds. Congress created the Financing Corporation to issue bonds to finance the resolution of failed thrift institutions. These assessment rates are set quarterly. The total Financing Corporation assessments paid by the Bank in 2016 were $42,000 compared to $47,000 in 2015.

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act made the temporary $250,000 FDIC insurance coverage the permanent standard maximum deposit insurance amount. Additionally, on February 7, 2011, the Board of Directors of the FDIC approved a final rule based on the Dodd-Frank Act that revises the assessment base from one based on domestic deposits to one based on assets. This change, which was effective in April 2011, saved the Corporation a significant amount of FDIC insurance premiums.

Community Reinvestment Act

Under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), as amended, the OCC is required to assess all financial institutions that it regulates to determine whether these institutions are meeting the credit needs of the community that they serve. The Act focuses specifically on low and moderate income neighborhoods. The OCC takes an institution’s CRA record into account in its evaluation of any application made by any of such institutions for, among other things:

The CRA, as amended, also requires that the OCC make publicly available the evaluation of a bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. This evaluation includes a descriptive rating of either outstanding, satisfactory, needs to improve, or substantial noncompliance, along with a statement describing the basis for the rating. These ratings are publicly disclosed. The Bank received an outstanding rating on the most recent CRA Performance Evaluation completed on June 22, 2015.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991

Capital Adequacy

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), institutions are classified in one of five defined categories as illustrated below:

*3.0 for those banks having the highest available regulatory rating.

The Bank’s and Corporation’s capital ratios exceed the regulatory requirements to be considered well capitalized for Total Risk-Based Capital, Tier I Risk-Based Capital, Common Equity Tier I Capital, and Tier I Leverage Capital. The capital ratio table and Consolidated Financial Statement Note M – Regulatory Matters and Restrictions, are

incorporated by reference herein, from Item 8, and made a part hereof. Note M discloses capital ratios for both the Bank and the Corporation, shown as Consolidated.

Regulatory Capital Changes

In July 2013, the federal banking agencies issued final rules to implement the Basel III regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The phase-in period for community banking organizations began January 1, 2015, while larger institutions (generally those with assets of $250 billion or more) began compliance on January 1, 2014. The final rules call for the following capital requirements:

In addition, the final rules established a common equity tier I capital conservation buffer of 2.5% of risk-weighted assets applicable to all banking organizations. If a banking organization fails to hold capital above the minimum capital ratios and the capital conservation buffer, it will be subject to certain restrictions on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments. The phase-in period for the capital conservation and countercyclical capital buffers for all banking organizations began on January 1, 2016.

Under the initially proposed rules, accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) would have been included in a banking organization’s common equity tier I capital. The final rules allowed community banks to make a one-time election not to include these additional components of AOCI in regulatory capital and instead use the existing treatment under the general risk-based capital rules that excludes most AOCI components from regulatory capital. The opt-out election was made by the Corporation with the filing of the first quarter Call Report as of March 31, 2015.

The final rules permanently grandfather non-qualifying capital instruments (such as trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock) issued before May 19, 2010 for inclusion in the tier I capital of banking organizations with total consolidated assets less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009, and banking organizations that were mutual holding companies as of May 19, 2010. The Corporation does not have trust preferred securities or cumulative perpetual preferred stock with no plans to add these to the capital structure.

The proposed rules would have modified the risk-weight framework applicable to residential mortgage exposures to require banking organizations to divide residential mortgage exposures into two categories in order to determine the applicable risk weight. In response to commenter concerns about the burden of calculating the risk weights and the potential negative effect on credit availability, the final rules do not adopt the proposed risk weights but retain the current risk weights for mortgage exposures under the general risk-based capital rules.

Consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act, the new rules replace the ratings-based approach to securitization exposures, which is based on external credit ratings, with the simplified supervisory formula approach in order to determine the appropriate risk weights for these exposures. Alternatively, banking organizations may use the existing gross-up approach to assign securitization exposures to a risk weight category or choose to assign such exposures a 1,250 percent risk weight. The Corporation does not securitize assets and has no plans to do so.

Under the new rules, mortgage servicing assets (MSAs) and certain deferred tax assets (DTAs) are subject to stricter limitations than those applicable under the current general risk-based capital rule. The new rules also increase the risk weights for past-due loans, certain commercial real estate loans, and some equity exposures, and makes selected other changes in risk weights and credit conversion factors.

Management has evaluated the impact of the above rules on levels of the Corporation’s capital. The final rulings were highly favorable in terms of the items that would have a more significant impact to the Corporation and community banks in general. Specifically, the AOCI final ruling, which would have had the greatest impact, now provides the Corporation with an opt-out provision. The final ruling on the risk weightings of mortgages was favorable and did not have a material negative impact. The rulings as to trust preferred securities, preferred stock, and securitization of assets are not applicable to the Corporation, and presently the revised treatment of MSAs is not material to capital. The remaining changes to risk weightings on several items mentioned above such as past-due loans and certain

commercial real estate loans do not have a material impact to capital presently, but could change as these levels change.

Real Estate Lending Standards

Pursuant to the FDICIA, federal banking agencies adopted real estate lending guidelines which would set loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios for different types of real estate loans. The LTV ratio is generally defined as the total loan amount divided by the appraised value of the property at the time the loan is originated. If the institution does not hold a first lien position, the total loan amount would be combined with the amount of all junior liens when calculating the ratio. In addition to establishing the LTV ratios, the guidelines require all real estate loans to be based upon proper loan documentation and a recent appraisal or certificate of inspection of the property.

Prompt Corrective Action

In the event that an institution’s capital deteriorates to the Undercapitalized category or below, FDICIA prescribes an increasing amount of regulatory intervention, including:

If capital reaches the significantly or critically undercapitalized level, further material restrictions can be imposed, including restrictions on interest payable on accounts, dismissal of management, and (in critically undercapitalized situations) appointment of a receiver. For well-capitalized institutions, FDICIA provides authority for regulatory intervention where they deem the institution to be engaging in unsafe or unsound practices, or if the institution receives a less than satisfactory examination report rating for asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, or sensitivity to market risk.

Other FDICIA Provisions

Each depository institution must submit audited financial statements to its primary regulator and the FDIC, whose reports are made publicly available. In addition, the audit committee of each depository institution must consist of outside directors and the audit committee at “large institutions” (as defined by FDIC regulation) must include members with banking or financial management expertise. The audit committee at “large institutions” must also have access to independent outside counsel. In addition, an institution must notify the FDIC and the institution’s primary regulator of any change in the institution’s independent auditor, and annual management letters must be provided to the FDIC and the depository institution’s primary regulator. The regulations define a “large institution” as one with over $500 million in assets, which does include the Bank. Also, under the rule, an institution's independent public accountant must examine the institution's internal controls over financial reporting and perform agreed-upon procedures to test compliance with laws and regulations concerning safety and soundness.

Under the FDICIA, each federal banking agency must prescribe certain safety and soundness standards for depository institutions and their holding companies. Three types of standards must be prescribed:

Such standards would include a ratio of classified assets to capital, minimum earnings, and, to the extent feasible, a minimum ratio of market value to book value for publicly traded securities of such institutions and holding companies. Operational and managerial standards must relate to:

The FDICIA also sets forth Truth in Savings disclosure and advertising requirements applicable to all depository institutions.

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001/Bank Secrecy Act

In October 2001, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (Patriot Act) was enacted in response to the terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., which occurred on September 11, 2001. The Patriot Act is intended to strengthen U.S. law enforcement’s and the intelligence communities’ abilities to work cohesively to combat terrorism on a variety of fronts. The impact of the Patriot Act on financial institutions of all kinds is significant and wide ranging. The Patriot Act contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and imposes various regulations, including standards for verifying client identification at account opening, and rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), banks and other financial institutions are required to report to the Internal Revenue Service currency transactions of more than $10,000 or multiple transactions of which a bank is aware in any one day that aggregate in excess of $10,000 and to report suspicious transactions under specified criteria. Civil and criminal penalties are provided under the BSA for failure to file a required report, for failure to supply information required by the BSA, or for filing a false or fraudulent report.

Loans to Insiders/Regulation O

Regulation O, also known as Loans to Insiders, governs the permissible lending relationships between a bank and its executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders and their related interests. The primary restriction of Regulation O is that loan terms and conditions, including interest rates and collateral coverage, can be no more favorable to the insider than loans made in comparable transactions to non-covered parties. Additionally, the loan may not involve more than normal risk. The regulation requires quarterly reporting to regulators of the total amount of credit extended to insiders.

Under Regulation O, a bank is not required to obtain approval from the bank’s Board of Directors prior to making a loan to an executive officer or Board of Director member as long as a first lien on the executive officer’s residence secures the loan. The Corporation’s policy requires prior Board of Director approval of any Executive Officer or Director loan that when aggregated with other outstanding extensions of credit to the Insider and their related interests exceeds $500,000. Loans to any Executive Officer or Director with aggregate exposure of under $500,000 must be reported at the next scheduled Board of Director meeting. Further amendments allow bank insiders to take advantage of preferential loan terms that are available to substantially all employees. Regulation O does permit an insider to participate in a plan that provides more favorable credit terms than the bank provides to non-employee customers provided that the plan:

The Bank has a policy in place that offers general employees more favorable loan terms than those offered to non-employee customers. The Bank’s policy on loans to insiders allows insiders to participate in the same favorable rate and terms offered to all other employees; however, any loan to an insider that does not fall within permissible regulatory exceptions must receive the prior approval of the Bank’s Board of Directors.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Dodd-Frank, signed into law on July 21, 2010 by President Barack Obama, was the culmination of the legislative efforts in response to the financial crisis of 2007 - 2008. The act reshaped Wall Street and the American banking industry by bringing the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression. The Act’s numerous provisions were to be implemented over a period of several years and were intended to decrease various risks in the U.S. financial system. Dodd-Frank created a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the financial system and gave federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate financial firms. Dodd-Frank was expected to and did have an impact on the Corporation’s business operations as its provisions began to take effect. To date the provisions that did go into effect, or began to phase in, did at a minimum increase the Corporation’s operating and compliance costs. Some of the provisions could possibly reduce fee revenue and/or increase interest expense. It is difficult to predict at this time what additional provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will occur or be rolled back under President Donald Trump and his administration. President Trump has already signed an executive order on February 3, 2017 designed to scale back the Dodd-Frank Act. The order lays the groundwork for sweeping change to the current law and if successfully pushed through Congress, could eventually lead to a replacement of Dodd-Frank. As such it is difficult to predict the impact that this legislation, or replacement legislation, will have on community banks going forward.

Among the provisions that have either begun to affect the Corporation, or are likely to in the future, are the following:

Holding Company Capital Requirements

Dodd-Frank requires the Federal Reserve to apply consolidated capital requirements to bank holding companies that are no less stringent than those currently applied to depository institutions. Under these standards, trust preferred securities will be excluded from Tier I capital unless such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010, by a bank holding company with less than $15 billion in assets. Dodd-Frank additionally requires that bank regulators issue countercyclical capital requirements so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, are consistent with safety and soundness.

Corporate Governance

Dodd-Frank requires publicly traded companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at least every three years, a non-binding vote regarding the frequency of the vote on executive compensation at least every six years, and a non-binding vote on “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders. The SEC has finalized the rules implementing these requirements which took effect on January 21, 2011. The Corporation was exempt from these requirements until January 21, 2013, due to its status as a smaller reporting company. Additionally, Dodd-Frank directs the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1 billion, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded. Dodd-Frank also gives the SEC authority to prohibit broker discretionary voting on elections of directors and executive compensation matters.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Dodd-Frank created a new, independent federal agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy Provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. Dodd-Frank authorized the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition, Dodd-Frank allows borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB. Dodd-Frank permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Rule

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a final rule on January 10, 2013 (effective on January 10, 2014), amending Regulation Z as implemented by the Truth in Lending Act, requiring mortgage lenders to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Mortgage lenders are required to determine consumers’ ability to repay in one of two ways. The first alternative requires the mortgage lender to consider the following eight underwriting factors when making the credit decision: (1) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (2) current employment status; (3) the monthly payment on the covered transaction; (4) the monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (5) the monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations; (6) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (7) the monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (8) credit history. Alternatively, the mortgage lender can originate “qualified mortgages,” which are entitled to a presumption that the creditor making the loan satisfied the ability-to-repay requirements. In general, a “qualified mortgage” is a mortgage loan without negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, or terms exceeding 30 years. In addition, to be a qualified mortgage the points and fees paid by a consumer cannot exceed 3% of the total loan amount. Loans which meet these criteria will be considered qualified mortgages, and as a result generally protect lenders from fines or litigation in the event of foreclosure. Qualified mortgages that are “higher-priced” (e.g. subprime loans) garner a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ability-to-repay rules, while qualified mortgages that are not “higher-priced” (e.g. Prime loans) are given a safe harbor of compliance. The final

rule, as issued, is not expected to have a material impact on the Corporation’s lending activities and on the Corporation’s Statements of Income or Financial Condition.

Interchange Fees

Under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve adopted rules establishing standards for assessing whether the interchange fees that may be charged with respect to certain electronic debit transactions are “reasonable and proportional” to the costs incurred by issuers for processing such transactions.

Interchange fees or “swipe” fees, are charges that merchants pay to the Corporation and other card-issuing banks for processing electronic payment transactions. The Federal Reserve Board has ruled that for financial institutions with assets of $10 billion or more the maximum permissible interchange fee for an electronic debit transaction is the sum of 21 cents per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. The Federal Reserve Board also has rules governing routing and exclusivity that require issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing transactions on each debit or prepaid product. While the Corporation’s asset size is presently under $1 billion, there is concern that these requirements impacting financial institutions over $10 billion in assets will eventually be pushed down to either financial institutions over $1 billion or to all financial institutions. This would negatively impact the Corporation’s non-interest income.

TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) Rules

The TRID rules were mandated by Dodd-Frank to address the problem of the sometimes duplicative and overlapping disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) involving consumer purpose, closed end loans secured by real property. The CFPB was tasked with developing the new disclosures, defining the regulatory compliance parameters, and implementation. The timing elements built around these new disclosures were established to provide the consumer with ample time to consider the credit transaction and its associated costs. The final rules were implemented by amending the Truth in Lending Act; however implementation proved to be difficult as this marked the first time in thirty years that these standard disclosures were changed. Much reliance was placed on third party providers to the financial institutions to make all the necessary changes to the disclosures. After one delay, the rules became effective October 3, 2015. The Corporation partnered with its loan document software providers to ensure timely, compliant implementation.

Department of Defense Military Lending Rule

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a final rule which restricts pricing and terms of certain credit extended to active duty military personnel and their families.  This rule, which was implemented effective October 3, 2016, caps the interest rate on certain credit extensions to an annual percentage rate of 36% and restricts other fees.  The rule requires financial institutions to verify whether customers are military personnel subject to the rule.  The impact of this final rule, and any subsequent amendments thereto, on the Corporation’s lending activities and the Corporation’s statements of income or condition has had little or no impact; however, management will continue to monitor the implementation of the rule for any potential side effects on the Corporation’s business.  

Cybersecurity

In March 2015, federal regulators issued two related statements regarding cybersecurity. One statement instructed financial institutions to design multiple layers of security controls to establish lines of defense and to ensure that their risk management practices cover the risk of compromised customer credentials, including security measures to reliably authenticate customers accessing internet-based services of the financial institution. The other statement indicates that a financial institution’s management is expected to maintain sufficient business continuity planning processes to ensure the rapid recovery, resumption and maintenance of the institution’s operations after a cyber-attack involving malware. Financial institutions are expected to develop appropriate processes to enable recovery of data and business operations and address the rebuilding of network capabilities and restoring data if the institution or its critical service providers are victim to a cyber-attack. The Corporation could be subject to fines or penalties if it fails to observe this regulatory guidance. See Item 1A. Risk Factors for further discussion of risks related to cybersecurity.

Ongoing Legislation

As a consequence of the extensive regulation of the financial services industry and specifically commercial banking activities in the United States, the Corporation’s business is particularly susceptible to changes in federal and state legislation and regulations. Over the course of time, various federal and state proposals for legislation could result

in additional regulatory and legal requirements for the Corporation. Management cannot predict if any such legislation will be adopted, or if adopted, how it would affect the business of the Corporation. Past history has demonstrated that new legislation or changes to existing legislation usually results in a heavier compliance burden and generally increases the cost of doing business.

Management believes that the effect of any current legislative proposals on the liquidity, capital resources and the results of operations of the Corporation and the Bank will be minimal. It is possible that there will be regulatory proposals which, if implemented, could have a material effect upon our liquidity, capital resources and results of operations. In addition, the general cost of compliance with numerous federal and state laws does have, and in the future may have, a negative impact on our results of operations. As with other banks, the status of the financial services industry can affect the Bank. Consolidations of institutions are expected to continue as the financial services industry seeks greater efficiencies and market share. Bank management believes that such consolidations may enhance the Bank’s competitive position as a community bank. See Item 1A. Risk Factors for more information.

Statistical Data

The statistical disclosures required by this item are incorporated by reference herein, from Item 6 on page 30 and the Consolidated Statements of Income on page 77 as found in this Form 10-K filing.

Available Information

A copy of the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K, as required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-1, may be obtained, without charge, from our website: www.enbfc.com or by request via e-mail to bharting@epnb.com. This information may also be obtained via written request to Mr. Barry W. Harting, Vice President and Corporate Secretary at ENB Financial Corp, 31 East Main Street, P.O. Box 457, Ephrata, PA, 17522.

The Corporation’s reports, proxy statements, and other information are available for inspection and copying at the SEC Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, DC, 20549 at prescribed rates. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330. The Corporation is an electronic filer with the Commission. The Commission maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the Commission. The address of the Commission’s website is http://www.sec.gov.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in the Corporation’s common stock is subject to risks inherent to the banking industry and the equity markets. The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect the Corporation are described below. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information included or incorporated by reference in this report. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing the Corporation. Additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or is not focused on, or currently deems immaterial, may also impair the Corporation’s business operations. This report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors.

If any of the following risks actually occur, the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of the Corporation’s common stock could decline significantly, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related To The Corporation’s Business

The Corporation Is Subject To Interest Rate Risk

The Corporation’s earnings and cash flows are largely dependent upon its net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest income earned on interest earning assets, such as loans and securities, and interest expense paid on interest bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowed funds. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond the Corporation’s control, including general economic conditions and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies, particularly, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence not only the interest the

Corporation receives on loans and securities, but also the amount of interest it pays on deposits and borrowings. Changes in interest rates could also affect:

If the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster rate than the interest rates received on loans and other securities, the Corporation’s net interest income, and therefore earnings, could be adversely affected. Earnings could also be adversely affected if the interest rates received on loans and other securities fall more quickly than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings.

Although management believes it has implemented effective asset and liability management strategies to reduce the potential effects of changes in interest rates on the Corporation’s results of operations, any substantial, unexpected, prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Corporation Is Subject To Lending Risk

There are inherent risks associated with the Corporation’s lending activities. These risks include, among other things, the impact of changes in interest rates and changes in the economic conditions in the markets where the Corporation operates, as well as those across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States. Increases in interest rates and/or weakening economic conditions could adversely impact the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans or the value of the collateral securing these loans. The Corporation is also subject to various laws and regulations that affect its lending activities. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could subject the Corporation to regulatory enforcement action that could result in the assessment of significant civil money penalties against the Corporation.

As of December 31, 2016, 48.2% of the Corporation’s loan portfolio consisted of commercial, industrial, and construction loans secured by real estate. Another 13.5% of the Corporation’s loan portfolio consisted of commercial loans not secured by real estate. These types of loans are generally viewed as having more risk of default than consumer real estate loans or other consumer loans. These types of loans are also typically larger than consumer real estate loans and other consumer loans. Because the Corporation’s loan portfolio contains a significant number of commercial and industrial, construction, and commercial real estate loans with relatively large balances, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in non-performing loans. An increase in non-performing loans could result in a net loss of earnings from these loans, an increase in the provision for possible loan losses, and an increase in loan charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Corporation’s Allowance For Possible Loan Losses May Be Insufficient

The Corporation maintains an allowance for possible loan losses, which is a reserve established through a provision for loan losses, charged to expense. The allowance represents management’s best estimate of expected losses inherent in the existing portfolio of loans. The allowance, in the judgment of management, is necessary to reserve for estimated loan losses and risks inherent in the loan portfolio. The level of the allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of industry concentrations, specific credit risks, loan loss experience, current loan portfolio quality, present economic, political, and regulatory conditions, and unidentified losses inherent in the current loan portfolio. Determining the appropriate level of the allowance for possible loan losses understandably involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires the Corporation to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. Changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans, and other factors, both within and outside of the Corporation’s control, may require an increase in the allowance for possible loan losses. In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review the Corporation’s allowance for loan losses and may require an increase in the provision for possible loan losses or the recognition of further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of management. In addition, if charge-offs in future periods exceed the allowance for possible loan losses, the Corporation will need additional provisions to increase the allowance for possible loan losses. Any increases in the allowance for possible loan losses will result in a decrease in net income, and may have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Basel III Capital Requirements May Require Us To Maintain Higher Levels Of Capital, Which Could Reduce Our Profitability

Basel III targets higher levels of base capital, certain capital buffers, and a migration toward common equity as the key source of regulatory capital. Although the new capital requirements are phased in over the next decade, Basel III signals a growing effort by domestic and international bank regulatory agencies to require financial institutions, including depository institutions, to maintain higher levels of capital. As Basel III is implemented, regulatory viewpoints could change and require additional capital to support our business risk profile. If the Corporation and the Bank are required to maintain higher levels of capital, the Corporation and the Bank may have fewer opportunities to invest capital into interest-earning assets, which could limit the profitable business operations available to the Corporation and the Bank and adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations.

Future Credit Downgrades Of The United States Government Due To Issues Relating To Debt And The Deficit May Adversely Affect The Corporation

As a result of past difficulties of the federal government to reach agreement over federal debt and issues connected with the debt ceiling, certain rating agencies placed the United States Government’s long-term sovereign debt rating on their equivalent of negative watch and announced the possibility of a rating downgrade.  The rating agencies, due to constraints related to the rating of the United States, also placed government-sponsored enterprises in which the Corporation invests and receives lines of credit on negative watch and a downgrade of the United States credit rating would trigger a similar downgrade in the credit rating of these government-sponsored enterprises.  Furthermore, the credit rating of other entities, such as state and local governments, may also be downgraded should the United States credit rating be downgraded. Credit downgrades often cause a lower valuation of the Corporation’s securities.

The Corporation Is Subject To Environmental Liability Risk Associated With Lending Activities

A significant portion of the Corporation’s loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, the Corporation may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, the Corporation may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require the Corporation to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit the Corporation’s ability to use or sell the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws, may increase the Corporation’s exposure to environmental liability. Although the Corporation has policies and procedures to perform an environmental review before initiating any foreclosure action on real property, these reviews may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

If The Corporation Concludes That The Decline In Value Of Any Of Its Investment Securities Is Other Than Temporary, The Corporation is Required To Write Down The Value Of That Security Through A Charge To Earnings

The Corporation reviews the investment securities portfolio at each quarter-end reporting period to determine whether the fair value is below the current carrying value. When the fair value of any of the investment securities has declined below its carrying value, the Corporation is required to assess whether the decline is other than temporary. If it concludes that the decline is other than temporary, it is required to write down the value of that security through a charge to earnings. Changes in the expected cash flows of these securities and/or prolonged price declines have resulted and may result in concluding in future periods that there is additional impairment of these securities that is other than temporary, which would require a charge to earnings to write down these securities to their fair value. Due to the complexity of the calculations and assumptions used in determining whether an asset is impaired, the impairment disclosed may not accurately reflect the actual impairment in the future.

The Corporation’s Profitability Depends Significantly On Economic Conditions In The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania And Its Market Area

The Corporation’s success depends primarily on the general economic conditions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and more specifically, the local markets in which the Corporation operates. Unlike larger national or other regional banks that are more geographically diversified, the Corporation provides banking and financial services to customers primarily located in Lancaster County, as well as Berks, Chester, and Lebanon Counties. The local economic conditions in these areas have a significant impact on the demand for the Corporation’s products and services as well as the ability of the Corporation’s customers to repay loans, the value of the collateral securing loans, and the stability of the Corporation’s deposit funding sources. A significant decline in general economic

conditions, caused by inflation, recession, acts of terrorism, outbreak of hostilities or other international or domestic occurrences, unemployment, changes in securities markets, or other factors could impact these local economic conditions and, in turn, have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Earnings Of Financial Services Companies Are Significantly Affected By General Business And Economic Conditions

The Corporation’s operations and profitability are impacted by general business and economic conditions in the United States and abroad. These conditions include short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation, money supply, political issues, legislative and regulatory changes, fluctuations in both debt and equity capital markets, broad trends in industry and finance, and the strength of the U.S. economy and the local economies in which the Corporation operates, all of which are beyond the Corporation’s control. Deterioration in economic conditions could result in an increase in loan delinquencies and non-performing assets, decreases in loan collateral values and a decrease in demand for the Corporation’s products and services, among other things, any of which could have a material adverse impact on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Corporation Operates In A Highly Competitive Industry And Market Area

The Corporation faces substantial competition in all areas of its operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, regional, and community banks within the various markets in which the Corporation operates. Additionally, various out-of-state banks have begun to enter or have announced plans to enter the market areas in which the Corporation currently operates. The Corporation also faces competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, online banks, savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes, and continued consolidation. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting), and merchant banking. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of the Corporation’s competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than the Corporation can offer.

The Corporation’s ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken the Corporation’s competitive position, which could adversely affect the Corporation’s growth and profitability and have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Corporation Is Subject To Extensive Government Regulation And Supervision

The Corporation is subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds, and the banking system as a whole, not shareholders. These regulations affect the Corporation’s lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy, and growth, among other things. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations, and policies for possible changes. Changes to statutes, regulations, or regulatory policies, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations, or policies, could affect the Corporation in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such changes could subject the Corporation to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products the Corporation may offer, and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, or

policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties, and/or reputation damage, which could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s business, financial condition, and results of operations. While the Corporation has policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, there can be no assurance that such violations will not occur.

Future Governmental Regulation And Legislation Could Limit The Corporation’s Future Growth

The Corporation is a registered bank holding company, and its subsidiary bank is a depository institution whose deposits are insured by the FDIC. As a result, the Corporation is subject to various regulations and examinations by various regulatory authorities. In general, statutes establish the corporate governance and eligible business activities for the Corporation, certain acquisition and merger restrictions, limitations on inter-company transactions such as loans and dividends, capital adequacy requirements, requirements for anti-money laundering programs and other compliance matters, among other regulations. The Corporation is extensively regulated under federal and state banking laws and regulations that are intended primarily for the protection of depositors, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole. Compliance with these statutes and regulations is important to the Corporation’s ability to engage in new activities and consummate additional acquisitions.

In addition, the Corporation is subject to changes in federal and state tax laws as well as changes in banking and credit regulations, accounting principles and governmental economic and monetary policies. The Corporation cannot predict whether any of these changes may adversely and materially affect it. Federal and state banking regulators also possess broad powers to take supervisory actions as they deem appropriate. These supervisory actions may result in higher capital requirements, higher insurance premiums and limitations on the Corporation’s activities that could have a material adverse effect on its business and profitability. While these statutes are generally designed to minimize potential loss to depositors and the FDIC insurance funds, they do not eliminate risk, and compliance with such statutes increases the Corporation’s expense, requires management’s attention and can be a disadvantage from a competitive standpoint with respect to non-regulated competitors.

The Regulatory Environment For The Financial Services Industry Is Being Significantly Impacted By Financial Regulatory Reform Initiatives In The United States And Elsewhere, Including Dodd-Frank And Regulations Promulgated To Implement It

Dodd-Frank, which was signed into law on July 21, 2010, comprehensively reforms the regulation of financial institutions, products and services. Dodd-Frank requires various federal regulatory agencies to implement numerous rules and regulations. Because the federal agencies are granted broad discretion in drafting these rules and regulations, many of the details and the impact of Dodd-Frank may not be known for many months or years.

While much of how the Dodd-Frank and other financial industry reforms will change our current business operations depends on the specific regulatory reforms and interpretations, many of which have yet to be released or finalized, it is clear that the reforms, both under Dodd-Frank and otherwise, will have a significant effect on our entire industry. Although Dodd-Frank and other reforms will affect a number of the areas in which we do business, it is not clear at this time the full extent of the adjustments that will be required and the extent to which we will be able to adjust our businesses in response to the requirements. Although it is difficult to predict the magnitude and extent of these effects at this stage, we believe compliance with Dodd-Frank and implementing its regulations and initiatives will negatively impact revenue and increase the cost of doing business, both in terms of transition expenses and on an ongoing basis, and it may also limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities.

The Corporation’s Banking Subsidiary May Be Required To Pay Higher FDIC Insurance Premiums Or Special Assessments Which May Adversely Affect Its Earnings

Poor economic conditions and the resulting bank failures have increased the costs of the FDIC and depleted its deposit insurance fund.  Additional bank failures may prompt the FDIC to increase its premiums above the recently increased levels or to issue special assessments. The Corporation generally is unable to control the amount of premiums or special assessments that its subsidiary is required to pay for FDIC insurance. Any future changes in the calculation or assessment of FDIC insurance premiums may have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s results of operations, financial condition, and the ability to continue to pay dividends on common stock at the current rate or at all.

The Corporation’s Controls And Procedures May Fail Or Be Circumvented

Management regularly reviews and updates the Corporation’s internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of

the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of the Corporation’s controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.

New Lines Of Business Or New Products And Services May Subject The Corporation To Additional Risks

From time to time, the Corporation may implement new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products and services, the Corporation may invest significant time and resources. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as compliance with regulations, competitive alternatives, and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business or a new product or service. Furthermore, any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the Corporation’s system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The Corporation’s Ability To Pay Dividends Depends On Earnings And Is Subject To Regulatory Limits

The Corporation’s ability to pay dividends is also subject to its profitability, financial condition, capital expenditures, and other cash flow requirements. Dividend payments are subject to legal and regulatory limitations, generally based on net profits and retained earnings, imposed by the various banking regulatory agencies. There is no assurance that the Corporation will have sufficient earnings to be able to pay dividends or generate adequate cash flow to pay dividends in the future. The Corporation’s failure to pay dividends on its common stock could have a material adverse effect on the market price of its common stock.

Future Acquisitions May Disrupt The Corporation’s Business And Dilute Stockholder Value

The Corporation may use its common stock to acquire other companies or make investments in corporations and other complementary businesses. The Corporation may issue additional shares of common stock to pay for future acquisitions, which would dilute the ownership interest of current shareholders of the Corporation. Future business acquisitions could be material to the Corporation, and the degree of success achieved in acquiring and integrating these businesses into the Corporation could have a material effect on the value of the Corporation’s common stock. In addition, any acquisition could require the Corporation to use substantial cash or other liquid assets or to incur debt. In those events, the Corporation could become more susceptible to economic downturns and competitive pressures.

The Corporation May Need To Or Be Required To Raise Additional Capital In The Future, And Capital May Not Be Available When Needed And On Terms Favorable To Current Shareholders

Federal banking regulators require the Corporation and its subsidiary bank to maintain adequate levels of capital to support their operations. These capital levels are determined and dictated by law, regulation, and banking regulatory agencies.  In addition, capital levels are also determined by the Corporation’s management and board of directors based on capital levels that they believe are necessary to support the Corporation’s business operations.  

If the Corporation raises capital through the issuance of additional shares of its common stock or other securities, it would likely dilute the ownership interests of current investors and could dilute the per share book value and earnings per share of its common stock. Furthermore, a capital raise through issuance of additional shares may have an adverse impact on the Corporation’s stock price. New investors also may have rights, preferences and privileges senior to the Corporation’s current shareholders, which may adversely impact its current shareholders.

The Corporation’s ability to raise additional capital will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of its control, and on its financial performance. Accordingly, the Corporation cannot be certain of its ability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms and acceptable time frames or to raise additional capital at all. If the Corporation cannot raise additional capital in sufficient amounts when needed, its ability to comply with regulatory capital requirements could be materially impaired. Additionally, the inability to raise capital in sufficient amounts may adversely affect the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Corporation May Not Be Able To Attract And Retain Skilled People

The Corporation’s success highly depends on its ability to attract and retain key people. Competition for the best people in most activities engaged in by the Corporation can be intense and the Corporation may not be able to hire people or to retain them. The unexpected loss of services of one or more of the Corporation’s key personnel could have a material adverse impact on the Corporation’s business because of their skills, knowledge of the Corporation’s market, years of industry experience, and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel. The Corporation does not currently have employment agreements or non-competition agreements with any of its senior officers.

The Corporation’s Information Systems May Experience An Interruption Or Breach In Security

The Corporation relies heavily on communications and information systems to conduct its business. Any failure, interruption, or breach in security of these systems could result in failures or disruptions in the Corporation’s customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan, and other systems. While the Corporation has policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption, or security breach of its information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions, or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. Further, while the Corporation maintains insurance coverage that may, subject to policy terms and conditions including significant self-insured deductibles, cover certain aspects of cyber risks, such insurance coverage may be insufficient to cover all losses. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions, or security breaches of the Corporation’s information systems could damage the Corporation’s reputation, adversely affecting customer or consumer confidence, result in a loss of customer business, subject the Corporation to additional regulatory scrutiny and possible regulatory penalties, or expose the Corporation to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Corporation Continually Encounters Technological Change

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

The Corporation’s Operations Of Its Business, Including Its Interaction With Customers, Are Increasingly Done Via Electronic Means, And This Has Increased Its Risks Related To Cyber Security

The Corporation is exposed to the risk of cyber-attacks in the normal course of business. In general, cyber incidents can result from deliberate attacks or unintentional events. The Corporation has observed an increased level of attention in the industry focused on cyber-attacks that include, but are not limited to, gaining unauthorized access to digital systems for purposes of misappropriating assets or sensitive information, corrupting data, or causing operational disruption. To combat against these attacks, policies and procedures are in place to prevent or limit the effect on the possible security breach of its information systems. While the Corporation maintains insurance coverage that may, subject to policy terms and conditions including significant self-insured deductibles, cover certain aspects of cyber risks, such insurance coverage may be insufficient to cover all losses. While the Corporation has not incurred any material losses related to cyber-attacks, nor is it aware of any specific or threatened cyber-incidents as of the date of this report, it may incur substantial costs and suffer other negative consequences if it falls victim to successful cyber-attacks. Such negative consequences could include remediation costs that may include liability for stolen assets or information and repairing system damage that may have been caused; deploying additional personnel and protection technologies, training employees, and engaging third party experts and consultants; lost revenues resulting from unauthorized use of proprietary information or the failure to retain or attract customers following an attack; disruption or failures of physical infrastructure, operating systems or networks that support our business and customers resulting in the loss of customers and business opportunities; additional regulatory scrutiny and possible regulatory penalties; litigation; and reputational damage adversely affecting customer or investor confidence.

The Increasing Use Of Social Media Platforms Presents New Risks And Challenges And Our Inability Or Failure To Recognize, Respond To And Effectively Manage The Accelerated Impact Of Social Media Could Materially Adversely Impact Our Business

There has been a marked increase in the use of social media platforms, including weblogs (blogs), social media websites, and other forms of Internet-based communications which allow individuals access to a broad audience of consumers and other interested persons. Social media practices in the banking industry are evolving, which creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. Consumers value readily available information concerning businesses and their goods and services and often act on such information without further investigation and without regard to its accuracy. Many social media platforms immediately publish the content their subscribers and participants post, often without filters or checks on accuracy of the content posted. Information posted on such platforms at any time may be adverse to our interests and/or may be inaccurate. The dissemination of information online could harm our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations, regardless of the information’s accuracy. The harm may be immediate without affording us an opportunity for redress or correction.

Other risks associated with the use of social media include improper disclosure of proprietary information, negative comments about our business, exposure of personally identifiable information, fraud, out-of-date information, and improper use by employees and customers. The inappropriate use of social media by our customers or employees could result in negative consequences including remediation costs including training for employees, additional regulatory scrutiny and possible regulatory penalties, litigation or negative publicity that could damage our reputation adversely affecting customer or investor confidence.

The Corporation Is Subject To Claims And Litigation Pertaining To Fiduciary Responsibility

From time to time, customers make claims and take legal action pertaining to the Corporation’s performance of its fiduciary responsibilities. Whether customer claims and legal action related to the Corporation’s performance of its fiduciary responsibilities are founded or unfounded, if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to the Corporation, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of the Corporation and its products and services as well as impact customer demand for those products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Financial Services Companies Depend On The Accuracy And Completeness Of Information About Customers And Counterparties

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions, the Corporation may rely on information furnished by, or on behalf of, customers and counterparties, including financial statements, credit reports, and other financial information. The Corporation may also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties, or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports, or other financial information could have a material adverse impact on the Corporation’s business and, in turn, the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

Consumers May Decide Not To Use Banks To Complete Their Financial Transactions

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions that historically have involved banks through alternative methods. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts or mutual funds. Consumers can also complete transactions such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Recent Change In Control Of The United States Government And Issues Relating To Debt And The Deficit May Adversely Affect The Corporation

Due to the Republican Party gaining control of the White House, as well as the Republican Party maintaining control of both the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States in the congressional election, could result in significant changes (or uncertainty) in governmental policies, regulatory environments, spending sentiment and many other factors and conditions, some of which could adversely impact the Corporation’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, as a result of past difficulties of the federal government to reach agreement over federal debt and issues connected with the debt ceiling, certain rating agencies placed the United States government's long-term sovereign debt rating on their equivalent of negative watch and announced the possibility of a rating downgrade. The rating agencies, due to constraints related to the rating of the United States, also placed government-sponsored enterprises in which the Corporation invests and receives lines of credit on negative watch and a downgrade of the United States government's credit rating would trigger a similar downgrade in the credit rating of these government-sponsored enterprises. Furthermore, the credit rating of other entities, such as state and local governments, may also be downgraded should the United States government's credit rating be downgraded. The impact that a credit rating downgrade may have on the national and local economy could have an adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial condition and results of operations.

Other Events

Natural Disasters, Acts Of War Or Terrorism, and Other External Events Could Significantly Impact The Corporation’s Business

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

Risks Associated With The Corporation’s Common Stock

The Corporation’s Stock Price Can Be Volatile

Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for shareholders to resell their shares of common stock when they desire and at prices they find attractive. The Corporation’s stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors including, among other things:

General market fluctuations, industry factors, and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes, or credit loss trends, could also cause the Corporation’s stock price to decrease regardless of operating results.

The Trading Volume In The Corporation’s Common Stock Is Less Than That Of Other Larger Financial Services Companies

The Corporation’s common stock is listed for trading on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB) exchange. The trading volume in its common stock is a fraction of that of other larger financial services companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity, and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of the Corporation’s common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which the Corporation has no control. Given the lower trading volume of the Corporation’s common stock, significant sales of the Corporation’s common stock, or the expectation of these sales, could cause the Corporation’s stock price to fall.

An Investment In The Corporation’s Common Stock Is Not An Insured Deposit

The Corporation’s common stock is not a bank deposit and, therefore, is not insured against loss by the FDIC, any other deposit insurance fund, or by any other public or private entity. Investment in the Corporation’s common stock is inherently risky for the reasons described in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this report and is subject to the same market forces that affect the price of common stock in any company. As a result, an investor in the Corporation’s common stock may lose some or all of their investment.

The Corporation’s Articles Of Association And Bylaws, As Well As Certain Banking Laws, May Have An Anti-Takeover Effect

Provisions of the Corporation’s articles of incorporation and bylaws, federal banking laws, including regulatory approval requirements, and the Corporation’s stock purchase rights plan, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire the Corporation, even if doing so would be perceived to be beneficial to the Corporation’s shareholders. The combination of these provisions effectively inhibits a non-negotiated merger or other business combination that could adversely affect the market price of the Corporation’s common stock.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None

Item 2. Properties

ENB Financial Corp’s headquarters and main office of Ephrata National Bank are located at 31 East Main Street, Ephrata, Pennsylvania.

Listed below are the office locations of properties owned or leased by the Corporation. No mortgages, liens, or encumbrances exist on any of the Corporation’s owned properties. As of December 31, 2016, the Corporation leased four properties.

In addition to the above properties, the Corporation owns two other properties located in the Corporation’s Ephrata Main Street Campus. These properties were acquired in 2002, when a group of properties adjacent to and surrounding the Corporation’s Main Office was purchased. These two properties are being held for future use or possible sale. The other properties purchased in 2002 have been remodeled as office or operational space and are reflected in the offices shown above. The Corporation also owns a four acre parcel of land in Ephrata Borough that was converted from other real estate owned to Bank property as of December 31, 2011. The parcel is being evaluated for future expansion plans.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

The nature of the Corporation’s business generates a certain amount of litigation involving matters arising in the ordinary course of business; however, in the opinion of management, there are no material proceedings pending to which the Corporation is a party to, or which would be material in relation to the Corporation’s undivided profits or financial condition. There are no proceedings pending other than ordinary routine litigation incident to the business of the Corporation. In addition, no material proceedings are pending, known to be threatened, or contemplated against the Corporation by governmental authorities.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures – Not Applicable

Part II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The Corporation has only one class of stock authorized, issued, and outstanding, which consists of common stock with a par value of $0.20 per share. As of December 31, 2016, there were 12,000,000 shares of common stock authorized with 2,869,557 shares issued, and 2,850,382 shares outstanding to approximately 1,430 shareholders. The Corporation’s common stock is traded on a limited basis on the OTCBB under the symbol “ENBP.” Prices presented in the table below reflect high and low prices of actual transactions known to management. Prices and dividends per share are adjusted for stock splits. Market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark up, mark down, or commission and may not reflect actual transactions.

Source - SNL Financial LC        

Dividends

Since 1973, the Corporation has paid quarterly cash dividends on or around March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15 of each year. The Corporation currently expects to continue the practice of paying quarterly cash dividends to its shareholders for the foreseeable future. However, future dividends are dependent upon future earnings. The dividend payments reflected above amount to a 44.6 % and 41.1% dividend payout ratio for 2015 and 2016, respectively. The dividend payout ratio is only one element of management’s plan for managing capital. Certain laws restrict the amount of dividends that may be paid to shareholders in any given year. In addition, under Pennsylvania corporate law, the Corporation may not pay a dividend if, after issuing the dividend (1) the Corporation would be unable to pay its debts as they become due, or (2) the Corporation’s total assets would be less than its total liabilities plus the amount needed to satisfy any preferential rights of shareholders. In addition, as declared by the Board of Directors, Ephrata National Bank’s dividend restrictions apply indirectly to ENB Financial Corp because cash available for dividend distributions will initially come from dividends Ephrata National Bank

pays to ENB Financial Corp. See Note M to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K filing, for information that discusses and quantifies this regulatory restriction.

ENB Financial Corp offers its shareholders the convenience of a Dividend Reinvestment Plan (DRP) and the direct deposit of cash dividends. The DRP gives shareholders registered with the Corporation the opportunity to have their quarterly dividends invested automatically in additional shares of the Corporation’s common stock. Shareholders who prefer a cash dividend may have their quarterly dividends deposited directly into a checking or savings account at their financial institution. For additional information on either program, contact the Corporation’s stock registrar and dividend paying agent, Computershare Shareholder Services, P.O. Box 30170, College Station, TX 77842-3170.

Purchases

The following table details the Corporation’s purchase of its own common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2016.

* On June 17, 2015, the Board of Directors of ENB Financial Corp announced the approval of a plan to purchase, in open market and privately negotiated transactions, up to 140,000 shares of its outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased are being held as treasury shares to be utilized in connection with the Corporation’s three stock purchase plans. The first purchase of common stock under this plan occurred on July 31, 2015. By December 31, 2016, a total of 26,135 shares were repurchased at a total cost of $862,000, for an average cost per share of $32.98. Management may choose to repurchase additional shares in 2017 under this plan.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities and Equity Compensation Plan

The Corporation does not have an equity compensation plan and has not sold any unregistered securities.

Shareholder Performance Graph

Set forth below is a line graph comparing the yearly change in the cumulative total shareholder return on ENB Financial Corp’s common stock against the cumulative total return of the Russell 2000 Index, the Mid-Atlantic Custom Peer Group Index, and the SNL Small Cap Bank Index for the period of five fiscal years commencing December 31, 2011, and ending December 31, 2016. The graph shows that the cumulative investment return to shareholders, based on the assumption that a $100 investment was made on December 31, 2011, in each of the following: the Corporation’s common stock, the Russell 2000 Index, the Mid-Atlantic Custom Peer Group Index, and the SNL Small Cap Bank Index and that all dividends were reinvested in those securities over the past five years, the cumulative total return on such investment would be $193.18, $196.45, $177.07, and $265.89, respectively. The shareholder return shown on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future performance.

*Mid-Atlantic Custom Peer Group consists of 101 commercial banks located in the Mid-Atlantic states of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington D.C. The largest bank in this peer group had assets of $991 million and the smallest had assets of $40 million.

Item 6  - Selected Financial Data

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

The selected financial data set forth below should be read in conjunction with the Corporation's financial statements

and their accompanying notes presented elsewhere herein.

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

The following discussion and analysis represents management’s view of the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and other financial schedules included in this annual report. The financial condition and results of operations presented are not indicative of future performance.

Results of Operations

Overview

The Corporation recorded net income of $7,553,000 for the year ended December 31, 2016, a 9.3% increase from the $6,910,000 earned during the same period in 2015. The 2015 net income was 2.6% lower than the 2014 net income of $7,092,000. Earnings per share, basic and diluted, were $2.65 in 2016, compared to $2.42 in 2015, and $2.48 in 2014.

Higher 2016 earnings were driven primarily by a $2.2 million, or 9.5% increase, in net interest income, a $1.1 million, or 10.8% increase in other income, partially offset by a $2.5 million, or 10.0% increase in operating expenses. Additionally, the provision for loan losses was $325,000 in 2016 compared to $150,000 in 2015, an increase of $175,000.

Net interest income accounts for nearly 70% of the gross income stream of the Corporation. The 9.5% increase in 2016 was higher than the 2.8% increase in net interest income that occurred in 2015. During 2016, there was non-recurring amortization recorded in the amount of $1,681,000 as a result of accelerated amortization on bonds issued by two U.S. sub-agencies. CoBank and AgriBank, sub-agencies of the Federal Farm Credit Bureau, a primary U.S. government sponsored enterprise, exercised an unusual regulatory call feature to call bonds at par two years and three years respectively, prior to their maturity dates. The Corporation owned both CoBank and AgriBank agency high coupon instruments at high premium prices, which exposed the bonds to accelerated amortization given a shorter call date. When notification was received on March 11, 2016 for the CoBank bonds and on April 26, 2016 for the AgriBank bonds, management had to accelerate the amortization of the premium to the much earlier call dates of April 15, 2016 and July 15, 2016, respectively. This caused management to expense an additional $1,681,000 of amortization to the later July 15, 2016 call date than would have been experienced had the bond premiums continued to amortize to the original maturity dates. Without the accelerated amortization, net interest income for the year would have increased by 16.8% (Non-GAAP), compared to the 9.5% actual increase over 2015. The Corporation’s net interest margin increased in 2016 to 3.12% from 3.07% in 2015, driven primarily by decreases in funding costs. Excluding the non-recurring sub-agency amortization, net interest margin for 2016 would have been 3.31% (Non-GAAP), compared to 3.12% actual. Sufficient volume growth in the loan portfolio offset the effect of slightly lower yields and resulted in a significant increase of $2.3 million, or 11.5% in loan interest income. Lower market interest rates made it possible to continue to achieve savings on funding costs for both deposit accounts and borrowings, also contributing to higher net interest income.

The Corporation’s non-interest income increased by $1,089,000, or 10.8%, from 2015 to 2016. Gains on securities of $2.4 million remained the largest single element of non-interest income. While slightly lower than the $2.8 million taken during 2015, the gains on securities remained at a very high level. These gains are a function of management executing on favorable bond pricing given historically low interest rates. Gains on the sale of mortgages were up by $706,000, or 87.6%, which more than offset the decline in securities gains.

The financial services industry uses two primary performance measurements to gauge performance: return on average assets (ROA) and return on average equity (ROE). ROA measures how efficiently a bank generates income based on the amount of assets or size of a company. ROE measures the efficiency of a company in generating income based on the amount of equity or capital utilized. The latter measurement typically receives more attention from shareholders. The Corporation’s 2016 ROA was 0.80%, compared to 0.79% in 2015; ROE increased from 7.38% in 2015 to 7.74% in 2016. The increase in ROA and ROE was primarily due to higher earnings compared to the growth in assets and equity.

The results of the Corporation’s operations are best explained by addressing in further detail the five major sections of the income statement, which are as follows:

The following discussion analyzes each of these five components.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income (NII) represents the largest portion of the Corporation’s operating income. In 2016, NII generated 69.4% of the Corporation’s gross revenue stream, compared to 69.7% in 2015, and 70.2% in 2014. Since NII comprises a significant portion of the operating income, the direction and rate of increase or decrease will often indicate the overall performance of the Corporation.

The following table shows a summary analysis of NII on a fully taxable equivalent (FTE) basis. For analytical purposes and throughout this discussion, yields, rates, and measurements such as NII, net interest spread, and net yield on interest earning assets, are presented on an FTE basis. This differs from the NII reflected on the Corporation’s Consolidated Statements of Income, where the NII is simply the interest earned on loans and securities less the interest paid on deposits and borrowings. By calculating the NII on an FTE basis, the added benefit of having tax-free loans and securities is factored in to more accurately represent what the Corporation earns through the NII. The FTE adjustment shows the benefit these loans and securities bring in a dollar amount because the Corporation does not pay tax on the income they generate. As a result, the FTE NII shown in both tables below will exceed the NII reported on the consolidated statements of income. The amount of FTE adjustment totaled $2,151,000 for 2016, $1,859,000 for 2015, and $1,841,000 for 2014.

NII is the difference between interest income earned on assets and interest expense incurred on liabilities. Accordingly, two factors affect NII:

The Federal funds rate, the Prime rate, the shape of the U.S. Treasury curve, and other wholesale funding curves, all affect NII. The Federal Reserve controls the Federal funds rate, which is one of a number of tools available to the Federal Reserve to conduct monetary policy. The Federal funds rate, and guidance on when the rate might be changed, is often the focal point of discussion regarding the direction of interest rates. Until December 16, 2015, the Federal funds rate had not changed since December 16, 2008. On December 16, 2015, the Federal funds rate was increased 25 basis points to 0.50%, from 0.25%. Then again, on December 14, 2016, the Federal funds rate was increased another 25 basis points to 0.75%. Prior to December of 2015, the period of seven years with extremely low and unchanged overnight rates was the lowest and longest in U.S. history. The impact has been a lower net interest margin to the Corporation and generally across the financial industry. The increase in December of 2015 and 2016 resulted in higher short-term U.S. Treasury rates, but the long-term rates initially decreased after the Federal Reserve’s decision to increase rates in December of 2015, resulting in a flattening of the yield curve. It was only during the fourth quarter of 2016 that long-term rates saw an increase. However, long-term rates like the ten-year U.S. Treasury were 130 basis points under the 3.75% Prime rate as of December 31, 2016. It appears this interest rate environment will continue into 2017 until at least the next Federal Reserve rate action. That action could occur as early as March 2017 but more likely May or June of 2017. Management anticipates at least two 0.25% Federal Reserve rate increases in 2017. A third 0.25% Federal Reserve rate increase could be possible but experience has shown Federal Reserve actions to be well delayed from initial projections. It remains to be seen whether mid and long-term U.S. Treasury rates will also increase to the same degree that the Federal Reserve will likely move the overnight Federal Funds rate. If they do not, the yield curve would flatten making it harder for the Corporation to increase asset yield.

The Prime rate is generally used by commercial banks to extend variable rate loans to business and commercial customers. For many years, the Prime rate has been set at 300 basis points, or 3.00% higher, than the Federal funds rate and typically moves when the Federal funds rate changes. As such, the Prime rate increased from 3.25% to 3.50% on December 16, 2015, and from 3.50% to 3.75% on December 14, 2016. Depending on the loan instrument, the Corporation’s Prime-based loans would reprice either a day after the Federal Reserve rate movement or after a 45-day notification period. Commercial rates generally reprice the next business day while some consumer loans require the 45-day notification period.

The fact that the Federal funds rate and the Prime rate had remained at these very low levels for seven years and only increased by 25 basis points in December of 2015 and 25 more basis points in December of 2016 has made it difficult to make improvements in the Corporation’s net interest margin. Initially, in the early part of this seven-year period, management was able to grow interest-earning assets sufficiently to offset the loss of margin, to increase NII. However, in 2012 and 2013, the Corporation’s NII and margin experienced declines. In 2014 and 2015, NII on a tax equivalent basis increased, but the Corporation’s margin still showed a decline. In 2016, NII on a tax equivalent basis increased substantially by $2,481,000, or 9.9%, and the Corporation’s margin showed an increase from 3.07% in 2015, to 3.12% in 2016. It was important to show NIM improvement after years of decline. The Fed rate increases in December of 2015 and 2016 certainly helped to drive NIM improvement as well as continued cost of funds savings. Factoring out the non-recurring sub-agency amortization of $1,681,000 that was recorded during 2016, the Corporation’s NIM would have been 3.31% (Non-GAAP), an increase of 24 basis points over the 3.07% NIM achieved in 2015.

The extended extremely low Federal funds rate has enabled management to reduce the cost of funds on overnight borrowings and allowed lower interest rates paid on deposits, reducing the Corporation’s interest expense. Even with two 25-basis point Fed rate increases, the Corporation did not raise deposit rates. While the low Prime rate reduced the yield on the Corporation’s loans for many years, the rate increases in December of 2015 and December of 2016 did act to boost interest income and help improve the Corporation’s margin. With a higher Prime rate and elevated Treasury rates, higher asset yields should be possible in 2017. Due to the increasing number of variable rate loans in the Corporation’s loan portfolio, the 25 basis point increase in the Prime rate at the end of 2015 and 2016 did cause higher NII in the month of December 2015, and for the entire year of 2016. The full impact of both of these increases will be experienced in the first quarter of 2017. Additionally, with two more anticipated Fed rate increases in 2017, the Corporation should see even more benefit due to the near immediate repriceability of the Prime-based variable loans.

Security yields fluctuate more rapidly than loan yields based primarily on the changes to the U.S. Treasury rates and yield curve. With lower U.S. Treasury rates on average in the first three quarters of 2016 compared to 2015, most of the security reinvesting was occurring at lower rates. As the volume of securities sold at gains continued at a higher level, this also resulted in more reinvestment at lower rates. Management did generally direct a large portion of the security sale proceeds into loan growth during 2016 resulting in higher overall asset yields. The Corporation’s loan yield has continued to decline as new loans are going on at among the lowest loan rates of this

interest rate cycle. Management does price above the Prime rate on variable rate loans, which helps with loan yield, however, these rates on average are still lower than the typical fixed rate loan. Therefore, any increases in total variable rate loans will generally reduce overall loan portfolio yield. An element of the Corporation’s Prime-based commercial loans is priced above the Prime rate based on the level of credit risk of the borrower. Additionally, certain variable rate consumer loans are priced above Prime. Prime-based pricing continues to be driven largely by local competition.

Mid-term and long-term interest rates on average were lower in 2016 compared to 2015, but the rates at the end of the year were higher than they were at the start of the year. The average rate of the 10-year U.S. Treasury was 1.84% in 2016 compared to 2.14% in 2015, but it stood at 2.45% on December 31, 2016, compared to 2.27% at December 31, 2015. The slope of the yield curve was compressed for most of the year, and even with the Fed rate increase in December of 2016, there was slightly less slope between the short end and long end of the curve. There was a difference of 170 basis points between overnight rates and the 10-year U.S. Treasury as of December 31, 2016, compared to 177 basis points as of December 31, 2015. With a flatter yield curve, management was not able to increase loan rates to improve yield. Additionally, with lower rates for much of the year, security amortization increased and yields on new purchases were low resulting in a lower overall securities yield. The non-recurring sub-agency amortization of $1,681,000 during 2016 also negatively affected security yield and had a direct impact on the NII of the Corporation. As a result, the Corporation’s asset yield continued to decline. With the recent December 14, 2016 Federal Reserve action raising the Federal Funds rate by 0.25% to 0.75% and higher U.S. Treasury rates as 2017 began, the Corporation’s asset yield is projected to increase in early 2017.

The slope of the yield curve has fluctuated many times in the past two years with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield as high as 2.50% in 2015, and 2.60% in 2016, and as low as 1.68% in 2015, and 1.37% in 2016. The increase in Treasury rates in the fourth quarter of 2016 has increased unrealized losses on the Corporation’s securities, which in turn decreased capital.

While it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve savings on the Corporation’s overall cost of funds, management was able to selectively reprice time deposits and borrowings to lower levels during 2016 resulting in savings on these instruments. Generally, it was longer-term CDs repricing at lower rates that helped to achieve interest expense savings on deposits. It is not anticipated that interest rates on interest bearing core deposits can be reduced further in 2017 as these rates have already been reduced significantly over the course of the past few years. While CD rate reductions are also limited, there are still small savings to be achieved in CDs repricing down from higher rates five years ago. Borrowing costs and the wholesale borrowing curves that they are based on generally follow the direction and slope of the U.S. Treasury curve. However, these curves can be quicker to rise and slower to fall as the providers of these funds seek to protect themselves from rate movements. The Corporation was able to refinance some borrowings at lower rates in 2016 but it will be difficult to do this going forward as rates are higher now and most borrowings are already at low rates.

Management currently anticipates that the overnight interest rate and Prime rate will remain at the current levels through the first quarter of 2017 with the possibility of at least one 0.25% rate increase by mid-year and another 0.25% increase before year-end. It is likely that mid and long-term U.S. Treasury rates will increase throughout 2017 in anticipation of additional Federal Reserve rate movements. This would allow management to achieve higher earnings on assets if the opportunity for higher yielding securities and the ability to price new loans at higher market rates occurred. However, it is also possible that even after Federal Reserve rate increases the yield curve could flatten, making it more difficult for management to lend out or reinvest at higher interest rates out further on the yield curve. Additionally, Federal Reserve rate increases would begin to affect the repricing of the Corporation’s liabilities. Management would also expect to have to increase deposit rates to remain competitive in the market and maturing borrowings would likely begin to reprice to higher rates.

The following table provides an analysis of year-to-year changes in net interest income by distinguishing what changes were a result of average balance increases or decreases and what changes were a result of interest rate increases or decreases.

RATE/VOLUME ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN NET INTEREST INCOME

(TAXABLE EQUIVALENT BASIS, DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

In 2016, the Corporation’s NII on an FTE basis increased by $2,481,000, a 9.9% increase over 2015. Total interest income on an FTE basis for 2016 increased $1,791,000, or 6.2%, from 2015, while interest expense decreased $690,000, or 18.4%, from 2015 to 2016. The FTE interest income from the securities portfolio decreased by $536,000, or 6.8%, while loan interest income increased $2,310,000, or 11.3%. During 2016, loan demand increased and additional loan volume added $2,634,000 to net interest income, but the lower yields caused a $324,000 reduction, resulting in a net increase of $2,310,000. Higher balances in the securities portfolio caused an increase of $589,000 in net interest income, while lower yields on securities caused a $1,125,000 reduction, resulting in a net decrease of $536,000. The Corporation recorded non-recurring accelerated amortization on U.S. sub-agency securities during 2016 in the amount of $1,681,000, which was responsible for the lower yields on securities and the decrease in interest income.

The average balance of interest bearing liabilities increased by 5.0% during 2016, driven by the growth in deposit balances. The shift between time deposit balances and demand and savings accounts resulted in a more favorable net interest income. Lower balances of higher cost deposits contributed to savings of $194,000 on deposit costs while lower interest rates on all deposit groups caused $223,000 of savings, resulting in total savings of $417,000.

Out of all the Corporation’s deposit types, interest-bearing demand deposits reprice the most rapidly, as nearly all accounts are immediately affected by rate changes. The Corporation reduced demand deposit interest expense by $41,000 due to lower rates. Time deposit balances decreased resulting in a $251,000 reduction to expense, and time deposits repricing to lower interest rates reduced interest expense by an additional $180,000, causing a net reduction of $431,000 in time deposit interest expense. Even with the low rate environment, the Corporation was successful in increasing balances of other deposit types. As 2016 progressed and interest rates remained low, the Corporation was able to continue to reprice time deposits maturing at lower interest rates thereby reducing the cost of these funds significantly.

The average balance of outstanding borrowings increased by $1.1 million, or 1.4%, from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2016. The increase in total borrowings increased interest expense by $14,000. The decline in interest rates decreased interest expense by $287,000, as long-term borrowings at higher rates matured and were replaced with new advances at significantly lower rates. The aggregate of these amounts was a decrease in interest expense of $273,000 related to total borrowings.

The following table shows a more detailed analysis of net interest income on an FTE basis shown with all the major elements of the Corporation’s balance sheet, which consists of interest earning and non-interest earning assets and interest bearing and non-interest bearing liabilities. Additionally, the analysis provides the net interest spread and the net yield on interest earning assets. The net interest spread is the difference between the yield on interest earning assets and the interest rate paid on interest bearing liabilities. The net interest spread has the deficiency of not giving credit for the non-interest bearing funds and capital used to fund a portion of the total interest earning assets. For this reason, management emphasizes the net yield on interest earning assets, also referred to as the net interest margin (NIM). The NIM is calculated by dividing net interest income on an FTE basis into total average interest earning assets. The NIM is generally the benchmark used by analysts to measure how efficiently a bank generates NII.

COMPARATIVE AVERAGE BALANCE SHEETS AND NET INTEREST INCOME

(TAXABLE EQUIVALENT BASIS, DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

The Corporation’s interest income increased and interest expense decreased, resulting in a higher NIM of 3.12% for 2016, compared to 3.07% for 2015. The yield earned on assets dropped seven basis points while the rate paid on liabilities dropped 15 basis points. The lower rate paid on liabilities more than offset the decrease in asset yield resulting in the NIM improvement in 2016. Management anticipates further improvements in NIM in 2017 as asset yields improve and no unexpected security amortization events occur. Loan yields were at historically low levels during 2016 due to the extended low-rate environment as well as extremely competitive pricing for the loan opportunities in the market. It is anticipated that these yields will improve slightly throughout 2017 as the economy improves and loan demand increases, reducing pricing pressures and intense competition for loans. The growth in the loan portfolio made up for the decrease in interest income due to lower yields.

Loan pricing was challenging in 2016 resulting in fixed-rate loans being priced at very low levels and variable-rate loans priced at the Prime rate, or below Prime, by other local competition in the market. The Prime rate is below typical fixed-rate business and commercial loans, which generally range between 3.50% and 5.50%, depending on term and credit risk. Management was able to price customers with higher levels of credit risk at Prime plus pricing but these rates were still generally below the fixed rate loan-pricing levels. While Prime-based loans will aid the Corporation as interest rates rise, any increase in Prime-based loans will generally cause the Corporation’s average loan yield to decrease since the absolute rate is lower. The Asset Liability Committee (ALCO) carefully monitors the NIM because it indicates trends in net interest income, the Corporation’s largest source of revenue. For more information on the plans and strategies in place to protect the NIM and moderate the impact of rising rates, please refer to Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.

Yields on the Corporation’s securities declined 20 basis points for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 2015. This compares to a 30 basis point decline in securities yield that occurred from 2014 to 2015. In recent years, most of the cash flow received from the securities portfolio was reinvested at significantly lower yields. The low point in reinvestment at lower rates was in July 2016 when the 10-year U.S. Treasury was as low as 1.37%. Even though U.S. Treasury rates had declined through much of 2016, rates increased during the fourth quarter of the year and management anticipates that the U.S. Treasury rates will generally increase during 2017. If the average 10-year yield does finish moderately higher in 2017, portfolio yield would then likely improve. Higher long-term rates would bring a more favorable slope to the yield curve and a slowing of amortization on CMO and MBS securities. As interest rates rise, principal prepayments will slow down causing amortization of premiums on these securities to decline.

The interest rate paid on deposits and borrowings decreased for the year ended December 31, 2016, from the same period in 2015. Management follows a disciplined pricing strategy on core deposit products that are not rate sensitive, meaning that the balances do not fluctuate significantly when interest rates change. Rates on interest-bearing checking accounts and money market accounts were not changed in 2016, but some time deposits were still repricing to lower rates which helped to reduce the cost of funds on these instruments by 10 basis points during the year. Management captured rate savings on time deposits as large portions of the time deposit portfolio matured and repriced to lower interest rates when renewed. Typically, the Corporation sees increases in time deposits during periods when consumers are not confident in the stock market and economic conditions deteriorate. During these periods, there is a “flight to safety” to federally insured deposits. This trend occurred in past years, but time deposit balances declined throughout 2014, 2015, and 2016. As the rate between time deposits and core deposits narrowed, many customers chose to transfer funds from maturing time deposits into checking and savings accounts.

Since the financial crisis, depositors have been more concerned about the financial health of their financial institution. This concern affects their desire to obtain the best possible market interest rates. This trend benefits the Corporation due to its high capital levels and track record of strong and stable earnings. The Corporation’s Bauer Financial rating of 5, the highest level of their rating scale, has assisted the Bank in gaining core deposits over the past several years.

The Corporation’s average rate on borrowed funds decreased by 39 basis points from 2015 to 2016, as several long-term borrowings matured and management was able to refinance into new long-term borrowings at lower interest rates, or not replace the matured borrowings at all. Throughout most of 2016, the new fixed borrowing rates were lower than the average rate paid on the Corporation’s existing borrowings. The Corporation will have limited opportunities to decrease borrowing costs in 2017 because the fixed rate borrowings that are maturing are already at relatively low rates and market rates increased in the fourth quarter of 2016 with more increases likely throughout 2017.

Provision for Loan Losses

The allowance for loan losses provides for losses inherent in the loan portfolio as determined by a quarterly analysis and calculation of various factors related to the loan portfolio. The amount of the provision reflects the adjustment

that management determines is necessary to ensure that the allowance for loan losses is adequate to cover any losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The Corporation gives special attention to the level of underperforming loans when calculating the necessary provision for loan losses. The analysis of the loan loss allowance takes into consideration, among other things, the following factors:

A provision expense of $325,000 was recorded in 2016, compared to $150,000 in 2015. The provision expense in 2016 was primarily due to significant loan portfolio growth throughout the year. This marked the second year of provision expense after a number of years of credit provisions. The credit provisions in prior years were primarily due to the following factors:

Prior to 2012, the annual provision expense was at increased levels to provide for the impact very difficult economic conditions had on the financial health of the Corporation’s borrowers. This brought the Corporation’s allowance for loan losses to a historically high level. With economic conditions improving in 2012 and subsequent years, the allowance was in a position to be reduced. Throughout 2012, 2013, and 2014, the allowance for loan loss calculation indicated a need to reduce the provision because of significant improvements in the loan portfolio related to delinquent, non-performing, and classified loans, as well as more recent improved economic metrics, which allowed for a reduction of several qualitative factors within the calculation. In 2015 and 2016, the Corporation returned to a more normal provision expense, which was consistent with the level of loan growth. Loan growth accelerated in 2016 requiring more provision expense than in 2015. Despite a heavier provision expense, the allowance as a percentage of loans decreased slightly from 1.36% at December 31, 2015, to 1.32% by the end of 2016. Total charge-offs for 2016 amounted to $54,000, compared to $362,000 in 2015 with recoveries of $213,000 in 2016 compared to $149,000 in the prior year. It is anticipated that the Corporation will record a provision expense again in 2017 based on projected loan growth and stable delinquency.

Management also continues to provide for estimated losses on pools of similar loans based on historical loss experience. Management employs qualitative factors every quarter in addition to historical loss experience to take into consideration the current trends in loan volume, concentrations of credit, delinquencies, changes in lending practices, and the quality of the Corporation’s underwriting, credit analysis, lending staff, and Board oversight. National and local economic trends and conditions are also considered when calculating an appropriate loan loss allowance for each loan pool. Qualitative factors decreased for six of ten pools in 2016. Qualitative factors for dairy loans increased the most as a result of continued growth and the changes among agricultural lending staff. Factors were increased for other pools as well, primarily in relation to the experience and depth of management and trends in each loan pool. Special asset quality adjustments for business loans and CRE loans fell dramatically in 2016 because of fewer substandard loans in these pools. The quarterly adjustment of qualitative factors allows the Corporation to continually update our adjusted loss ratio to accurately project estimated credit losses.

Management continues to evaluate the allowance for loan losses in relation to the growth or decline of the loan portfolio and its associated credit risk, and believes the provision and the allowance for loan losses are adequate to provide for future loan losses. For further discussion of the calculation, see the “Allowance for Loan Losses” section.

Other Income

Other income for 2016 was $11,144,000, an increase of $1,089,000, or 10.8%, compared to the $10,055,000 earned in 2015. The following table details the categories that comprise other income.

Trust and investment services income increased by $189,000, or 14.7%, from 2015 to 2016, after decreasing 1.2% from 2014 to 2015. In 2016, trust and investment services revenue accounted for 4.0% of the Corporation’s gross revenue stream, including gains and losses on securities and mortgages, compared to 3.9% in 2015 and 4.1% in 2014. Trust and investment services revenue consists of income from traditional trust services and income from investment services provided through a third party. In 2016, the traditional trust business accounted for $1,007,000, or 68.3%, of total trust and investment services income, with the investment services totaling $468,000, or 31.7%. In 2016, traditional trust services income increased by $137,000, or 15.7%, from 2015 levels, while investment services income increased $52,000, or 12.5%. The amount of customer investment activity drives the investment services income. Market increases and a larger customer base primarily caused the increase in trust revenue in 2016. The trust and investment services area continues to be an area of strategic focus for the Corporation. Management believes there is a great need for retirement, estate, and small business planning in the Corporation’s service area. Management also sees these services as being a necessary part of a comprehensive line of financial solutions across the organization.

Service charges on deposit accounts for the year ended December 31, 2016, increased by $42,000, or 3.9%, compared to 2015. Overdraft service charges for 2016, which comprise 79.7% of the total deposit service charges, increased to $895,000, from $871,000 in 2015, a 2.8% increase. Several other categories of fees increased or decreased to lesser amounts.

Other fees increased for the year ended December 31, 2016, by $198,000, or 21.1%, compared to the previous year. This increase was primarily due to mortgage-related fees, which increased due to the increase in volume of mortgage production during 2016. Loan administration fees increased by $92,000, or 29.9% for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to 2015. Additionally, mortgage origination fees increased by $73,000, or 38.4%, for the same period. Various other fee income categories increased or decreased slightly accounting for the remainder of the change.

Commissions increased by $136,000, or 6.7%, for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the previous year. This was primarily caused by debit card interchange income, which increased by $73,000, or 4.0%. The interchange income is a direct result of the volume of debit card transactions processed and this income increases as customer accounts increase or as customers utilize their debit cards to a higher degree. Additionally, commissions from Bankers Settlement Services increased by $52,000, or 130.9%, for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the prior year.

Gains on security transactions were lower for the year ended December 31, 2016, with a total of $2,370,000 recorded compared to $2,840,000 for 2015, a $470,000, or 16.5% decrease. Gains or losses taken on securities fluctuate based on market conditions including:

The gains or losses recorded depend entirely on management’s active trades based on the above. Losses can be in the form of active sales of securities, or impairment of securities, which involve writing the security down to a lower value based on anticipated credit losses. In 2014, net securities gains amounted to $3,131,000, offsetting $22,000 of impairment charges for the year resulting in net securities gains of $3,109,000. There were no impairment charges in 2015 or 2016, therefore all security gains and losses incurred during 2015 and 2016 were designed to either take gains or reposition the portfolio.

The sales of securities in 2014, 2015, and 2016 were greater than prior years because of the very low interest rate environment that presented many opportunities to sell securities at large gains. Management had desired to take a significant amount of gains in 2016, but planned on fewer gains compared to the previous year. Bond pricing continually improved throughout the year, providing opportunities for management to capitalize on higher pricing. Meanwhile, loan growth was strong in 2016 providing opportunities to both sell securities at gains and use the proceeds to fund new loans. This is one of the core elements of management’s plan to increase asset yield and protect margin, by converting securities into loans and improving the Corporation’s loan to deposit ratio.

Gains on the sale of mortgages in 2016 increased $706,000, or 87.6%, from 2015. Refinance activity was lower in 2016 compared to 2015, so most gains generated during the year were from new purchase fundings. A higher percentage of volume was sold on the secondary market in 2016 compared to 2015, and production was higher in 2016 resulting in a higher level of gains received. Management has budgeted for an increase in the gains on the sale of mortgages in 2017, as this is an area of strategic initiative and the Corporation believes there is room for growth and obtaining a higher percentage of the market share in the mortgage area.

Earnings on bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) increased by $59,000, or 8.1%, for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the prior year. Increases and decreases in BOLI income depend on insurance cost components on the Corporation’s BOLI policies, the actual annual return of the policies, and any benefits paid upon death that exceed the policy’s cash surrender value. Increases in cash surrender value are a function of the return of the policy net of all expenses.

The miscellaneous income category increased by $229,000, or 66.4%, for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the same period in 2015. The primary reason for the increase was an increase in income related to the provision for off balance sheet credit losses. Larger reductions to this off balance sheet provision occurred in 2016 than 2015 resulting in additional income of $95,000 when comparing both years. The Corporation also renewed a vendor contract in 2016 resulting in retention fees that increased income by $55,000 when comparing 2016 to 2015. Income from customer check orders increased by $18,000, or 12.7% and mortgage servicing income net of amortization increased by $17,000, or 52.8%, when comparing both years.

Operating Expenses

The following table provides details of the Corporation’s operating expenses for the last three years along with the percentage increase or decrease compared to the previous year.

Salaries and employee benefits are the largest category of other expenses. In general, they comprise close to 60% of the Corporation’s total operating expenses. For the year 2016, salaries and benefits increased $1,973,000, or 13.3%, compared to 2015. Salaries increased by $1,455,000, or 13.3% for the year, while employee benefits increased by $518,000, or 13.4%. Salary and benefit expenses are growing because of the expansion of the branch network as well as the mortgage and commercial lending departments and other support positions within the Bank. These staff additions were on top of normal merit increases. Insurance costs increased $159,000, or 7.7%, from 2015 to 2016, due primarily to an increase in health insurance expense of $148,000, or 8.0%. Pension and 401(k) expenses were $918,000 in 2016, compared to $722,000 in 2015, a 27.1% increase. The pension portion experienced a $155,000, or 31.1% increase. Changes were made to the Corporation’s pension plan at the end of 2015 for 2016 that converted the pension plan to a profit sharing plan, and made several other changes consistent with safe harbor provisions of non-discriminatory profit sharing plans. Before 2016, management made a non-elective contribution equal to 5% of all employee compensation into the Corporation’s pension plan for all qualifying employees. Beginning in 2016, management split the 5% into two components as part of a new profit sharing plan with a contribution of 3% of all employee compensation for the year plus an elective contribution of up to 2% of all employee compensation based on the performance of the Corporation. The plan conversion also included changes that resulted in an accelerating vesting schedule for new employees and provided better benefits to a long-term employee in the year of termination. These changes along with both a record number of new hires and record year for employee turnover caused the Corporation’s pension expense to accelerate in 2016. The 401(k) portion of these expenses is much smaller in scope than the pension expenses since the Corporation is matching a maximum of up to 2.5% of salary depending on employee contributions, compared to contributing up to 5.0% of salary in the pension plan. The 401(k) expenses increased $41,000, or 18.4%, a function of a larger workforce and heavier employee participation.

Occupancy expenses consist of the following:

Occupancy expenses have increased by $91,000, or 4.3%, for 2016 compared to 2015. The increase was caused by higher building repair and maintenance costs with heavier increases on the Corporation’s older structures. Occupancy expense was also driven higher due to a $22,000, or 19.7% increase in lease expense for 2016, compared to the prior year. This was due to the new lease of the drive-through facility located in Georgetown, as well as leased space in Strasburg for the loan and deposit production office both of which were opened in 2016. Both lease expense and occupancy expenses are expected to increase at a faster pace in 2017, due to anticipated further expansion of leased office space and the impact of a full year into the new facilities obtained in 2016.

Equipment expenses decreased by $35,000, or 3.1%, for 2016 compared to 2015. Furniture and equipment depreciation costs decreased by $36,000, or 4.7%, for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the prior year as assets purchased in years past became fully depreciated and more than offset new assets being put on the books.

Advertising and marketing expenses for the year increased by $62,000, or 11.2%, from 2015 levels. These expenses can be further broken down into two categories, marketing expenses and public relations. The marketing expenses alone totaled $414,000 in 2016, which was a $37,000, or 9.8% increase, over 2015. Marketing expenses support the overall business strategies of the Corporation; therefore, the timing of these expenses is dependent upon those strategies. Public relations, the smaller category of advertising and marketing expenses, totaled $200,000 for 2016, compared to $175,000 for 2015, an increase of $25,000, or 14.3%. Fairs and expos, promotional items, and sponsorships make up this category. Management has increased marketing outreach efforts consistent with the Corporation’s expanded market area in 2016.

Computer software and data processing expenses increased by $237,000, or 14.9%, for 2016, compared to 2015. Software-related expenses were up $256,000, or 34.0%, for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the prior year, primarily because of increased amortization on existing software as well as purchases of new software platforms to support the strategic initiatives of the Corporation. These fees are likely to continue to increase in 2017 but at a slower percentage. Actual software expense incurred will be dependent on how quickly new software platforms are identified, analyzed, approved and placed into service.

Bank shares tax expense was $807,000 for 2016, an increase of $26,000, or 3.3%, from 2015. Two main factors determine the amount of bank shares tax: the ending value of shareholders’ equity and the ending value of tax-exempt U.S. obligations. Prior to 2014, the shares tax calculation formula utilized a rolling six-year average of taxable shares, which was the average shareholders’ equity of the Bank less the average amount of exempt U.S. obligations held. The shares tax calculation in 2014 changed to using a period-end balance of shareholders’ equity and a tax rate of 0.89% versus 1.25% in 2013 and prior years. However, in 2016, the tax rate was changed to 0.95% causing an increase in costs compared to the prior year.

Professional services expense increased $147,000, or 10.2%, for 2016, compared to 2015. These services include accounting and auditing fees, legal fees, and fees for other third-party services. Trust department processing fees increased by $61,000 for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the prior year. Courier services increased by $14,000, or 54.7%, for the year as a result of courier services provided to customers in our new branch communities, primarily in southern Lancaster County. Other outside service fees increased by $41,000, or 6.5%, for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to the year-to-date period in 2015.

Management uses the efficiency ratio as one metric to evaluate the Corporation’s level of operating expenses. The efficiency ratio measures the efficiency of the Corporation in producing one dollar of revenue. For example, an efficiency ratio of 70% means it costs seventy cents to generate one dollar of revenue. A lower ratio represents better operational efficiency. The formula for calculating the efficiency ratio is total operating expenses, excluding foreclosed property and OREO expenses, divided by net interest income on an FTE basis, prior to the provision for loan losses, plus other income, excluding gain or loss on the sale of securities. A higher level of operation expenses may be justified if the Corporation is growing interest earning assets and is increasing net interest income and other income at faster levels. This was the case in 2016 as the Corporation’s efficiency ratio was 75.1%, compared to 76.9% for 2015. The Corporation’s operating expenses have been growing at a more rapid pace as the Corporation increases locations and expands market area. Management is willing to incur expenses now in the effort to win business during the current market disruption. However, management has been successful in increasing both net interest income and fee income during this expansionary period, resulting in improved efficiency. In 2017, management anticipates further improvements in net interest margin, which will provide higher net interest income and better efficiency, outside of improvements caused by normal growth. In the near term, management’s goal is to reduce the efficiency ratio to below 75% with a longer-term goal of reducing it to 70%. While management desires a lower efficiency ratio, the desire to capture additional market share in the near future and the interest rate environment, including the timing of the Federal Reserve’s rate actions, will play a large part in determining when the Corporation’s efficiency ratio improves and the degree to which improvements can be made.

Income Taxes

Nearly all of the Corporation’s income is taxed at a corporate rate of 34% for Federal income tax purposes. The Corporation is also subject to Pennsylvania Corporate Net Income Tax; however, no taxable activity is conducted at the corporate level. The Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary, Ephrata National Bank, is not subject to state income tax, but does pay Pennsylvania Bank Shares Tax. The Bank Shares Tax expense appears on the Corporation’s Consolidated Statements of Income under operating expenses.

Certain items of income are not subject to Federal income tax, such as tax-exempt interest income on loans and securities, and increases in the cash surrender value of life insurance; therefore, the effective income tax rate for the Corporation is lower than the stated tax rate. The effective tax rate is calculated by dividing the Corporation’s provision for income tax by the pre-tax income for the applicable period.

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the Corporation recorded a tax provision of $1,353,000, compared to $1,358,000 for 2015. The effective tax rate for the Corporation was 15.2% for 2016, compared to 16.4% for 2015. A higher level of tax-exempt assets as a percentage of total assets caused the lower effective Federal income tax rate for 2016. The majority of the Corporation’s tax-free assets are in the form of obligations of states and political subdivisions, referred to as municipal bonds. Management significantly increased the Corporation’s municipal bond holdings in 2016 causing the percentage of tax-exempt assets to increase and the effective tax rate to decline. Any material reduction in municipal bond holdings in 2017 would have the opposite impact.

Financial Condition

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents consist of the cash on hand in the Corporation’s vaults, operational transaction accounts with the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), and deposits in other banks. The FRB requires a specified amount of cash available either in vault cash or in an FRB account. Known as cash reserves, these funds provide for the daily clearing house activity of the Corporation and fluctuate based on the volume of each day’s transactions. Beyond these requirements, the Corporation maintains additional cash levels as part of Management’s active asset liability and liquidity strategy. Management has been carrying larger cash balances to provide an immediate hedge against interest rate risk and liquidity risk. As of December 31, 2016, the Corporation had $45.6 million in cash and cash equivalents, compared to $44.2 million as of December 31, 2015.

As a result of the actions of the Board of Governors on December 16, 2008, financial institutions have been able to receive a rate equivalent to the Federal funds rate on reserves held at the FRB. Because this rate matched the Federal funds rate that could be obtained at other correspondent banks, management began to keep larger balances at the FRB and less Federal funds. After the Federal Reserve action to raise the Federal funds rate to 0.50% on December 16, 2015, and to 0.75% on December 14, 2016, the Federal Reserve followed with incremental increases to the overnight rate that financial institutions received until that rate became 0.75%. The Corporation expects to maintain an element of total cash at the Federal Reserve as part of a diversified cash management plan. Management also invests excess cash in two money market accounts at other financial institutions. One money market account yielded a return of 0.85% at December 31, 2016, and the other money market account yielded a return of 0.95%, both more than the return received from the FRB. This diversification alters the mix of cash and cash equivalents to more interest bearing deposits in banks and less Federal funds sold. The cash and cash equivalents represent only one element of liquidity. For further discussion on liquidity management, refer to Item 7A Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.

Sources and Uses of Funds

The following table shows an overview of the Corporation’s primary sources and uses of funds. This table utilizes average balances to explain the change in the sources and uses of funding. Management uses this analysis tool to evaluate changes in each balance sheet category. For purposes of this analysis, securities available for sale are shown based on book value and not fair market value. Additionally, short-term investments only include interest-bearing funds. Trends identified from past performance assist management with decisions concerning future growth.

Some conclusions drawn from the following table are as follows: