FIRST BANCORP /NC/ - Annual Report: 2011 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

Commission File Number 0-15572

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933.

£ YES S NO

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. £ YES S NO

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act 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. S YES £ NO

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

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 the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of the Form 10-K or any amendment to the Form 10-K. £

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 S NO

The aggregate market value of the Common Stock, no par value, held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the Common Stock as of June 30, 2011 as reported by The NASDAQ Global Select Market, was approximately $154,892,268.

The number of shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding on February 29, 2012 was 16,935,043.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Registrant’s Proxy Statement to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A are incorporated herein by reference into Part III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements are statements that include projections, predictions, expectations or beliefs about future events or results or otherwise are not statements of historical fact. Further, forward-looking statements are intended to speak only as of the date made. Such statements are often characterized by the use of qualifying words (and their derivatives) such as “expect,” “believe,” “estimate,” “plan,” “project,” or other statements concerning our opinions or judgment about future events. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, as they will depend on many factors about which we are unsure, including many factors which are beyond our control. Factors that could influence the accuracy of such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the financial success or changing strategies of our customers, our level of success in integrating acquisitions, actions of government regulators, the level of market interest rates, and general economic conditions. For additional information about factors that could affect the matters discussed in this paragraph, see the “Risk Factors” section in Item 1A of this report.

PART I

Item 1. Business

General Description

First Bancorp (the “Company”) is a bank holding company. Our principal activity is the ownership and operation of First Bank (the “Bank”), a state-chartered bank with its main office in Troy, North Carolina. The Company is also the parent to a series of statutory business trusts organized under the laws of the State of Delaware that were created for the purpose of issuing trust preferred debt securities. Our outstanding debt associated with these trusts was $46.4 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010.

The Company was incorporated in North Carolina on December 8, 1983, as Montgomery Bancorp, for the purpose of acquiring 100% of the outstanding common stock of the Bank through a stock-for-stock exchange. On December 31, 1986, the Company changed its name to First Bancorp to conform its name to the name of the Bank, which had changed its name from Bank of Montgomery to First Bank in 1985.

The Bank was organized in 1934 and began banking operations in 1935 as the Bank of Montgomery, named for the county in which it operated. The Bank’s main office is in Troy, population 3,500, located in the center of Montgomery County, approximately 60 miles east of Charlotte, 50 miles south of Greensboro, and 80 miles southwest of Raleigh. As of December 31, 2011, we conducted business from 97 branches covering a geographical area from Little River, South Carolina to the southeast, to Wilmington, North Carolina to the east, to Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina to the northeast, to Radford, Virginia to the north, to Wytheville, Virginia to the northwest, and to Asheville, North Carolina to the west. We also have a loan production office in Blacksburg, which is located in southwestern Virginia and represents our furthest location to the north of Troy. Of the Bank’s 97 branches, 82 branches are in North Carolina, nine branches are in South Carolina and six branches are in Virginia (where we operate under the name “First Bank of Virginia”). Ranked by assets, the Bank was the fourth largest bank headquartered in North Carolina as of December 31, 2011.

On June 19, 2009, we acquired substantially all of the assets and liabilities of Cooperative Bank, which had been closed earlier that day by regulatory authorities. Cooperative Bank operated through twenty-four branches located primarily in the coastal region of North Carolina. In connection with the acquisition, we assumed assets with a book value of $959 million, including $829 million in loans and $706 million in deposits. The loans and foreclosed real estate purchased in the acquisition are covered by loss share agreements between the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and First Bank which affords the Bank significant loss protection. We recorded a gain of $67.9 million as a result of this acquisition. Additional information regarding this transaction is contained in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

On January 21, 2011, we acquired substantially all of the assets and liabilities of The Bank of Asheville, which had been closed earlier that day by regulatory authorities. The Bank of Asheville operated through five branches located in or near Asheville, North Carolina. In connection with the acquisition, we assumed assets with a book value of $190 million, including $154 million in loans and $192 million in deposits. Substantially all of the acquired loans and foreclosed real-estate are covered by loss share agreements with the FDIC, which affords the Bank significant loss protection. We recorded a gain of $10.2 million as a result of this acquisition. Additional information regarding this transaction is also contained in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

As of December 31, 2011, the Bank had two wholly owned subsidiaries, First Bank Insurance Services, Inc. (“First Bank Insurance”) and First Troy SPE, LLC. First Bank Insurance was acquired as an active insurance agency in 1994 in connection with the Company’s acquisition of a bank that had an insurance subsidiary. On December 29, 1995, the insurance agency operations of First Bank Insurance were divested. From December 1995 until October 1999, First Bank Insurance was inactive. In October 1999, First Bank Insurance began operations again as a provider of non-FDIC insured investments and insurance products. Currently, First Bank Insurance’s primary business activity is the placement of property and casualty insurance coverage. First Troy SPE, LLC, which was organized in December 2009, is a holding entity for certain foreclosed properties.

Our principal executive offices are located at 341 North Main Street, Troy, North Carolina 27371-0508, and our telephone number is (910) 576-6171. Unless the context requires otherwise, references to the “Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us” in this annual report on Form 10-K shall mean collectively First Bancorp and its consolidated subsidiaries.

General Business

We engage in a full range of banking activities, with the acceptance of deposits and the making of loans being our most basic activities. We offer deposit products such as checking, savings, NOW and money market accounts, as well as time deposits, including various types of certificates of deposits (CDs) and individual retirement accounts (IRAs). We provide loans for a wide range of consumer and commercial purposes, including loans for business, agriculture, real estate, personal uses, home improvement and automobiles. We also offer credit cards, debit cards, letters of credit, safe deposit box rentals and electronic funds transfer services, including wire transfers. In addition, we offer internet banking, mobile banking, cash management and bank-by-phone capabilities to our customers, and are affiliated with ATM networks that give our customers access to 67,000 ATMs, with no surcharge fee. In 2007, we introduced remote deposit capture, which provides business customers with a method to electronically transmit checks received from customers into their bank account without having to visit a branch. In 2008, we joined the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (CDARS), which gives our customers the ability to obtain FDIC insurance on deposits of up to $50 million, while continuing to work directly with their local First Bank branch.

Because the majority of our customers are individuals and small to medium-sized businesses located in the counties we serve, management does not believe that the loss of a single customer or group of customers would have a material adverse impact on the Bank. There are no seasonal factors that tend to have any material effect on the Bank’s business, and we do not rely on foreign sources of funds or income. Because we operate primarily within North Carolina, southwestern Virginia and northeastern South Carolina, the economic conditions of these areas could have a material impact on the Company. See additional discussion below in the section entitled “Territory Served and Competition.”

Beginning in 1999, First Bank Insurance began offering non-FDIC insured investment and insurance products, including mutual funds, annuities, long-term care insurance, life insurance, and company retirement plans, as well as financial planning services (the “investments division”). In May 2001, First Bank Insurance added to its product line when it acquired two insurance agencies that specialized in the placement of property and casualty insurance. In October 2003, the “investments division” of First Bank Insurance became a part of the Bank. The primary activity of First Bank Insurance is now the placement of property and casualty insurance products. In February 2010, First Bank Insurance acquired The Insurance Center, Inc., a Troy-based property and casualty insurance agency with approximately 500 customers.

First Bancorp Capital Trust I was organized in October 2002 for the purpose of issuing $20.6 million in debt securities. These debt securities were called by the Company at par on November 7, 2007 and First Bancorp Capital Trust I was dissolved.

First Bancorp Capital Trust II and First Bancorp Capital Trust III were organized in December 2003 for the purpose of issuing $20.6 million in debt securities ($10.3 million was issued from each trust). These borrowings are due on January 23, 2034 and are also structured as trust preferred capital securities in order to qualify as regulatory capital. These debt securities are callable by the Company at par on any quarterly interest payment date beginning on January 23, 2009. The interest rate on these debt securities adjusts on a quarterly basis at a weighted average rate of three-month LIBOR plus 2.70%.

First Bancorp Capital Trust IV was organized in April 2006 for the purpose of issuing $25.8 million in debt securities. These borrowings are due on June 15, 2036 and are also structured as trust preferred capital securities that qualify as regulatory capital. These debt securities are callable by the Company at par on any quarterly interest payment date beginning on June 15, 2011. The interest rate on these debt securities adjusts on a quarterly basis at a rate of three-month LIBOR plus 1.39%. 

Territory Served and Competition

Our headquarters are located in Troy, Montgomery County, North Carolina. At the end of 2011, we served primarily the south central region (sometimes called the Piedmont region), the central mountain region and the eastern coastal region of North Carolina, with additional operations in northeastern South Carolina and southwestern Virginia. The following table presents, for each county where we operated as of December 31, 2011, the number of bank branches operated by the Company within the county, the approximate amount of deposits with the Company in the county as of December 31, 2011, our approximate deposit market share at June 30, 2011, and the number of bank competitors located in the county at June 30, 2011.

Our branches and facilities are primarily located in small communities whose economies are based primarily on services, manufacturing and light industry. Although our market is predominantly small communities and rural areas, the market area is not dependent on agriculture. Textiles, furniture, mobile homes, electronics, plastic and metal fabrication, forest products, food products, chicken hatcheries, and cigarettes are among the leading manufacturing industries in the trade area. Leading producers of lumber and rugs are located in Montgomery County, North Carolina. The Pinehurst area within Moore County, North Carolina, is a widely known golf resort and retirement area. The High Point, North Carolina, area is widely known for its furniture market. New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, located in the southeastern coastal region of North Carolina, are popular with tourists and have significant retirement populations. Buncombe County, located in the western region of North Carolina, is a highly diverse area with industries in manufacturing, service, and tourism. Additionally, several of the communities served by the Company are “bedroom” communities of large cities like Charlotte, Raleigh and Greensboro, while several branches are located in medium-sized cities such as Albemarle, Asheboro, High Point, Southern Pines and Sanford. We also have branches in small communities such as Bennett, Polkton, Vass, and Harmony.

Approximately 15% of our deposit base is in Moore County. Accordingly, material changes in competition, the economy or population of Moore County could materially impact the Company. No other county comprises more than 10% of our deposit base.

We compete in our various market areas with, among others, several large interstate bank holding companies. These large competitors have substantially greater resources than us, including broader geographic markets, higher lending limits and the ability to make greater use of large-scale advertising and promotions. A significant number of interstate banking acquisitions have taken place in the past decade, thus further increasing the size and financial resources of some of our competitors, three of which are among the largest bank holding companies in the nation. In many of our markets, we also compete against banks that have been organized within the past ten to fifteen years. Until recently, these new banks often focused on loan and deposit balance sheet growth, and not necessarily on earnings profitability, which often resulted in them offering more attractive terms on loans and deposits than we were willing to offer in light of our profitability goals. Due to capital considerations, most of these banks are no longer seeking balance sheet growth. This has increased our ability to compete for loans, but the same banks continue to offer premium rates on deposits, presumably in an effort to maintain maximum liquidity during these challenging economic times. Moore County, which as noted above comprises a disproportionate share of our deposits, is a particularly competitive market, with at least eleven other financial institutions having a physical presence.

We compete not only against banking organizations, but also against a wide range of financial service providers, including federally and state-chartered savings and loan institutions, credit unions, investment and brokerage firms and small-loan or consumer finance companies. One of the credit unions in our market area is among the largest in the nation. Competition among financial institutions of all types is virtually unlimited with respect to legal ability and authority to provide most financial services. We also experience competition from internet banks, particularly in the area of time deposits.

Despite the competitive market, we believe we have certain advantages over our competition in the areas we serve. We seek to maintain a distinct local identity in each of the communities we serve and we actively sponsor and participate in local civic affairs. Most lending and other customer-related business decisions can be made without the delays often associated with larger institutions. Additionally, employment of local managers and personnel in various offices and low turnover of personnel enable us to establish and maintain long-term relationships with individual and corporate customers.

Lending Policy and Procedures

Conservative lending policies and procedures and appropriate underwriting standards are high priorities of the Bank. Loans are approved under our written loan policy, which provides that lending officers, principally branch managers, have authority to approve loans of various amounts up to $350,000, with lending limits varying depending upon the experience of the lending officer and whether the loan is secured or unsecured. Each of our regional senior lending officers has discretion to approve secured loans of various principal amounts up to $500,000 and together can approve loans up to $4,000,000. Loans above $4,000,000 must be approved by the Executive Committee of the Company’s board of directors.

Our board of directors reviews and approves loans that exceed management’s lending authority, loans to executive officers, directors, and their affiliates and, in certain instances, other types of loans. New credit extensions are reviewed daily by our senior management and at least monthly by our board of directors.

We continually monitor our loan portfolio to identify areas of concern and to enable us to take corrective action. Lending officers and the board of directors meet periodically to review past due loans and portfolio quality, while assuring that the Bank is appropriately meeting the credit needs of the communities it serves. Individual lending officers are responsible for pursuing collection of past-due amounts and monitoring any changes in the financial status of borrowers.

We also contract with an independent consulting firm to review new loan originations meeting certain criteria, as well as to assign risk grades to existing credits meeting certain thresholds. The consulting firm’s observations, comments, and risk grades, including variances with the Bank’s risk grades, are shared with the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors and are considered by management in setting Bank policy, as well as in evaluating the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses. The consulting firm also provides training on a periodic basis to our lending officers to keep them updated on current developments in the marketplace. For additional information, see “Allowance for Loan Losses and Loan Loss Experience” under Item 7 below.

Investment Policy and Procedures

We have adopted an investment policy designed to maximize our income from funds not needed to meet loan demand, in a manner consistent with appropriate liquidity and risk objectives. Pursuant to this policy, we may invest in federal, state and municipal obligations, federal agency obligations, public housing authority bonds, industrial development revenue bonds, Federal Home Loan Bank bonds, Fannie Mae bonds, Government National Mortgage Association bonds, Freddie Mac bonds, Small Business Administration bonds, and, to a limited extent, corporate bonds. Except for corporate bonds, our investments must be rated at least Baa by Moody’s or BBB by Standard and Poor’s. Securities rated below A are periodically reviewed for creditworthiness. We may purchase non-rated municipal bonds only if such bonds are in our general market area and we determine these bonds have a credit risk no greater than the minimum ratings referred to above. Industrial development authority bonds, which normally are not rated, are purchased only if they are judged to possess a high degree of credit soundness to assure reasonably prompt sale at a fair value. We are also authorized by our board of directors to invest a portion of our securities portfolio in high quality corporate bonds, with the amount of such bonds not to exceed 15% of the entire securities portfolio. Prior to purchasing a corporate bond, the Company’s management performs due diligence on the issuer of the bond, and the purchase is not made unless we believe that the purchase of the bond bears no more risk to the Company than would an unsecured loan to the same company.

Our investment officer implements the investment policy, monitors the investment portfolio, recommends portfolio strategies and reports to the Company’s Investment Committee. The Investment Committee generally meets on a quarterly basis to review investment activity and to assess the overall position of the securities portfolio. The Investment Committee compares our securities portfolio with portfolios of other companies of comparable size. In addition, reports of all purchases, sales, issuer calls, net profits or losses and market appreciation or depreciation of the securities portfolio are reviewed by our board of directors each month. Once a quarter, our interest rate risk exposure is evaluated by our board of directors. Each year, the written investment policy is approved by the board of directors.

Mergers and Acquisitions

As part of our operations, we have pursued an acquisition strategy over the years to augment our internal growth. We regularly evaluate the potential acquisition of, or merger with, various financial institutions. Our acquisitions have generally fallen into one of three categories - 1) an acquisition of a financial institution or branch thereof within a market in which we operate, 2) an acquisition of a financial institution or branch thereof in a market contiguous or nearly contiguous to a market in which we operate, or 3) an acquisition of a company that has products or services that we do not currently offer. Historically, we have paid for our acquisitions with cash and/or common stock and any operating income or loss has been fully borne by the Company beginning on the closing date of the acquisition.

In 2009, FDIC-assisted acquisitions began to occur frequently as banking regulators closed problem banks. In FDIC-assisted transactions, the acquiring bank often does not pay any consideration for the failed bank, and in some cases receives cash from the FDIC as part of the transaction. In addition, the acquiring bank usually enters into one or more loss share agreements with the FDIC, which affords the acquiring bank significant loss protection. As discussed below, we completed FDIC-assisted transactions in 2009 and 2011.

We believe that we can enhance our earnings by pursuing these types of acquisition opportunities through any combination or all of the following: 1) achieving cost efficiencies, 2) enhancing the acquiree’s earnings or gaining new customers by introducing a more successful banking model with more products and services to the acquiree’s market base, 3) increasing customer satisfaction or gaining new customers by providing more locations for the convenience of customers, and 4) leveraging the customer base by offering new products and services. There is also the possibility, especially in a FDIC-assisted transaction, to record a gain on the acquisition date arising from the difference between the purchase price and the acquisition date fair value of the acquired assets and liabilities.

Since 2000, we have completed acquisitions in each of the three categories described above. We have completed several whole-bank traditional acquisitions in our existing and contiguous markets; we have purchased numerous bank branches from other banks (both in existing market area and in contiguous/nearly contiguous markets) and we have acquired several insurance agencies, which provided us with the ability to offer property and casualty insurance coverage.

In addition to the traditional acquisitions discussed above, in both 2009 and 2011 we acquired the operations of failed banks in FDIC-assisted transactions. On June 19, 2009, we acquired substantially all of the assets and liabilities of Cooperative Bank in a FDIC-assisted transaction. Cooperative Bank operated through twenty-one branches in North Carolina and three branches in South Carolina in the same markets in which the Bank was already operating, as well as in several new, mostly contiguous markets. In connection with the acquisition, the Bank assumed assets with a book value of $959 million, including $829 million in loans and $706 million in deposits. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for more information on this acquisition.

On January 21, 2011, we acquired substantially all of the assets and liabilities of The Bank of Asheville in a FDIC-assisted transaction. The Bank of Asheville operated through five branches in or near Asheville, North Carolina. This market was a new market for the Bank. In connection with the acquisition, the Bank assumed assets with a book value of $190 million, including $154 million in loans and $192 million in deposits. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for more information on this acquisition.

On October 21, 2011, we entered into a Branch Purchase and Assumption Agreement with Waccamaw Bank, in Whiteville, North Carolina, which provides for the Bank to acquire eleven branches from Waccamaw Bank. Deposits for these branches total approximately $180 million and loans total approximately $98 million. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for more information on this pending acquisition, which is currently awaiting regulatory approval.

There are many factors that we consider when evaluating how much to offer for potential acquisition candidates (including FDIC-assisted transactions) with a few of the more significant factors being projected impact on earnings per share, projected impact on capital, and projected impact on book value and tangible book value. Significant assumptions that affect this analysis include the estimated future earnings stream of the acquisition candidate, estimated credit and other losses to be incurred, the amount of cost efficiencies that can be realized, and the interest rate earned/lost on the cash received/paid. In addition to these primary factors, we also consider other factors including (but not limited to) marketplace acquisition statistics, location of the candidate in relation to our expansion strategy, market growth potential, management of the candidate, potential integration issues (including corporate culture), and the size of the acquisition candidate.

We plan to continue to evaluate acquisition opportunities that could potentially benefit the Company and its shareholders. These opportunities may include acquisitions that do not fit the categories discussed above.

For a further discussion of recent acquisition activity, see “Merger and Acquisition Activity” under Item 7 below.

Employees

As of December 31, 2011, we had 811 full-time and 38 part-time employees. We are not a party to any collective bargaining agreements, and we consider our employee relations to be good.

Supervision and Regulation

As a bank holding company, we are subject to supervision, examination and regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) and the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks (the “Commissioner”). The Bank is subject to supervision and examination by the FDIC and the Commissioner. For additional information, see Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements.

Supervision and Regulation of the Company

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. The Company is also regulated by the Commissioner under the North Carolina Bank Holding Company Act of 1984.

A bank holding company is required to file quarterly reports and other information regarding its business operations and those of its subsidiaries with the Federal Reserve Board. It is also subject to examination by the Federal Reserve Board and is required to obtain Federal Reserve Board approval prior to making certain acquisitions of other institutions or voting securities. The Federal Reserve Board requires the Company to maintain certain levels of capital - see “Capital Resources and Shareholders’ Equity.” The Federal Reserve Board also has the authority to take enforcement action against any bank holding company that commits any unsafe or unsound practice, or violates certain laws, regulations or conditions imposed in writing by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board generally prohibits a bank holding company from declaring or paying a cash dividend that would impose undue pressure on the capital of subsidiary banks or would be funded only through borrowing or other arrangements which might adversely affect a bank holding company’s financial position. Under the Federal Reserve Board policy, a bank holding company is not permitted to continue its existing rate of cash dividends on its common stock unless its net income is sufficient to fully fund each dividend and its prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with its capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition.

The Commissioner is empowered to regulate certain acquisitions of North Carolina banks and bank holding companies, issue cease and desist orders for violations of North Carolina banking laws, and promulgate rules necessary to effectuate the purposes of the North Carolina Bank Holding Company Act of 1984.

Regulatory authorities have cease and desist powers over bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries where their actions would constitute a serious threat to the safety, soundness or stability of a subsidiary bank. Those authorities may compel holding companies to invest additional capital into banking subsidiaries upon acquisitions or in the event of significant loan losses or rapid growth of loans or deposits.

The United States Congress and the North Carolina General Assembly have periodically considered and adopted legislation that has impacted the Company.

Supervision and Regulation of the Bank

Federal banking regulations applicable to all depository financial institutions, among other things: (i) provide federal bank regulatory agencies with powers to prevent unsafe and unsound banking practices; (ii) restrict preferential loans by banks to “insiders” of banks; (iii) require banks to keep information on loans to major shareholders and executive officers and (iv) bar certain director and officer interlocks between financial institutions.

As a state-chartered bank, the Bank is subject to the provisions of the North Carolina banking statutes and to regulation by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has a wide range of regulatory authority over the activities and operations of the Bank, and the Commissioner’s staff conducts periodic examinations of the Bank and its affiliates to ensure compliance with state banking regulations and to assess the safety and soundness of the Bank. Among other things, the Commissioner regulates the merger and consolidation of state-chartered banks, the payment of dividends, loans to officers and directors, recordkeeping, types and amounts of loans and investments, and the establishment of branches. The Commissioner also has cease and desist powers over state-chartered banks for violations of state banking laws or regulations and for unsafe or unsound conduct that is likely to jeopardize the interest of depositors.

The dividends that may be paid by the Bank to the Company are subject to legal limitations under North Carolina law. In addition, regulatory authorities may restrict dividends that may be paid by the Bank or the Company’s other subsidiaries. The ability of the Company to pay dividends to its shareholders is largely dependent on the dividends paid to the Company by the Bank.

The FDIC is authorized to approve conversions, mergers, consolidations and assumptions of deposit liability transactions between insured banks and uninsured banks or institutions, and to prevent capital or surplus diminution in such transactions if the resulting, continuing, or assumed bank is an insured nonmember bank. In addition, the FDIC monitors the Bank’s compliance with several banking statutes, such as the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The FDIC also conducts periodic examinations of the Bank to assess its safety and soundness and its compliance with banking laws and regulations, and it has the power to implement changes to, or restrictions on, the Bank’s operations if it finds that a violation is occurring or is threatened.

U.S. Treasury Capital Purchase Program (TARP)

On October 3, 2008, in response to the financial crises affecting the banking system and financial markets and going concern threats to investment banks and other financial institutions, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Treasury was given the authority to, among other things, purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and certain other financial instruments from financial institutions for the purpose of stabilizing and providing liquidity to the U.S. financial markets.

On October 14, 2008, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that the Treasury would purchase equity stakes in a wide variety of banks and thrifts. Under the program, known as the Capital Purchase Program (also known as “TARP”), the Treasury made $250 billion of capital available from EESA to U.S. financial institutions in the form of purchases of preferred stock. In addition to the preferred stock, the Treasury received, from participating financial institutions, warrants to purchase common stock with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the preferred investment. Participating financial institutions were required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the Capital Purchase Program.

Although we believed that our capital position was sound, we concluded that the Capital Purchase Program would allow us to raise additional capital on favorable terms in comparison with other available alternatives. Accordingly, we applied to participate in the Capital Purchase Program. The Treasury approved our application in December 2008, and we received $65 million in proceeds from the sale of 65,000 shares of Series A cumulative perpetual preferred stock with a liquidation value of $1,000 per share to the Treasury on January 9, 2009. The terms of the preferred stock issued to the Treasury require a dividend of 5% for the first five years and 9% thereafter. As part of the transaction, we also granted the Treasury a ten-year warrant to purchase up to 616,308 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $15.82 per share.

On September 1, 2011, we redeemed the 65,000 shares of outstanding Series A preferred stock from the Treasury for a redemption price of $65 million, plus unpaid dividends. We funded the majority of this transaction by simultaneously issuing Series B preferred stock to the Treasury in connection with our participation in the Small Business Lending Fund (see below). In November 2011, we repurchased the outstanding common stock warrant from the Treasury at a price of $1.50 per common share for a total of $924,000. See Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for more information on these transactions.

Small Business Lending Fund

In December 2010, the U.S. Treasury announced the creation of the Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF) program, which was established under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. The SBLF was created to encourage lending to small businesses by providing capital to qualified community banks at favorable rates.

Interested financial institutions were required to submit an application and a small business lending plan. Less than half of the financial institutions that applied for the SBLF were approved. We were one of the institutions approved, and on September 1, 2011, we completed the sale of $63.5 million of Series B preferred stock to the Treasury under the SBLF. Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement, the Treasury received 63,500 shares of Series B non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock with a liquidation value of $1,000 per share, in exchange for $63.5 million. As noted above, we used the $63.5 million received from this issuance along with $1.5 million of existing Company funds to redeem the $65 million of preferred stock issued to the Treasury as part of the Capital Purchase Program. The initial dividend rate on SBLF preferred stock was 5%. Depending on our success in meeting certain loan growth targets to small businesses, the dividend rate could decrease to as low as 1% for a period of time. See Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for more information.

FDIC Insurance

As a member of the FDIC, the Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC. For this protection, each member bank pays a quarterly statutory assessment (which was previously based on deposits, but is now based on average total assets less average tangible equity) and is subject to the rules and regulations of the FDIC. In 2009, the FDIC assessed minimum rates ranging from twelve cents to sixteen cents per $100 in deposits. During 2009, we recorded approximately $3.9 million in annual FDIC insurance premium expense (excluding the special assessment discussed below).

The FDIC announced on February 27, 2009 an interim rule that imposed a one-time special assessment of seven cents per $100 in insured deposits to be collected on September 30, 2009, which resulted in a $1.6 million expense for the Bank that was recorded in the second quarter of 2009 and paid on September 30, 2009. The interim rule also permits the FDIC to impose emergency special assessments from time to time after June 30, 2009 if the FDIC board believes the deposit insurance fund will fall to a level that would adversely affect public confidence in federal deposit insurance. To date, the FDIC has not imposed additional special assessments, but in December 2009, the FDIC did require banks to prepay their estimated insurance premiums for 2010 through 2012, which resulted in the Bank prepaying approximately $16.9 million in premiums. This prepaid amount is being recorded as expense on our books as it is incurred. We recognized approximately $4.4 million in FDIC insurance expense in 2010.

In February 2011, the FDIC announced changes to the deposit insurance program whereby FDIC deposit insurance assessments are based on average total assets less average tangible equity instead of the previous methodology that was based on deposits. Also, new assessment rates were adopted. The new assessment methodology and assessment rates became effective April 1, 2011. These changes were favorable to our insurance rates, and we recognized approximately $3.0 million in FDIC insurance expense in 2011 compared to the previously noted insurance expense of $4.4 million and $3.9 million (excluding the special assessment) in 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Legislative and Regulatory Developments

Given the ongoing financial crisis and the current presidential administration, legislation that would affect regulation in the banking industry is introduced in most legislative sessions. The most significant recent legislative and regulatory developments impacting the Company were 1) the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, and 2) Automated Overdraft Payment Regulation, each of which is discussed below.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act became law. The Dodd-Frank Act has had and will continue to have a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes including, among other things,

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a new framework for systemic risk oversight within the financial system that will be enforced by new and existing federal regulatory agencies, including the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The following description briefly summarizes aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act that could impact the Company, both currently and prospectively.

Deposit Insurance. The Dodd-Frank Act made permanent the $250,000 deposit insurance limit for insured deposits, which was an increase from the previous limit of $100,000. The Act also provides for unlimited deposit insurance coverage on non-interest bearing transaction accounts at all insured depository institutions effective December 31, 2010 through December 31, 2012. Amendments to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act also revised the assessment base against which an insured depository institution’s deposit insurance premiums paid to the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be calculated. Under the amendments, which became effective on April 1, 2011, the FDIC assessment base is no longer the institution’s deposit base, but rather its average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity. The Dodd-Frank Act also changed the minimum designated reserve ratio of the DIF, increasing the minimum from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminating the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds by September 30, 2020.

Interest on Demand Deposits. The Dodd-Frank Act provided that beginning July 21, 2011 depository institutions were permitted to pay interest on business demand deposits with no limit on the number of monthly withdrawals. Prior to July 21, 2011, we entered into securities repurchase agreements with business customers in order to allow them to earn interest on their excess funds. With the prohibition of paying interest now removed, we have been able to pay interest on our customers’ deposits without the need to enter into a securities repurchase agreement. During 2011, approximately $38 million in liabilities previously classified as “securities sold under agreements to repurchase” were moved to the “NOW” deposit account category. At this time, we do not expect a material increase in total interest expense, only an insignificant amount of reclassification among interest expense categories, as a result of these changes.

Trust Preferred Securities. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits bank holding companies from including in their regulatory Tier 1 capital hybrid debt and equity securities issued on or after May 19, 2010. Among the hybrid debt and equity securities included in this prohibition are trust preferred securities, which we have issued in the past in order to raise additional Tier 1 capital and otherwise improve our regulatory capital ratios. Although we may continue to include our existing trust preferred securities as Tier 1 capital, the prohibition on the use of these securities as Tier 1 capital may limit our ability to raise capital in the future.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new, independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) within the FRB. The CFPB’s responsibility is to establish, implement and enforce rules and regulations under certain federal consumer protection laws with respect to the conduct of providers of certain consumer financial products and services. The CFPB has rulemaking authority over many of the statutes that govern products and services banks offer to consumers. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and regulations that are more stringent than those regulations the CFPB will promulgate and state attorney generals will have the authority to enforce consumer protection rules the CFPB adopts against state-chartered institutions and national banks. Compliance with any such new regulations established by the CFPB and/or states could reduce our revenue, increase our cost of operations, and limit our ability to expand into certain products and services.

Debit Card Interchange Fees. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the FRB the authority to establish rules regarding interchange fees charged for electronic debit transactions by payment card issuers having assets over $10 billion and to enforce a new statutory requirement that such fees be reasonable and proportional to the actual cost of a transaction to the issuer. While we are not directly subject to these rules for so long as our assets do not exceed $10 billion, our activities as a debit card issuer may nevertheless be indirectly impacted by the change in the applicable debit card market caused by these regulations, which may require us to match any new lower fee structure implemented by larger financial institutions in order to remain competitive in the future. The new caps on interchange fees for banks with assets greater than $10 billion became effective October 1, 2011. To date, the Company has not noted any significant indirect negative effects of the interchange fee caps that are applicable to the larger financial institutions.

Increased Capital Standards and Enhanced Supervision. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal banking agencies to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements for banks and bank holding companies. These new standards will be no less strict than existing regulatory capital and leverage standards applicable to insured depository institutions and may, in fact, become higher once the agencies promulgate the new standards. Compliance with heightened capital standards may reduce our ability to generate or originate revenue-producing assets and thereby restrict revenue generation from banking and non-banking operations.

Transactions with Affiliates. The Dodd-Frank Act enhances the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates under Section 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions,” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be maintained.

Transactions with Insiders. The Dodd-Frank Act expands insider transaction limitations through the strengthening of loan restrictions to insiders and the expansion of the types of transactions subject to the various limits, including derivative transactions, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act also places restrictions on certain asset sales to and from an insider of an institution, including requirements that such sales be on market terms and, in certain circumstances, receive the approval of the institution’s board of directors.

Enhanced Lending Limits. The Dodd-Frank Act strengthens the existing limits on a depository institution’s credit exposure to one borrower. Federal banking law currently limits a national bank’s ability to extend credit to one person or group of related persons to an amount that does not exceed certain thresholds. The Dodd-Frank Act expands the scope of these restrictions to include credit exposure arising from derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions. It also will eventually prohibit state-chartered banks from engaging in derivative transactions unless the state lending limit laws take into account credit exposure to such transactions.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses many corporate governance and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies, including the Company. The Dodd-Frank Act:

Many of the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act will be subject to implementation over the course of several years. While we do not currently expect the final requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act to have a material adverse impact on the Company, we do expect them to negatively impact our profitability, require changes to certain of our business practices, including limitations on fee income opportunities, and impose more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements upon the Company. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with the new statutory and regulatory requirements.

Automated Overdraft Payment Regulation

In recent years, the Federal Reserve and FDIC have enacted consumer protection regulations related to automated overdraft payment programs offered by financial institutions. In November 2009, the Federal Reserve amended its Regulation E to prohibit financial institutions, including the Company, from charging consumers fees for paying overdrafts on automated teller machine and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those types of transactions. The Regulation E amendments also require financial institutions to provide consumers with a notice that explains the financial institution’s overdraft services, including the fees associated with the service and the consumer’s choices. We have completed implementation of the changes as required by the Regulation E amendments, which resulted in reductions to overdraft fees that we were able to collect beginning in the second half of 2010.

In November 2010, the FDIC supplemented the Regulation E amendments by requiring FDIC-supervised institutions, including the Bank, to implement additional changes relating to automated overdraft payment programs by July 1, 2011. The most significant of these changes require financial institutions to monitor overdraft payment programs for “excessive or chronic” customer use and undertake “meaningful and effective” follow-up action with customers that overdraw their accounts more than six times during a rolling 12-month period. The additional guidance also imposes daily limits on overdraft charges, requires institutions to review and modify check-clearing procedures, prominently distinguish account balances from available overdraft coverage amounts and requires increased board and management oversight regarding overdraft payment programs. We have now implemented the supplemental requirements of the Regulation E amendments, which resulted in further reductions to the amount of overdraft fees we were able to collect beginning in July 2011.

Neither the Company nor the Bank can predict what other legislation might be enacted or what other regulations or assessments might be adopted.

See “Capital Resources and Shareholders’ Equity” under Item 7 below for a discussion of regulatory capital requirements.

Available Information

We maintain a corporate Internet site at www.FirstBancorp.com, which contains a link within the “Investor Relations” section of the site to each of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These filings are available, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. These filings can also be accessed at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website located at www.sec.gov. Information included on our Internet site is not incorporated by reference into this annual report.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock involves certain risks. Before you invest in our common stock, you should be aware that there are various risks, including those described below, which could affect the value of your investment in the future. The trading price of our common stock could decline due to any of these risks, and you may lose all or part of your investment. The risk factors described in this section, as well as any cautionary language in this report, provide examples of risks, uncertainties and events that could have a material adverse effect on our business, including our operating results and financial condition. In addition to the risks and uncertainties described below, other risks and uncertainties not currently known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial, also may materially or adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. The value or market price of our common stock could decline due to any of these identified or other unidentified risks.

Difficult market conditions and economic trends have adversely affected our industry and our business.

A general economic downturn began in the latter half of 2007. Dramatic declines in the housing market, with decreasing home prices and increasing delinquencies and foreclosures, have negatively impacted the credit performance of mortgage loans, especially land development loans, and resulted in significant write-downs of assets by many financial institutions. In addition, the value of real estate collateral supporting many loans has declined and may continue to decline. General downward economic trends, reduced availability of commercial credit and high unemployment rates have negatively impacted the credit performance of commercial and consumer credit, resulting in additional write-downs. While there have been recent signs of recovery in the national economy, the economic conditions in our market area do not seem to have improved. We believe that the economic downtrends are largely responsible for the deterioration in loan quality that we experienced over the past three years, including higher levels of loan charge-offs, higher levels of nonperforming assets, and higher provisions for loan losses. Concerns over the stability of the financial markets and the economy have resulted in decreased lending by financial institutions to their customers and to each other. This market turmoil and tightening of credit has led to increased commercial and consumer delinquencies, lack of confidence, increased market volatility and widespread reduction in general business activity. Financial institutions, including us, have experienced a decrease in access to borrowings. The resulting economic pressure on consumers and businesses and the lack of confidence in the financial markets have adversely affected, and may continue to adversely affect, our business, financial condition, results of operations and stock price.

As a result of the foregoing factors, there is a potential for new federal or state laws and regulations regarding lending and funding practices and liquidity standards, and bank regulatory agencies are expected to be very aggressive in responding to concerns and trends identified in examinations. This increased governmental action may increase our costs and limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities.

Our ability to assess the creditworthiness of customers and to estimate the losses inherent in our credit exposure is made more complex by these difficult market and economic conditions. A worsening of these conditions would likely exacerbate the adverse effects of these difficult market and economic conditions on us, our customers and the other financial institutions in our market. As a result, we may experience additional increases in foreclosures, delinquencies and customer bankruptcies, as well as more restricted access to funds.

We are vulnerable to the economic conditions within the fairly small geographic region in which we operate.

Like many businesses, our overall success is partially dependent on the economic conditions in the marketplace where we operate. Our marketplace is predominately concentrated in the central Piedmont and coastal regions of North Carolina. These regions continue to experience recessionary economic conditions, which we believe is a factor in our increases in borrower delinquencies, nonperforming assets, and loan losses during 2009, 2010, and 2011 compared to recent prior years. If economic conditions in our marketplace worsen, it would likely have an adverse impact on us. In particular, if economic conditions related to real estate values in our marketplace were to worsen, our loan losses would likely increase. At December 31, 2011, approximately 90% of our loans were secured by real estate collateral, which means that additional decreases in real estate values would have an adverse impact on our operations.

If our goodwill becomes impaired, we may be required to record a significant charge to earnings.

We have goodwill recorded on our balance sheet as an asset with a carrying value as of December 31, 2011 of $65.8 million. Under generally accepted accounting principles, goodwill is required to be tested for impairment at least annually and between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. The test for goodwill impairment involves comparing the fair value of a company’s reporting units to their respective carrying values. For our company, our community banking operation is our only material reporting unit. The price of our common stock is one of several measures available for estimating the fair value of our community banking operations. For much of 2009, 2010 and 2011, the stock market value of our common stock traded below the book value of our company. Subject to the results of other valuation techniques, if this situation persists or worsens, this could indicate that our next test of goodwill will result in a determination that there is impairment. We may be required to record a significant charge to earnings in our financial statements during the period in which any impairment of our goodwill is determined, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations.

We may be subject to more stringent capital requirements.

We are subject to capital adequacy guidelines and other regulatory requirements specifying minimum amounts and types of capital which we must maintain. From time to time, the regulators implement changes to these regulatory capital adequacy guidelines. If we fail to meet these minimum capital guidelines and other regulatory requirements, our financial condition would be materially and adversely affected. In light of proposed changes to regulatory capital requirements contained in the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulatory accords on international banking institutions formulated by the Basel Committee and implemented by the Federal Reserve, we likely will be required to satisfy additional, more stringent, capital adequacy standards. The ultimate impact of the new capital standards on us cannot be determined at this time and will depend on a number of factors, including the treatment and implementation by U.S. banking regulators. These requirements, however, and any other new regulations, could adversely affect our ability to pay dividends, or could require us to reduce business levels or raise capital, including in ways that may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

We might be required to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available or may not be available on terms acceptable to us when it is needed.

We are required to maintain adequate capital levels to support our operations. In the future, we might need to raise additional capital to support growth, absorb loan losses, or meet more stringent capital requirements. Our access to capital markets has remained limited for most of the past three years (excluding the Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program and the Small Business Lending Fund). Our ability to raise additional capital will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside our control, and on our financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot be certain of our ability to raise additional capital in the future if needed or on terms acceptable to us. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to conduct our business could be materially impaired.

The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.

Since the middle of 2007, the financial services industry as a whole, as well as the securities markets generally, have been materially adversely affected by substantial declines in the values of nearly all asset classes and by a significant lack of liquidity. Financial institutions, especially in North Carolina and the rest of the Southeast, have been subject to increased volatility and an overall loss in investor confidence. Our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services companies are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and we routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, and investment banks. Defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services companies, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. We can make no assurance that any such losses would not materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We are subject to extensive regulation, which could have an adverse effect on our operations.

We are subject to extensive regulation and supervision from the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve Board. This regulation and supervision is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC insurance fund and our depositors and borrowers, rather than for holders of our equity securities. In the past, our business has been materially affected by these regulations. This trend is likely to continue in the future.

Regulatory authorities have extensive discretion in their supervisory and enforcement activities, including the imposition of restrictions on operations, the classification of our assets and the determination of the level of allowance for loan losses. Changes in the regulations that apply to us, or changes in our compliance with regulations, could have a material impact on our operations.

Financial reform legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress, and further changes in regulation to which we are exposed, will result in additional new laws and regulations that are expected to increase our costs of operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act has and will continue to significantly change bank regulatory structure and affect lending, deposit, investment, and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new rules and regulations, and to prepare numerous studies and reports for Congress. The federal agencies are given significant discretion in drafting and implementing the rules and regulations, and consequently, many of the details and much of the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act may not be known for many months or years. See “Legislative and Regulatory Developments – Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010” above for additional information regarding the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Dodd-Frank Act also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and gave it broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all banks and savings institutions, including the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. Additionally, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has examination and enforcement authority over all banks and savings institutions with more than $10 billion in assets.

Proposals for further regulation of the financial services industry are continually being introduced in the Congress of the United States of America. The agencies regulating the financial services industry also periodically adopt changes to their regulations. It is possible that additional legislative proposals may be adopted or regulatory changes may be made that would have an adverse effect on our business. In addition, it is expected that such regulatory changes will increase our operating and compliance cost. We can provide no assurance regarding the manner in which new laws and regulations will affect us.

We are subject to interest rate risk, which could negatively impact earnings.

Net interest income is the most significant component of our earnings. Our net interest income results from the difference between the yields we earn on our interest-earning assets, primarily loans and investments, and the rates that we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities, primarily deposits and borrowings. When interest rates change, the yields we earn on our interest-earning assets and the rates we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities do not necessarily move in tandem with each other because of the difference between their maturities and repricing characteristics. This mismatch can negatively impact net interest income if the margin between yields earned and rates paid narrows. Interest rate environment changes can occur at any time and are affected by many factors that are outside our control, including inflation, recession, unemployment trends, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, domestic and international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets.

Our allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual losses.

Like all financial institutions, we maintain an allowance for loan losses to provide for probable losses caused by customer loan defaults. The allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual loan losses, and in this case additional and larger provisions for loan losses would be required to replenish the allowance. Provisions for loan losses are a direct charge against income.

We establish the amount of the allowance for loan losses based on historical loss rates, as well as estimates and assumptions about future events. Because of the extensive use of estimates and assumptions, our actual loan losses could differ, possibly significantly, from our estimate. We believe that our allowance for loan losses is adequate to provide for probable losses, but it is possible that the allowance for loan losses will need to be increased for credit reasons or that regulators will require us to increase this allowance. Either of these occurrences could materially and adversely affect our earnings and profitability.

In the normal course of business, we process large volumes of transactions involving millions of dollars. If our internal controls fail to work as expected, if our systems are used in an unauthorized manner, or if our employees subvert our internal controls, we could experience significant losses.

We process large volumes of transactions on a daily basis and are exposed to numerous types of operational risk. Operational risk includes the risk of fraud by persons inside or outside the Company, the execution of unauthorized transactions by employees, errors relating to transaction processing and systems and breaches of the internal control system and compliance requirements. This risk also includes potential legal actions that could arise as a result of an operational deficiency or as a result of noncompliance with applicable regulatory standards.

We establish and maintain systems of internal operational controls that provide us with timely and accurate information about our level of operational risk. Although not foolproof, these systems have been designed to manage operational risk at appropriate, cost-effective levels. Procedures exist that are designed to ensure that policies relating to conduct, ethics, and business practices are followed. From time to time, losses from operational risk may occur, including the effects of operational errors. In 2011, we experienced a fraud loss of $1 million involving the circumvention of internal controls by an employee. We continually monitor and improve our internal controls, data processing systems, and corporate-wide processes and procedures, but there can be no assurance that future losses will not occur.

Negative public opinion regarding our company and the financial services industry in general, could damage our reputation and adversely impact our earnings.

Reputation risk, or the risk to our business, earnings and capital from negative public opinion regarding our company and the financial services industry in general, is inherent in our business. Negative public opinion can result from actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices, corporate governance and acquisitions, and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public opinion can adversely affect our ability to keep and attract clients and employees and can expose us to litigation and regulatory action. Although we have taken steps to minimize reputation risk in dealing with our clients and communities, this risk will always be present given the nature of our business.

Our reported financial results are impacted by management’s selection of accounting methods and certain assumptions and estimates.

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to the way we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Our management must exercise judgment in selecting and applying many of these accounting policies and methods so they comply with generally accepted accounting principles and reflect management’s judgment of the most appropriate manner to report our financial condition and results. In some cases, management must select the accounting policy or method to apply from two or more alternatives, any of which may be reasonable under the circumstances, yet may result in reporting materially different results than would have been reported under a different alternative.

Certain accounting policies are critical to presenting our financial condition and results. They require management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments about matters that are uncertain. Materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions or estimates. These critical accounting policies include: the allowance for loan losses; the valuation of goodwill and other intangible assets; and the accounting for FDIC loss share transactions.

There can be no assurance that we will continue to pay cash dividends.

Although we have historically paid cash dividends, there is no assurance that we will continue to pay cash dividends. Future payment of cash dividends, if any, will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will be dependent upon our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, economic conditions, and such other factors as the board may deem relevant.

Our business continuity plans or data security systems could prove to be inadequate, resulting in a material interruption in, or disruption to, our business and a negative impact on our results of operations.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Our daily operations depend on the operational effectiveness of our technology. We rely on our systems to accurately track and record our assets and liabilities. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of our computer systems or outside technology, due to severe weather, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism, criminal activity or other factors, could result in failures or disruptions in general ledger, deposit, loan, customer relationship management, and other systems leading to inaccurate financial records. This could materially affect our business operations and financial condition. While we have disaster recovery and other policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of any failure, interruption or security breach of our 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. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

In addition, the Bank provides its customers the ability to bank online. The secure transmission of confidential information over the Internet is a critical element of online banking. While we use qualified third party vendors to test and audit our network, our network could become vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses, phishing schemes and other security issues. The Bank may be required to spend significant capital and other resources to alleviate problems caused by security breaches or computer viruses. To the extent that the Bank activities or the activities of its customers involve the storage and transmission of confidential information, security breaches and viruses could expose the Bank to claims, litigation, and other potential liabilities. Any inability to prevent security breaches or computer viruses could also cause existing customers to lose confidence in the Bank’s systems and could adversely affect its reputation and its ability to generate deposits.

Our potential inability to integrate companies we may acquire in the future could expose us to financial, execution, and operational risks that could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations. Acquisitions may be dilutive to common shareholders and FDIC-assisted transactions have additional compliance risk that other acquisitions do not have.

On occasion, we may engage in a strategic acquisition when we believe there is an opportunity to strengthen and expand our business. In addition, such acquisitions may involve the issuance of stock, which may have a dilutive effect on earnings per share. To fully benefit from such acquisition, however, we must integrate the administrative, financial, sales, lending, collections, and marketing functions of the acquired company. If we are unable to successfully integrate an acquired company, we may not realize the benefits of the acquisition, and our financial results may be negatively affected. A completed acquisition may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, including our capital requirements and the accounting treatment of the acquisition. Completed acquisitions may also lead to exposure from potential asset quality issues, losses of key employees or customers, difficulty and expense of integrating operations and systems, and significant unexpected liabilities after the consummation of these acquisitions. In addition, if we were to conclude that the value of an acquired business had decreased and that the related goodwill had been impaired, that conclusion would result in a goodwill impairment charge, which would adversely affect our results of operations.

We may have opportunities to acquire the assets and liabilities of failed banks in FDIC-assisted transactions. Although these transactions typically provide for FDIC assistance to an acquirer to mitigate certain risks, such as sharing exposure to loan losses and providing indemnification against certain liabilities of the failed institution, we are (and would be in future transactions) subject to many of the same risks we would face in acquiring another bank in a negotiated transaction, including risks associated with maintaining customer relationships and failure to realize the anticipated acquisition benefits in the amounts and within the time frames we expect. In addition, ongoing compliance risk under the loss-share agreement with the FDIC is considerable and the event of noncompliance could result in coverage under the loss-share being disallowed, thus increasing the actual losses to the Bank. Our inability to overcome these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None

Item 2. Properties

The main offices of the Company and the Bank are owned by the Bank and are located in a three-story building in the central business district of Troy, North Carolina. The building houses administrative and bank teller facilities. The Bank’s Operations Division, including customer accounting functions, offices for information technology operations, and offices for loan operations, are housed in two one-story steel frame buildings approximately one-half mile west of the main office. Both of these buildings are owned by the Bank. The Company operates 97 bank branches. The Company owns all of its bank branch premises except eight branch offices for which the land and buildings are leased and ten branch offices for which the land is leased but the building is owned. The Company also leases one loan production office. There are no options to purchase or lease additional properties. The Company considers its facilities adequate to meet current needs and believes that lease renewals or replacement properties can be acquired as necessary to meet future needs.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Various legal proceedings may arise in the ordinary course of business and may be pending or threatened against the Company and its subsidiaries. However, neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries is involved in any pending legal proceedings that management believes could have a material effect on the consolidated financial position of the Company. If an exposure were to be identified, it is the Company’s policy to establish and accrue appropriate reserves during the accounting period in which a loss is deemed to be probable and the amount is determinable.

There were no tax shelter penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service against the Company during the year ended December 31, 2011.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosure

Not applicable.

PART II

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

Our common stock trades on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol FBNC. Table 22, included in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis” below, sets forth the high and low market prices of our common stock as traded by the brokerage firms that maintain a market in our common stock and the dividends declared for the periods indicated. We paid a cash dividend of $0.08 per share for each quarter of 2011. For the foreseeable future, it is our current intention to continue to pay cash dividends of $0.08 per share on a quarterly basis. See “Business - Supervision and Regulation” above and Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for a discussion of other regulatory restrictions on the Company’s payment of dividends. As of December 31, 2011, there were approximately 2,600 shareholders of record and another 3,500 shareholders whose stock is held in “street name.” There were no sales of unregistered securities during the year ended December 31, 2011.

Additional Information Regarding the Registrant’s Equity Compensation Plans

At December 31, 2011, the Company had four equity-based compensation plans, one of which was assumed in a corporate acquisition. The Company’s 2007 Equity Plan is the only one of the four plans under which new grants of equity-based awards are possible.

The following table presents information as of December 31, 2011 regarding shares of the Company’s stock that may be issued pursuant to the Company’s equity based compensation plans. The table does not include information with respect to shares subject to outstanding options granted under a stock incentive plan assumed by the Company in connection with the acquisition of the company that originally granted those options. Footnote (2) to the table indicates the total number of shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options under the assumed plan as of December 31, 2011, and the weighted average exercise price of those options. No additional options may be granted under the assumed plan. At December 31, 2011, the Company had no warrants or stock appreciation rights outstanding under any compensation plans.

(1) Consists of (A) the Company’s 2007 Equity Plan, which is currently in effect; (B) the Company’s 2004 Stock Option Plan; and (C) the Company’s 1994 Stock Option Plan, each of which was approved by our shareholders.

(2) The table does not include information for stock incentive plans that the Company assumed in connection with mergers and acquisitions of the companies that originally established those plans. As of December 31, 2011, a total of 4,788 shares of common stock were issuable upon exercise under an assumed plan. The weighted average exercise price of those outstanding options is $12.90 per share. No additional options may be granted under the assumed plan.

Performance Graph

The performance graph shown below compares the Company’s cumulative total return to shareholders for the five-year period commencing December 31, 2006 and ending December 31, 2011, with the cumulative total return of the Russell 2000 Index (reflecting overall stock market performance of small-capitalization companies), and an index of banks with between $1 billion and $5 billion in assets, as constructed by SNL Securities, LP (reflecting changes in banking industry stocks). The graph and table assume that $100 was invested on December 31, 2006 in each of the Company’s common stock, the Russell 2000 Index, and the SNL Bank Index, and that all dividends were reinvested.

First Bancorp

Comparison of Five-Year Total Return Performances (1)

Five Years Ending December 31, 2011

Notes:

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Pursuant to authorizations by the Company’s board of directors, the Company has from time to time repurchased shares of common stock in private transactions and in open-market purchases. The most recent board authorization was announced on July 30, 2004 and authorized the repurchase of 375,000 shares of the Company’s stock. The Company repurchased approximately 20,000 shares of its common stock during the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Footnotes to the Above Table

Item 6. Selected Consolidated Financial Data

Table 1 on page 65 of this report sets forth the selected consolidated financial data for the Company.

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

Management’s Discussion and Analysis is intended to assist readers in understanding our results of operations and changes in financial position for the past three years. This review should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes beginning on page 83 of this report and the supplemental financial data contained in Tables 1 through 22 included with this discussion and analysis.

Overview - 2011 Compared to 2010

Net income for 2011 increased by 27.3% over 2010. Earnings for 2011 were impacted by a bargain purchase gain and accelerated accretion on our preferred stock discount (see discussion below).

The following is a more detailed discussion of our results for 2011 compared to 2010:

For the year ended December 31, 2011, we reported net income available to common shareholders of $7.5 million compared to $5.9 million reported for 2010. Earnings per diluted common share were $0.44 for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $0.35 for 2010. In the first quarter of 2011, we realized a $10.2 million bargain purchase gain related to the acquisition of a failed bank, which is recorded in noninterest income. The after-tax impact of this gain on net income was $6.2 million, or $0.37 per diluted common share.

In the third quarter of 2011, we recorded $2.3 million of accelerated accretion of the discount remaining on the preferred stock that was redeemed during the quarter. This stock was originally issued to the U.S. Treasury in January 2009 as part of the program known as TARP. When this preferred stock was redeemed, the remaining discount that was recorded upon the issuance of the stock, which had been on a five year accretion schedule, was immediately accreted as a reduction to net income available to common shareholders. Total discount accretion of the preferred stock for 2011 was $2.9 million, or $0.17 per diluted common share.

In both 2011 and 2010, we experienced significant write-downs and losses associated with loans and foreclosed properties that were assumed in two failed bank acquisitions. The amounts of the write-downs and losses were less in 2011 than in 2010, but continued to significantly impact our earnings.

We note that our results of operation are significantly affected by the on-going accounting for the two FDIC-assisted failed bank acquisitions that we have completed. In the discussion below, the term “covered” is used to describe assets included as part of FDIC loss share agreements, which generally result in the FDIC reimbursing the Company for 80% of losses incurred.

For covered loans that deteriorate in terms of repayment expectations, we record immediate allowances through the provision of loan losses. For covered loans that experience favorable changes in credit quality compared to what was expected at the acquisition date, including loans that payoff, we record positive adjustments to interest income over the life of the respective loan – also referred to as loan discount accretion. For foreclosed properties that are sold at gains or losses or that are written down to lower values, we record gains/losses within noninterest income.

The adjustments discussed above are recorded within the income statement line items noted without consideration of the FDIC loss share agreements. Because favorable changes in covered assets result in lower expected FDIC claims, and unfavorable changes in covered assets result in higher expected FDIC claims, the FDIC indemnification asset is adjusted to reflect those expectations. The net increase or decrease in the indemnification asset is reflected within noninterest income.

The adjustments noted above can result in volatility within individual income statement line items. Because of the FDIC loss share agreements and the associated indemnification asset, pretax income resulting from amounts recorded as provisions for loan losses on covered loans, discount accretion, and losses from covered foreclosed properties is generally only impacted by 20% due to the corresponding adjustments made to the indemnification asset.

Total assets at December 31, 2011 amounted to $3.3 billion, a 0.4% increase from a year earlier. Total loans at December 31, 2011 amounted to $2.4 billion, a 1.0% decrease from a year earlier, and total deposits amounted to $2.8 billion at December 31, 2011, a 3.9% increase from a year earlier.

Since the onset of the recession, we have generally experienced declines in loans and deposits. Normal loan paydowns, loan charge-offs, and loan foreclosures have exceeded new loan growth, which has provided the liquidity to lessen our reliance on high cost deposits. However, for the last half of 2011, we experienced modest growth in our non-covered loan portfolio, which increased $28 million from June 30, 2011 through year end. We are actively pursuing lending opportunities in order to improve our asset yields, as well as to potentially decrease the dividend rate on our preferred stock, as discussed in Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements. Brokered deposits remained at a low level at December 31, 2011, comprising just 5.7% of total deposits, with internet deposits comprising an additional 1.1%.

Net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2011 amounted to $132.2 million, an increase of $4.8 million, or 3.8%, from 2010. The higher net interest income was primarily caused by an increase in 2011 in the amount of discount accretion on loans purchased in failed bank acquisitions. Loan discount accretion amounted to $11.6 million for 2011 compared to $7.6 million in 2010, an increase of $4 million. As previously discussed, the impact of changes in discount accretion on pretax income is only 20% of the gross amount of the change. See “Net Interest Income” below for additional information.

Our net interest margin (tax-equivalent net interest income divided by average earnings assets) for 2011 was 4.72% compared to 4.39% for 2010. The higher margin was primarily due to the aforementioned increase in loan discount accretion, as well as a decline in funding costs.

Our provisions for loan losses remain elevated compared to historical levels, primarily due to continued high unemployment rates and ongoing declines in property values in our market area that negatively impact collateral dependent real estate loans. Our provision for loan losses for non-covered loans amounted to $28.5 million for 2011 compared to $33.6 million recorded in 2010. The lower provision in 2011 was primarily due to stabilization in overall loan quality and lower levels of non-covered nonperforming loans.

We recorded $12.8 million in provision for loan losses on covered loans during 2011 compared to $20.9 million recorded in 2010. The lower provision in 2011 was due to declines in covered nonperforming loans resulting from the resolution of a significant amount of these loans through a combination of charge-offs and foreclosures.

Our non-covered nonperforming assets at December 31, 2011 amounted to $122 million compared to $117 million at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2011, the ratio of non-covered nonperforming assets to total non-covered assets was 4.30% compared to 4.16% at December 31, 2010.

Our covered nonperforming assets at December 31, 2011 amounted to $141 million compared to $168 million at December 31, 2010.

Noninterest income for the year ended December 31, 2011 amounted to $26.2 million compared to $29.1 million for 2010. The decline in noninterest income in 2011 is primarily due to lower amounts of indemnification asset income recorded. As previously discussed, when we anticipate receiving additional amounts from the FDIC because of new losses identified in our covered loan and foreclosed property portfolios, we record indemnification asset income for 80% of the expected loss. In 2011, fewer new losses were identified compared to 2010, and thus less indemnification asset income was recorded.

Noninterest expenses for the year ended December 31, 2011 amounted to $96.1 million, a 10.5% increase from the $87.0 million recorded in 2010. The majority of the increase relates to personnel expense, which increased partially due to employees joining the Company in the 2011 Bank of Asheville acquisition. We also experienced higher employee medical expense due to higher claims in 2011 compared to 2010. We have also progressively built our infrastructure to manage increased compliance burdens, collection activities and the overall growth of the Company, and to prepare for future growth, which has generally resulted in higher expenses across all categories.

Our effective tax rates were 35.1% and 33.2% for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Overview – 2010 Compared to 2009

Net income was significantly lower in 2010 than in 2009 primarily due to a gain that resulted from the Cooperative Bank acquisition in June 2009. Most items of income and expense were higher in 2010 than in 2009 as a result of the Cooperative acquisition, which impacted the Company for twelve months in 2010 compared to six months in 2009 beginning with the June acquisition date. In 2010, our provision for loan losses increased significantly due to deterioration of asset quality, which we believe was primarily caused by the recessionary economic environment, including its unfavorable effect on real estate values.

The following is a more detailed discussion of our results for 2010 compared to 2009:

For the year ended December 31, 2010, we reported net income available to common shareholders of $5.9 million compared to $56.3 million reported for 2009. Earnings per diluted common share were $0.35 for the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to $3.37 for 2009. In the second quarter of 2009, we realized a $67.9 million gain related to the acquisition of a failed bank. The after-tax impact of this gain was $41.1 million, or $2.46 per diluted common share.

Earnings reported for 2010 were impacted by write-downs of foreclosed properties that were assumed in our 2009 failed bank acquisition and also by higher provisions for loan losses related both to loans acquired in the failed bank acquisition and to our legacy loans (loans not obtained in the failed bank acquisition).

Total assets at December 31, 2010 amounted to $3.3 billion, a 7.5% decrease from a year earlier. Total loans at December 31, 2010 amounted to $2.5 billion, a 7.5% decrease from a year earlier, and total deposits amounted to $2.7 billion at December 31, 2010, a 9.6% decrease from a year earlier. The contraction of our balance sheet was primarily a result of weak loan demand during 2010, which allowed us to lessen our reliance on higher cost sources of funding.

We began experiencing a general decline in loans beginning in 2009 as the full effect of the recession took hold. Loans declined approximately $199 million, or 7.5%, in 2010.

Our deposits declined $281 million, or 9.6%, in 2010. The decrease was primarily associated with time deposits, which are generally our highest cost source of funds. We also experienced a $70 million decrease in our NOW accounts during 2010, primarily as a result of the expiration of certain provisions of the FDIC transaction account guarantee program.

Net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2010 amounted to $127.4 million, an 18.9% increase from 2009. The increase in net interest income was primarily due to 1) a higher net interest margin, and 2) the higher average balances of loans and deposits realized from the June 2009 Cooperative Bank acquisition.

Our net interest margin (tax-equivalent net interest income divided by average earnings assets) for 2010 was 4.39% compared to 3.81% for 2009. During 2010, there were no changes in the interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, and we were able to continue to lower rates on our deposits, especially on maturing time deposits that were originated in periods of higher interest rates. Also positively impacting net interest income were purchase accounting adjustments, primarily related to our failed bank acquisition in 2009, including adjustments to loan interest income previously discussed. See “Net Interest Income” below for additional discussion.

The economic environment, including its unfavorable effect on real estate values, resulted in an increase in our loan losses and nonperforming assets, which led to significantly higher provisions for loan losses in 2010. Our provision for loan losses amounted to $54.6 million for 2010 compared to $20.2 million recorded in 2009. In 2010, our provision for loan losses was comprised of $33.6 million in provisions related to non-covered loans and $20.9 million related to covered loans, whereas in prior years the provision only related to non-covered loans.

We recorded $33.6 million and $20.2 million in provision for loan losses during 2010 and 2009, respectively, for non-covered loans. The higher provisions for loan losses were necessary primarily as a result of higher levels of classified and nonperforming assets and the impact of declining real estate values on our collateral dependent real estate loans.

We recorded $20.9 million in provision for loan losses during 2010 related to covered loans that experienced credit quality deterioration. The credit quality deterioration primarily related to collateral dependent loans for which we received updated appraisals during 2010 that reflected lower valuations.

Net loan charge-offs for 2010 were $42.5 million compared to $12.1 million in 2009. Net charge-offs increased primarily as a result of declines in real estate values. In 2010, net charge-offs were also impacted by charge-offs of covered loans and the recording of partial charge-offs of non-covered loans, neither of which occurred during 2009. We recorded approximately $9.8 million in charge-offs of covered loans in 2010 compared to none in 2009. Also, we recorded partial charge-offs of non-covered loans amounting to $8.6 million during the fourth quarter of 2010. Previously, we recorded specific reserves on collateral-deficient nonaccrual loans within the allowance for loan losses, but did not record the charge-offs until the loans were foreclosed upon.

Our non-covered nonperforming assets at December 31, 2010 amounted to $117 million compared to $92 million at December 31, 2009. At December 31, 2010, the ratio of non-covered nonperforming assets to total non-covered assets was 4.16% compared to 3.10% at December 31, 2009.

Our covered nonperforming assets at December 31, 2010 amounted to $168 million compared to $165 million at December 31, 2009.

Noninterest income for the year ended December 31, 2010 amounted to $29.1 million compared to $89.5 million for 2009. In 2009, we recorded a $67.9 million bargain purchase gain in connection with the acquisition of a failed bank. In 2010, we recorded $35.5 million in write-downs and losses on foreclosed property, the majority of which related to the market deterioration of foreclosed properties associated with the failed bank acquisition. We recorded $41.8 million in indemnification asset income related to higher than anticipated claims that we will be able to make with the FDIC under the loss share agreements, primarily relating to loan losses and foreclosed property losses and write-downs.

Noninterest expenses for the year ended December 31, 2010 amounted to $87.0 million, a 10.7% increase from the $78.6 million recorded in 2009. Incremental operating expenses associated with the failed bank acquisition were the primary reason for the increases in 2010. Included in other operating expenses for 2010 were approximately $2.6 million in costs (net of FDIC reimbursements) associated with collection activities on loans and foreclosed properties covered by FDIC loss share agreements, compared to $0.8 million in 2009.

Our effective tax rates were 33.2% and 38.4% for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The lower effective tax rate in 2010 was primarily due to increased investment holdings of tax-exempt municipal securities.

Outlook for 2012

We expect the banking industry, particularly in our region, to continue to face significant challenges in 2012. While there has been some favorable national economic data reported in recent months, we have seen little, if any, improvement in the unfavorable economic statistics affecting our region. These include unemployment rates, housing starts, home prices, and the number of personal and business bankruptcies. We believe that the Carolinas and Virginia may have been relatively late to experience the downturn in the national economy and that this region is lagging the rest of the country in recovery. Thus, we believe that our loan losses will continue to remain at elevated levels compared to historical norms. We also expect that the weak economy will continue to result in low loan demand.

We believe that regulatory reform will negatively impact our earnings. The regulatory climate is not favorable for banks. We expect additional overhead costs will be necessary to comply with all of the new regulations expected to arise directly or indirectly from the Dodd-Frank Act.

In 2009 and 2011 we acquired failed banks with approximately $959 and $193 million in assets, respectively. These acquisitions resulted in significant volatility to our earnings in 2009, 2010, and 2011, primarily as a result of the bargain purchase gains recorded on the acquisition dates that increased earnings and write-downs of foreclosed properties in 2010 and 2011 that negatively impacted earnings. While we expect the acquisitions to eventually be accretive to earnings on a consistent basis, we believe that they may continue to add volatility to our reported earnings in 2012. The volatility may be positive to earnings, which would most likely occur if the credit quality of the acquired loans improves, or negative to earnings, which would most likely occur if the credit quality of the acquired loans deteriorates or if the properties we have foreclosed on continue to decline in value.

Critical Accounting Policies

The accounting principles we follow and our methods of applying these principles conform with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and with general practices followed by the banking industry. Certain of these principles involve a significant amount of judgment and may involve the use of estimates based on our best assumptions at the time of the estimation. The allowance for loan losses, intangible assets, and the fair value and discount accretion of loans acquired in FDIC-assisted transactions are three policies we have identified as being more sensitive in terms of judgments and estimates, taking into account their overall potential impact to our consolidated financial statements.

Allowance for Loan Losses

Due to the estimation process and the potential materiality of the amounts involved, we have identified the accounting for the allowance for loan losses and the related provision for loan losses as an accounting policy critical to our consolidated financial statements. The provision for loan losses charged to operations is an amount sufficient to bring the allowance for loan losses to an estimated balance considered adequate to absorb losses inherent in the portfolio.

Our determination of the adequacy of the allowance is based primarily on a mathematical model that estimates the appropriate allowance for loan losses. This model has two components. The first component involves the estimation of losses on non-single family home loans or relationships greater than $500,000 that are defined as “impaired loans.” A loan is considered to be impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. The estimated valuation allowance is the difference, if any, between the loan balance outstanding and the value of the impaired loan as determined by either 1) an estimate of the cash flows that we expect to receive from the borrower discounted at the loan’s effective rate, or 2) in the case of a collateral-dependent loan, the fair value of the collateral.

The second component of the allowance model is an estimate of losses for impaired single family home loans, impaired loans or relationships less than $500,000, and all loans not considered to be impaired loans. Impaired single family home loans, impaired loans or relationships less than $500,000, and loans that we have classified as having normal credit risk are segregated by loan type, and estimated loss percentages are assigned to each loan type, based on the historical losses, current economic conditions, and operational conditions specific to each loan type. Loans that we have risk graded as having more than “standard” risk but not considered to be impaired are segregated between those relationships with outstanding balances exceeding $500,000 and those that are less than that amount. For those loan relationships with outstanding balances exceeding $500,000, we review the attributes of each individual loan and assign any necessary loss reserve based on various factors including payment history, borrower strength, collateral value, and guarantor strength. For loan relationships less than $500,000 with more than standard risk but not considered to be impaired, loss percentages are based on a multiple of the estimated loss rate for loans of a similar loan type with normal risk. The multiples assigned vary by type of loan, depending on risk, and we have consulted with an external credit review firm in assigning those multiples.

The reserve estimated for impaired loans is then added to the reserve estimated for all other loans. This becomes our “allocated allowance.” In addition to the allocated allowance derived from the model, we also evaluate other data such as the ratio of the allowance for loan losses to total loans, net loan growth information, nonperforming asset levels and trends in such data. Based on this additional analysis, we may determine that an additional amount of allowance for loan losses is necessary to reserve for probable losses. This additional amount, if any, is our “unallocated allowance.” The sum of the allocated allowance and the unallocated allowance is compared to the actual allowance for loan losses recorded on our books and any adjustment necessary for the recorded allowance to equal the computed allowance is recorded as a provision for loan losses. The provision for loan losses is a direct charge to earnings in the period recorded.

Loans covered under loss share agreements are recorded at fair value at acquisition date. Therefore, amounts deemed uncollectible at acquisition date become a part of the fair value calculation and are excluded from the allowance for loan losses. Subsequent decreases in the amount expected to be collected result in a provision for loan losses with a corresponding increase in the allowance for loan losses. Subsequent increases in the amount expected to be collected are accreted into income over the life of the loan. Proportional adjustments are also recorded to the FDIC indemnification asset.

Although we use the best information available to make evaluations, future material adjustments may be necessary if economic, operational, or other conditions change. In addition, various regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review our allowance for loan losses. Such agencies may require us to recognize additions to the allowance based on the examiners’ judgment about information available to them at the time of their examinations.

For further discussion, see “Nonperforming Assets” and “Summary of Loan Loss Experience” below.

Intangible Assets

Due to the estimation process and the potential materiality of the amounts involved, we have also identified the accounting for intangible assets as an accounting policy critical to our consolidated financial statements.

When we complete an acquisition transaction, the excess of the purchase price over the amount by which the fair market value of assets acquired exceeds the fair market value of liabilities assumed represents an intangible asset. We must then determine the identifiable portions of the intangible asset, with any remaining amount classified as goodwill. Identifiable intangible assets associated with these acquisitions are generally amortized over the estimated life of the related asset, whereas goodwill is tested annually for impairment, but not systematically amortized. Assuming no goodwill impairment, it is beneficial to our future earnings to have a lower amount assigned to identifiable intangible assets and higher amount of goodwill as opposed to having a higher amount considered to be identifiable intangible assets and a lower amount classified as goodwill.

The primary identifiable intangible asset we typically record in connection with a whole bank or bank branch acquisition is the value of the core deposit intangible, whereas when we acquire an insurance agency, the primary identifiable intangible asset is the value of the acquired customer list. Determining the amount of identifiable intangible assets and their average lives involves multiple assumptions and estimates and is typically determined by performing a discounted cash flow analysis, which involves a combination of any or all of the following assumptions: customer attrition/runoff, alternative funding costs, deposit servicing costs, and discount rates. We typically engage a third party consultant to assist in each analysis. For the whole bank and bank branch transactions recorded to date, the core deposit intangibles have generally been estimated to have a life ranging from seven to ten years, with an accelerated rate of amortization. For insurance agency acquisitions, the identifiable intangible assets related to the customer lists were determined to have a life of ten to fifteen years, with amortization occurring on a straight-line basis.

Subsequent to the initial recording of the identifiable intangible assets and goodwill, we amortize the identifiable intangible assets over their estimated average lives, as discussed above. In addition, on at least an annual basis, goodwill is evaluated for impairment by comparing the fair value of our reporting units to their related carrying value, including goodwill (our community banking operation is our only material reporting unit). If the carrying value of a reporting unit were ever to exceed its fair value, we would determine whether the implied fair value of the goodwill, using a discounted cash flow analysis, exceeded the carrying value of the goodwill. If the carrying value of the goodwill exceeded the implied fair value of the goodwill, an impairment loss would be recorded in an amount equal to that excess. Performing such a discounted cash flow analysis would involve the significant use of estimates and assumptions.

At our last goodwill impairment evaluation as of September 30, 2011, we determined the fair value of our community banking operation was approximately $18.50 per common share, or 8% higher, than the $17.08 stated book value of our common stock at the date of valuation. To assist us in computing the fair value of our community banking operation, we engaged a consulting firm who used various valuation techniques as part of their analysis, which resulted in the conclusion of the $18.50 value.

We review identifiable intangible assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Our policy is that an impairment loss is recognized, equal to the difference between the asset’s carrying amount and its fair value, if the sum of the expected undiscounted future cash flows is less than the carrying amount of the asset. Estimating future cash flows involves the use of multiple estimates and assumptions, such as those listed above.

Fair Value and Discount Accretion of Loans Acquired in FDIC-Assisted Transactions

We consider the determination of the initial fair value of loans acquired in FDIC-assisted transactions, the initial fair value of the related FDIC indemnification asset, and the subsequent discount accretion of the purchased loans to involve a high degree of judgment and complexity. We determine fair value accounting estimates of newly assumed assets and liabilities in accordance with relevant accounting guidance. However, the amount that we realize on these assets could differ materially from the carrying value reflected in our financial statements, based upon the timing of collections on the acquired loans in future periods. To the extent the actual values realized for the acquired loans are different from the estimates, the FDIC indemnification asset will generally be impacted in an offsetting manner due to the loss-sharing support from the FDIC.

Because of the inherent credit losses associated with the acquired loans in a failed bank acquisition, the amount that we record as the fair values for the loans is generally less than the contractual unpaid principal balance due from the borrowers, with the difference being referred to as the “discount” on the acquired loans. We have applied the cost recovery method of accounting to all purchased impaired loans due to the uncertainty as to the timing of expected cash flows. This will result in the recognition of interest income on these impaired loans only when the cash payments received from the borrower exceed the recorded net book value of the related loans.

For nonimpaired purchased loans, we accrete the discount over the lives of the loans in a manner consistent with the guidance for accounting for loan origination fees and costs.

Merger and Acquisition Activity

In both 2009 and 2011 we completed a FDIC-assisted transaction of a failed bank. There were no significant acquisitions in 2010. The results of each acquired company/branch are included in our financial statements beginning on their respective acquisition dates. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding these acquisitions.

In October 2011, we announced that we had entered into a Branch Purchase and Assumption Agreement with Waccamaw Bank, headquartered in Whiteville, North Carolina. The agreement provides for First Bank to acquire eleven branches from Waccamaw Bank, which includes assuming all deposits, selected performing loans, and all premises and equipment. Deposits total approximately $180 million and loans total approximately $98 million. This transaction is subject to regulatory approval and other customary conditions. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

FDIC Indemnification Asset

As previously discussed, on June 19, 2009 and January 21, 2011, we acquired substantially all of the assets and liabilities of Cooperative Bank and The Bank of Asheville, respectively, in FDIC-assisted transactions. For each transaction, the loans and foreclosed real estate purchased are covered by two loss share agreements with the FDIC, which afford First Bank significant loss protection. Under the Cooperative Bank loss share agreements, the FDIC will cover 80% of covered loan and foreclosed real estate losses up to $303 million, and 95% of losses in excess of that amount. Under The Bank of Asheville loss share agreements, the FDIC will cover 80% of all covered loan and foreclosed real estate losses. For both transactions, the loss share reimbursements are applicable for ten years for single family home loans and five years for all other loans.

We have recorded a FDIC indemnification asset related to the two transactions to account for payments that we expect to receive from the FDIC related to the loss share agreements. The carrying value of this receivable at each period end is the sum of: 1) actual claims that have been submitted to the FDIC for reimbursement that have not yet been received and 2) our estimated amount of loan and other real estate losses covered by the agreements multiplied by the FDIC reimbursement percentage.

At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the FDIC indemnification asset was comprised of the following components:

As of each acquisition date, based on the losses inherent in the covered assets and what we estimated we would receive as payments from the FDIC, we recorded a “FDIC Indemnification Asset.” Since that time, we have recorded adjustments to the indemnification asset as discussed below.

The FDIC indemnification asset has been adjusted upwards in the following circumstances:

1) Deterioration of credit quality of covered loans – As of the acquisition dates, we recorded the loans acquired from Cooperative Bank and The Bank of Asheville on our books at a fair value that was $227.9 million and $51.7 million, respectively, less than the contractual amounts due from the borrowers, which was our estimate of the loan losses inherent in the portfolio. As the credit quality of these portfolios change and better information is obtained about likely losses, some loans have better repayment expectations than we originally projected and some loans have worse repayment expectations than originally projected. For loans with worse repayment expectations, we record provisions for loan losses with corresponding increases to the FDIC indemnification asset by recording noninterest income in proportion to the reimbursement percentage. In 2011 and 2010, we recorded provisions for loan losses on covered loans amounting to $12.8 million and $20.9 million, respectively, which resulted in an adjustment to the FDIC indemnification asset of $10.2 million and $16.7 million, respectively. There were no such adjustments in 2009.

2) Write-downs and losses on foreclosed properties – When we foreclose on delinquent borrowers, we initially record the foreclosed property at the lower of book or fair value (based on current appraisals), with any deficiency recorded as a charge-off. Subsequent to the foreclosure, we periodically order updated appraisals and if the appraisal indicates a fair value lower than our carrying value, we must write the property down. Also, periodically we sell foreclosed properties that result in losses. Each of these situations results in the Company recording losses on other real estate owned with a corresponding increase to the FDIC indemnification asset by recording noninterest income in proportion to the reimbursement percentage. In 2011 and 2010, we recorded losses and write downs on covered foreclosed properties amounting to $24.5 million and $34.5 million, respectively, which resulted in upward adjustments to the FDIC indemnification asset of $19.6 million and $27.6 million, respectively. There were no such adjustments in 2009.

3) Expenses incurred related to collection activities on covered assets – As a result of our collection efforts, we incur expenses such as legal fees, property taxes and appraisal costs. Many of these expenses are reimbursable by the FDIC. These expenses are recorded as “other” noninterest expenses and a corresponding increase is made to increase the FDIC indemnification asset by reducing the gross collection expenses by the amount expected to be reimbursed by the FDIC for eligible expenses. In 2011, 2010 and 2009, we incurred $8.5 million, $5.5 million, and $2.1 million in gross collection expenses related to covered assets, respectively, and reduced that amount by $5.7 million, $2.9 million and $1.3 million in FDIC reimbursements, respectively.

The FDIC indemnification asset has been adjusted downwards in the following circumstances:

1) Receipt of cash from the FDIC related to claims submitted – On at least a quarterly basis, we submit eligible loss share claims to the FDIC. After reviewing and approving the claims, the FDIC wires us cash, which reduces the amount of the FDIC indemnification asset. In 2011, 2010 and 2009, we received $69.3 million, $46.7 million and $40.5 million in FDIC reimbursements, respectively.

2) Accretion of discount on acquired loans – As noted above, we recorded the acquired loans of the two transactions on our books at a fair value that was $280 million (in total) less than the contractual amounts due from the borrowers (the “discount”), which was our estimate of the loan losses inherent in the portfolio. As the credit quality of this portfolio changes and better information is obtained about likely losses, some loans have better repayment expectations than we originally projected and some loans have worse repayment expectations than originally projected (discussed above). For loans with improved repayment expectations, we are systematically reducing the discount over the life of the loan as it repays. For some loans, we have received complete payoffs at the contractual balance and the discount must be reduced to zero. When we reduce/accrete the discount, we do so by recognizing interest income in that same amount. When the expected losses on loans with improved repayment expectations becomes less than the original estimate, our expected reimbursement from the FDIC declines as well. Accordingly, we reduce the FDIC indemnification asset by the corresponding reimbursement percentage. In 2011, 2010 and 2009, we recorded discount accretion of $11.6 million, $7.6 million, and $1.5 million, respectively, which resulted in a reduction of FDIC indemnification asset of $9.3 million, $6.1 million, and $1.2 million, respectively.

In summary, circumstances that result in adjustments to the FDIC indemnification asset are recorded within the income statement line items noted without consideration of the FDIC loss share agreements. Because favorable changes in covered assets result in lower expected FDIC claims, and unfavorable changes in covered assets result in higher expected FDIC claims, the FDIC indemnification asset is adjusted to reflect those expectations. The net increase or decrease in the indemnification asset is reflected within noninterest income.

The adjustments can result in volatility within individual income statement line items. Because of the FDIC loss share agreements and the associated indemnification asset, pretax income resulting from amounts recorded as provisions for loan losses, interest income, and losses from foreclosed properties is generally only impacted by 20% due to the corresponding adjustments made to the indemnification asset.

The following presents a rollforward of the FDIC indemnification asset since the date of the Cooperative Bank acquisition on June 19, 2009.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Net interest income, the “spread” between earnings on interest-earning assets and the interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities, constitutes the largest source of our earnings. Other factors that significantly affect operating results are the provision for loan losses, noninterest income such as service fees and noninterest expenses such as salaries, occupancy expense, equipment expense and other overhead costs, as well as the effects of income taxes.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income on a reported basis amounted to $132.2 million in 2011, $127.4 million in 2010, and $107.1 million in 2009. For internal purposes and in the discussion that follows, we evaluate our net interest income on a tax-equivalent basis by adding the tax benefit realized from tax-exempt securities to reported interest income. Net interest income on a tax-equivalent basis amounted to $133.8 million in 2011, $128.7 million in 2010, and $107.9 million in 2009. Management believes that analysis of net interest income on a tax-equivalent basis is useful and appropriate because it allows a comparison of net interest amounts in different periods without taking into account the different mix of taxable versus non-taxable investments that may have existed during those periods. The following is a reconciliation of reported net interest income to tax-equivalent net interest income.

Table 2 analyzes net interest income on a tax-equivalent basis. Our net interest income on a tax-equivalent basis increased by 4.0% in 2011 and 19.2% in 2010. There are two primary factors that cause changes in the amount of net interest income we record - 1) changes in our loans and deposits balances, and 2) our net interest margin (tax-equivalent net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets).

For 2011, the increase in net interest income over the comparable period in 2010 was due to a higher net interest margin, which was partially offset by a lower level of earning assets due to a contraction of our balance sheet during 2011. In 2010, higher average loan and deposit balances increased net interest income. Also, the positive effects of the increased balances in 2010 were enhanced by a higher net interest margin.

Although our acquisition of The Bank of Asheville in early 2011 resulted in the addition of $102 million in loans, our average loan balances declined by $92 million during the year - from $2.55 billion in 2010 to $2.46 billion in 2011. We believe the decline in loans is primarily a direct and indirect result of the weak economy in our market area. During 2011, we charged-off $52 million in loans and foreclosed on another $76 million that reduced our loan balances, with a portion of the charge-off and foreclosure activity relating to our two FDIC failed bank acquisitions. Also, loan demand in most of our market areas remained weak, with the pace of loan principal repayments substantially offsetting new loan originations. With the decline in loans, we were able to lessen our reliance on higher cost sources of funding, including internet deposits and large denomination time deposits, which resulted in lower deposit balances (and, as discussed below, a lower average cost of funds).

Although loans and deposits outstanding decreased during calendar year 2010, the average balances of loans and deposits were both higher in 2010 than they were in 2009 as a result of the Cooperative Bank acquisition that occurred in mid-2009. The loans and deposits acquired in this acquisition impacted loan and deposit balances outstanding for all twelve months of 2010 and for the six month period subsequent to the June 2009 acquisition.

As illustrated in Table 3, the lower average loan and deposit balances negatively impacted net interest income in 2011, while higher balances positively impacted net interest income in 2010. In 2011, declines in interest-earning assets, primarily loans, resulted in a decrease in interest income of $4.4 million, while lower amounts of interest-bearing liabilities resulted in only $0.4 million of lower interest expense. As a result, the net impact of lower loans and deposits was a decrease in tax-equivalent net interest income of $4.0 million in 2011. In 2010, growth in interest-earning assets resulted in an increase in interest income of $6.1 million, while higher amounts of interest-bearing liabilities only resulted in $0.5 million in increased interest expense. As a result, the higher average balances of loans and deposits resulted in an increase in tax-equivalent net interest income of $5.6 million in 2010.

Table 3 also illustrates the impact that changes in the interest rates that we earned/paid had on our net interest income in 2010 and 2011. In both years, lower interest rates on deposits was the primary factor affecting net interest income. Although the prime rate of interest has not changed since 2008, interest rates on U.S. Treasury bonds and other interest-sensitive financial instruments have steadily declined since then, resulting in a generally lower interest rate environment. In both years, the progressively lower interest rate environment gave us the opportunity to reduce rates on matured time deposits, and we were also able to gradually reduce interest rates on demand deposits. In 2010, the lower interest rates reduced interest expense by $17.5 million and in 2011 the lower interest rates reduced interest expense by $7.9 million. The lower interest rate environment had much less impact on our interest income, with the impact of changes in interest rates lowering interest income by $2.3 million in 2010 and increasing it by $1.2 million in 2011. The lesser impact was due to continued use of interest rate floors on loans, as well as the effect of higher levels of loan discount accretion in both 2010 and 2011 (discussed below). Overall, changes in interest rates increased net interest income by $15.2 million in 2010 and $9.1 million in 2011.

We measure the spread between the yield on our earning assets and the cost of our funding primarily in terms of the ratio entitled “net interest margin” which is defined as tax-equivalent net interest income divided by average earning assets. Our net interest margin increased 33 basis points in 2011 to 4.72% from 4.39% in 2010. Our net interest margin was 3.81% in 2009.

The primary reason for the increases in our net interest margin has been that the yields on interest-earning assets have remained fairly stable over the past three years, ranging from 5.48% to 5.55%, while the cost of interest-bearing liabilities has steadily declined from 1.96% in 2009 to 1.20% in 2010 to 0.90% in 2011. As noted above, our interest-earning asset yields have remained stable because of the continued use of interest rate floors on loans, as well as higher levels of loan discount accretion. Also as noted above, we have been able to lower rates on maturing time deposits that were originated in periods of higher rates throughout 2009, 2010, and 2011. And to a lesser degree, we have been able to progressively lower interest rates on various types of savings, NOW and money market accounts. We have also experienced declines in our levels of higher cost deposit balances, including internet deposits and large denomination time deposits.

During each of the past three years, our net interest margin also benefitted from the net accretion of purchase accounting premiums/discounts associated with the Cooperative Bank acquisition in June 2009 and, to a lesser degree, the acquisition of Great Pee Dee Bancorp in April 2008 and The Bank of Asheville in January 2011. For 2011, 2010 and 2009, we recorded $11.6 million, $10.0 million and $5.6 million, respectively, in net accretion of purchase accounting premiums/discounts that increased net interest income. The following table provides detail of the purchase accounting adjustments that impacted net interest income:

The following table presents the purchase accounting entries that we expect to record in 2012.

Note - We cannot determine the amount of interest income, if any, to be recognized from the accretion of the loan discount on Cooperative loans or The Bank of Asheville loans because it is reliant on our ongoing assessment during the year of the repayment period of the loans, which is impacted by any changes in expected credit losses related to the loans.

See additional information regarding net interest income in the section entitled “Interest Rate Risk.”

Provision for Loan Losses

The provision for loan losses charged to operations is an amount sufficient to bring the allowance for loan losses to an estimated balance considered appropriate to absorb probable losses inherent in our loan portfolio. Management’s determination of the adequacy of the allowance is based on the level of loan growth, an evaluation of the portfolio, current economic conditions, historical loan loss experience and other risk factors.

Our provisions for loan losses and nonperforming assets remain at what we believe to be elevated levels, primarily due to high unemployment rates and declining property values in our market area that negatively impact collateral dependent real estate loans. For 2011, 2010, and 2009 our total provisions for loan losses were $41.3 million, $54.6 million, and $20.2 million, respectively. The total provision for loan losses is comprised of provision for loan losses for non-covered loans and provision for loan losses for covered loans, as discussed in the following paragraphs.

We recorded $28.5 million, $33.6 million, and $20.2 million in provisions for loan losses related to non-covered loans for the years-ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. The lower provision for loan losses for non-covered loans in 2011 compared to 2010 was primarily due to stabilization in overall loan quality and lower levels of non-covered nonperforming loans. The higher provision for non-covered loans in 2010 was necessary primarily as a result of higher levels of classified and nonperforming assets and the impact of declining real estate values on our collateral dependent real estate loans.

In 2011 and 2010, we recorded $12.8 million and $20.9 million in provisions for loan losses for covered loans, respectively, that experienced credit quality deterioration. The credit quality deterioration primarily related to collateral dependent nonaccrual loans for which we received updated appraisals in 2011 and 2010 that reflected lower valuations. The lower provision for loan losses for covered loans in 2011 compared to 2010 was primarily due to lower levels of nonperforming covered loans. Because of the FDIC loss-share agreements in place for these loans, the FDIC indemnification asset was adjusted upwards by recording noninterest income of $10.2 million and $16.7 million in 2011 and 2010, respectively, or 80% of the amount of the provisions (see discussion above).

Total net charge-offs for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, were $49.3 million, $42.5 million, and $12.1 million, respectively. As discussed further below, the higher net charge-offs in 2010 and 2011 compared to 2009 were primarily a result of worsening economic conditions, especially related to real estate, that resulted in higher levels of borrowers not repaying their loans.

Net-charge offs for non-covered loans were $31.2 million, $32.7 million and $12.1 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009 respectively. Net charge-offs of non-covered loans were impacted by $9.0 million and $8.6 million in partial charge-offs of non-covered loans for 2011 and 2010, respectively. Prior to 2010 we recorded specific reserves on collateral-deficient nonaccrual loans within the allowance for loan losses, but did not record charge-offs until the loans had been foreclosed upon.

Net charge-offs for covered loans were $18.1 million, $9.8 million, and $0 in for 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. The charge-offs of covered loans were primarily a result of declining collateral values on collateral dependent nonaccrual loans.

In 2011 and 2010, our provisions for loan losses and net charge-offs were concentrated in loans classified as “real estate – construction, land development & other land loans.” This category of loans is primarily comprised of land acquisition and development loans and other types of lot loans. These types of loans have been particularly hard hit by the decline in real estate development and property values. As can be seen in Table 10, although we have reduced our exposure to this category of loans, we continue to have exposure to this sector and future significant losses could result.

Non-covered nonperforming assets at December 31, 2011 amounted to $122 million compared to $117 million and $92 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. At December 31, 2011, the ratio of non-covered nonperforming assets to total non-covered assets was 4.30% compared to 4.16% and 3.10% at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Also see “Nonperforming Assets” below for additional discussion.

See the section entitled “Allowance for Loan Losses and Loan Loss Experience” below for a more detailed discussion of the allowance for loan losses. The allowance is monitored and analyzed regularly in conjunction with our loan analysis and grading program, and adjustments are made to maintain an adequate allowance for loan losses.

Noninterest Income

Our noninterest income amounted to $26.2 million in 2011, $29.1 million in 2010, and $89.5 million in 2009.

As shown in Table 4, core noninterest income excludes gains from acquisitions, foreclosed property write-downs and losses, indemnification asset income, securities gains or losses, and other miscellaneous gains and losses. Core noninterest income amounted to $23.2 million in 2011, a 4.7% increase from $22.1 million in 2010. The 2010 core noninterest income of $22.1 million was 1.2% higher than the $21.9 million recorded in 2009.

See Table 4 and the following discussion for an understanding of the components of noninterest income.

Service charges on deposit accounts in 2011 amounted to $12.0 million, a 2.9% decrease compared to $12.3 million recorded in 2010. The $12.3 million recorded in 2010 was 5.9% less than the 2009 amount of $13.1 million. Legislation that became effective on July 1, 2010 reduced our fees earned on overdrafts in 2010 and 2011, which was the primary reason for the declines in this component of noninterest income. Specifically, the legislation now prohibits us from charging an overdraft fee for paying ATM and one-time debit card transactions that overdraw a consumer’s account, unless the consumer affirmatively consents, or opts in, to our payment of overdrafts for these transactions. Additional regulations on overdraft fees became effective July 1, 2011 that further reduced our overdraft fees, although to a lesser extent than the 2010 changes. In April 2011, we implemented new fees on deposit accounts, such as fees for customers that elect to receive paper statements, that have helped to replace a large portion of the revenue that was lost as a result of the overdraft legislation.

Other service charges, commissions and fees amounted to $8.1 million in 2011, a 24.0% increase from the $6.5 million earned in 2010. The 2010 amount of $6.5 million was a 13.6% increase from the $5.7 million earned in 2009. This category of noninterest income includes items such as electronic payment processing revenue (which includes fees related to credit card transactions by merchants and customers and fees earned from debit card transactions), ATM charges, safety deposit box rentals, fees from sales of personalized checks, and check cashing fees. The growth in this category for both years was primarily attributable to increased debit card usage by our customers, as we earn a small fee each time our customers make a debit card transaction. Also, part of the increase in this category is due to the overall growth in our total customer base, including growth achieved from corporate acquisitions.

Fees from presold mortgages amounted to $1.6 million in 2011, $1.8 million in 2010, and $1.5 million in 2009. We continue to experience higher mortgage refinance activity due to lower interest rates.

Commissions from sales of insurance and financial products amounted to $1.5 million in each of 2011, 2010, and 2009. This line item includes commissions we receive from three sources - 1) sales of credit life insurance associated with new loans, 2) commissions from the sales of investment, annuity, and long-term care insurance products, and 3) commissions from the sale of property and casualty insurance. The following table presents the contribution of each of the three sources to the total amount recognized in this line item:

Noninterest income not considered to be “core” resulted in a net contribution to total noninterest income of $3.0 million in 2011, $7.0 million in 2010, and $67.6 million in 2009. The components of non-core noninterest income are shown in Table 4 and the significant components thereof are discussed below.

In 2011 and 2010, we recorded $27.8 million and $35.5 million in write-downs and losses on foreclosed properties, respectively, of which $24.5 million and $34.5 million related to write-downs on covered properties, respectively. Consistent with the other failed bank accounting adjustments discussed earlier, the bottom line impact to pretax income of these write-downs on covered properties was 20% of the gross write-downs.

Indemnification asset income for 2011 and 2010 amounted to $20.5 million and $41.8 million, respectively (with no corresponding amount in 2009). This income primarily relates to upward adjustments to the amount expected to be received from the FDIC under loss share agreements as a result of higher than anticipated loan losses and foreclosed property losses and write-downs, as follows:

In 2011 and 2009, as previously discussed, we realized gains from the FDIC-assisted acquisitions of failed banks amounting to $10.2 million and $67.9 million, respectively, which were the amounts by which the fair value of the assets purchased exceeded the fair value of liabilities assumed in each transaction.

The line item “Other gains (losses)” was positively impacted in 2010 by the sale of our merchant credit card processing portfolio, which resulted in a gain of $850,000.

Noninterest Expenses

Noninterest expenses for 2011 were $96.1 million, compared to $87.0 million in 2010 and $78.6 million in 2009. Table 5 presents the components of our noninterest expense during the past three years.

As reflected in the amounts noted above, noninterest expenses increased 10.5% in 2011 and 10.7% in 2010. The increases in noninterest expenses over the past three years have occurred in almost every line item of expense and have been primarily a result of our significant growth. Due to acquisition and internal growth, over the past three years our number of bank branches has increased from 74 to 97, and the number of full time equivalent employees has increased from 650 at December 31, 2008 to 830 at December 31, 2011. Additionally, from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2011, the amount of loans outstanding increased 9.9% and deposits increased 32.8%.

Total personnel expense increased by approximately $6.1 million, or 13.6%, in 2011. Salaries expense comprised $4.7 million of this increase, which was primarily a result of an initiative to progressively build our infrastructure to manage increased compliance burdens, collection activities, and overall growth of the Company, as well as to prepare for future growth. Another factor in the increase in salaries expense in 2011 was the acquisition of The Bank of Asheville in January 2011, which added approximately 35 employees. Higher employee health insurance costs also played a role in the increase in personnel expense in 2011. Employee health insurance expense amounted to $4.4 million in 2011, an increase of $1.3 million over the $3.1 million incurred in 2010. We self-insure our employees’ health care expense; therefore, incurred health care costs directly impact the expense we record.

In 2010, salaries expense increased $4.3 million, primarily due to a full year of salaries related to employees assumed in the June 2009 Cooperative acquisition. The increase in salary expense was partially offset by lower health care expenses of $0.4 million and lower pension expense in 2010 of $0.6 million. Pension expense decreased during 2010 primarily due to investment gains experienced by the pension plan’s assets in 2009.

In 2011 and 2009, we incurred acquisition expenses of approximately $0.6 million in connection with The Bank of Asheville acquisition and $1.3 million in connection with the Cooperative Bank acquisition, respectively. Acquisition expenses for both periods consisted primarily of professional fees.

FDIC deposit insurance expense declined in each of the past two years. In 2009, 2010, and 2011, we incurred approximately $5.5 million, $4.4 million, and $3.0 million, respectively, in FDIC deposit insurance premium expense. The $5.5 million in FDIC insurance expense for 2009 included a special assessment, which applied to all banks, of $1.6 million. As previously discussed, the FDIC changed its premium assessment methodology in April 2011, which was favorable for our company and reduced our expense in 2011.

Due to higher levels of delinquencies and foreclosure activity, including those associated with our covered assets, we recorded $5.5 million in repossession and collection expenses, net of FDIC reimbursements, in 2011, compared to $4.8 million in 2010 and $1.7 million in 2009.

Within the “non-credit losses” presented in Table 5, we recorded $1 million in 2011 in connection with a fraud loss.

Income Taxes

The provision for income taxes was $7.4 million in 2011, $5.0 million in 2010, and $37.6 million in 2009.

Table 6 presents the components of tax expense and the related effective tax rates. The effective tax rate for 2011 was 35.1% compared to 33.2% in 2010 and 38.4% in 2009. The variances in effective tax rates are primarily due to changes in the proportion of tax-exempt interest income to pretax income. We expect our effective tax rate to be approximately 35% in 2012.

Stock-Based Compensation

We recorded stock-based compensation expense of $0.9 million, $0.6 million, and $0.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. See Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements for more information regarding stock-based compensation.

ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND CHANGES IN FINANCIAL CONDITION

Overview

Over the past two years, our total assets have decreased from $3.5 billion at December 31, 2009 to $3.3 billion at December 31, 2011, which was primarily due to declines in our outstanding loans and deposits. Changes in our loans and deposit balances occur as a result of organic growth or decline, as well as acquisitions. During the first quarter of 2011, we acquired The Bank of Asheville in a FDIC-assisted failed bank transaction. The following table presents detailed information regarding the nature of changes in our loans and deposits in 2010 and 2011:

(1) Excludes the impact of acquisitions in the year of the acquisition, but includes growth or declines in acquired operations after the date of acquisition.

In 2011, as derived from the table above, our total loans declined $24 million, or 1.0%. Positively impacting loans outstanding was our acquisition of The Bank of Asheville on January 21, 2011, which added $102 million in loans. However, this increase was more than offset by loan payoffs, foreclosures and loan charge-offs. During 2011, we charged-off $52 million in loans and foreclosed on another $76 million that reduced our loan balances, with a portion of the charge-off and foreclosure activity relating to our two FDIC failed bank acquisitions. Also, loan demand in most of our market areas has remained weak, with the pace of loan principal repayments substantially offsetting new loan originations. In addition, we have de-emphasized certain types of lending, most notably acquisition and development land loans and non-owner occupied commercial real estate.

However, for the first time since our loans outstanding began trending downward in 2008, we experienced sequential quarterly growth in our non-covered loan portfolio during each of the last two quarters of 2011, with non-covered loans increasing by $28 million during the last half of 2011. We are actively pursuing lending opportunities in order to improve asset yields, as well as to potentially decrease the dividend rate on our SBLF preferred stock (see Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for more information).

To start 2011, our total deposits increased by $193 million as a result of the January acquisition of The Bank of Asheville. For the remainder of the year, as our loans declined, we were able to lessen our reliance on higher cost sources of funding, including internet deposits and time deposits, which resulted in generally declining deposit balances. Our lowest cost deposits, noninterest bearing demand accounts and NOW accounts, experienced positive internal growth of $24 million and $99 million, respectively. In addition to our bank-wide emphasis to grow these types of low-rate accounts, the increase in NOW accounts was impacted by $38 million in customer funds that were shifted from repurchase agreements (securities sold under agreements to repurchase) to NOW accounts during late 2011. In July 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act repealed certain sections of the Federal Reserve Act that prohibited payment of interest on commercial demand deposits. With this prohibition removed, we began to pay interest on certain types of commercial demand accounts, and we encouraged our customers with repurchase agreements to switch to commercial NOW accounts, which eliminated the need to sell/pledge our investment securities.

For the same reasons as discussed above for 2011, we experienced a decline in loans of 7.5% in 2010. In 2010, we also experienced a decline in deposits of 9.6%, with most of the decline occurring in retail time deposits. Retail time deposits are generally a high cost source of funds for us, and during 2010 we decided not to match promotional time deposit interest rates being offered by several of our local competitors, which we felt were too high compared to alternative funding sources, and consequently we experienced a loss of time deposits.

Also declining significantly in 2010 was our level of internet time deposits. Our level of time deposits gathered from internet posting services declined from $128 million at December 31, 2009 to $47 million at December 31, 2010. Substantially all of our internet deposits during 2010 were assumed in the Cooperative acquisition in 2009. Prior to its closing, Cooperative was prohibited from originating or renewing brokered deposits and accordingly, they enhanced liquidity by offering relatively high interest rates on internet posting services. As these time deposits have matured, the internet depositors, mostly credit unions, have elected not to renew the time deposits at the interest rates we have proposed. In 2010, we replaced most of the lost internet deposits with brokered deposits, which had more favorable interest rates. As a result, our brokered deposits increased from $76 million at December 31, 2009 to $144 million at December 31, 2010.

We also experienced a $70 million decrease in our NOW accounts during 2010, primarily as a result of two depositors who withdrew their funds in the last week of the year in anticipation of the expiration of certain provisions of the FDIC transaction account guarantee program. This program previously provided unlimited FDIC insurance for interest bearing transaction accounts earning interest rates up to 0.25%. Subsequent to this change, the only accounts with unlimited FDIC insurance are non-interest bearing transaction accounts.

Our overall liquidity increased slightly during 2011 compared to 2010. We experienced a $103 million increase in deposits, while loans decreased $24 million. With the excess deposits, we were able to reduce our borrowings by approximately $63 million during 2011. Our liquid assets (cash and securities) as a percentage of our total deposits and borrowings increased from 15.4% at December 31, 2010 to 15.7% at December 31, 2011.

Our capital ratios improved in 2011. All of our capital ratios have continually exceeded the regulatory thresholds for “well-capitalized” status for all periods covered by this report.

Due to the continued economic slowdown, our asset quality ratios remain at unfavorable levels compared to most of our company’s history. Our non-covered nonperforming assets to total non-covered assets ratio was 4.30% at December 31, 2011 compared to 4.16% at December 31, 2010, and 3.10% at December 31, 2009. For the year ended December 31, 2011, our ratio of net non-covered charge-offs to average non-covered loans was 1.52% compared to 1.55% for 2010, and 0.56% for 2009.

Distribution of Assets and Liabilities

Table 7 sets forth the percentage relationships of significant components of our balance sheet at December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009.

Our balance sheet distribution has remained relatively stable over the past three years. The increase in NOW deposits discussed earlier resulted in an increase in this category from 9% of total liabilities and shareholders’ equity at December 31, 2010 to 13% in 2011. Also, over the past two years we have experienced a decline in retail time deposits less than $100,000 (“other time deposits”) that has resulted in other time deposits declining from 23% of total liabilities and shareholders’ equity in 2009 to 18% in 2011.

Securities

Information regarding our securities portfolio as of December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009 is presented in Tables 8 and 9.

The composition of the investment securities portfolio reflects our investment strategy of maintaining an appropriate level of liquidity while providing a relatively stable source of income. The investment portfolio also provides a balance to interest rate risk and credit risk in other categories of the balance sheet while providing a vehicle for the investment of available funds, furnishing liquidity, and supplying securities to pledge as required collateral for certain deposits. We obtain fair values for the vast majority of our investment securities from a third-party investment recordkeeper, who specializes in securities purchases and sales, recordkeeping, and valuation. This recordkeeper provides us with a third-party report that contains an evaluation of internal controls that includes testwork of securities valuation. We further test the values we receive by comparing the values for a significant sample of securities to another third-party valuation service on a quarterly basis.

Total securities amounted to $240.6 million, $235.2 million, and $214.2 million, at December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.

The majority of our “government-sponsored enterprise” securities are issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank and carry one maturity date, often with an issuer call feature. At December 31, 2011, of the $35 million (carrying value) in government-sponsored enterprise securities, $21 million were issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank system and the remaining $14 million were issued by the Federal Farm Credit Bank system.

Our $124 million of mortgage-backed securities have all been issued by either Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, or the Small Business Administration, each of which are government-sponsored corporations. We have no “private label” mortgage-backed securities. Mortgage-backed securities vary in their repayment in correlation with the underlying pools of mortgage loans.

Included in mortgage-backed securities at December 31, 2011 were collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”) with an amortized cost of $1.5 million and a fair value of $1.5 million. The CMOs that we have invested in are substantially all “early tranche” portions of the CMOs, which minimizes our long-term interest rate risk.

At December 31, 2011, our $12.5 million investment in corporate bonds was comprised of the following:

Substantially all of our investment in equity securities at each year end was comprised of capital stock in the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (FHLB). The FHLB requires us to purchase their stock in order to borrow from them. The amount they require us to invest is based on our level of borrowings from them. At December 31, 2011, our investment in capital stock of the FHLB amounted to $10.9 million of our total investment in equity securities of $11.4 million. Until February 27, 2009, the FHLB redeemed their stock at par as borrowings were repaid. On February 27, 2009, the FHLB announced that they would no longer automatically redeem their stock when loans are repaid. Instead, they stated that they would evaluate whether they would repurchase stock on a quarterly basis. During 2010 and 2011, the FHLB repurchased $1.8 million and $3.9 million, respectively, of their stock from the Company.

The fair value of securities held to maturity, which we carry at amortized cost, was $4,766,000 more than the carrying value at December 31, 2011 and $706,000 less than the carrying value at December 31, 2010. Our $58.0 million in securities held to maturity are comprised almost entirely of municipal bonds issued by state and local governments throughout our market area. We have only two municipal bonds with a denomination greater than $2,000,000 and we have no significant concentration of bond holdings from one government entity, with the single largest exposure to any one entity being $3,700,000. Management evaluated any unrealized losses on individual securities at each year end and determined them to be of a temporary nature and caused by fluctuations in market interest rates, not by concerns about the ability of the issuers to meet their obligations.

At December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, a net unrealized gain of $3,896,000, $2,478,000, and $1,832,000, respectively, was included in the carrying value of securities classified as available for sale. During the past three years, interest rates have generally declined, which typically increases the value of our investment securities. Management evaluated any unrealized losses on individual securities at each year end and determined them to be of a temporary nature and caused by fluctuations in market interest rates and the overall economic environment, not by concerns about the ability of the issuers to meet their obligations. Net unrealized gains, net of applicable deferred income taxes, of $2,376,000, $1,512,000, and $1,117,000 have been reported as part of a separate component of shareholders’ equity (accumulated other comprehensive income) as of December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.

The weighted average taxable-equivalent yield for the securities available for sale portfolio was 3.01% at December 31, 2011. The expected weighted average life of the available for sale portfolio using the call date for above-market callable bonds, the maturity date for all other non-mortgage-backed securities, and the expected life for mortgage-backed securities, was 5.2 years.

The weighted average taxable-equivalent yield for the securities held to maturity portfolio was 5.78% at December 31, 2011. The expected weighted average life of the held to maturity portfolio using the call date for above-market callable bonds and the maturity date for all other securities, was 6.6 years.

The following table provides the names of issuers for which the Company has investment securities totaling in excess of 10% of shareholders’ equity and the fair value and amortized cost of these investments as of December 31, 2011. All of these securities are issued by government sponsored corporations.

Loans

Table 10 provides a summary of the loan portfolio composition of our total loans at each of the past five year ends.

As previously discussed, in our acquisitions of Cooperative Bank and The Bank of Asheville, we entered into loss share agreements with the FDIC, which afford us significant protection from losses on all loans and other real estate acquired in those acquisitions. Because of the loss protection provided by the FDIC, the financial risk of the Cooperative Bank and The Bank of Asheville loans is significantly different from assets not covered under the loss share agreements. Accordingly, we present separately loans subject to the FDIC loss share agreements as “covered loans” and loans that are not subject to the loss share agreements as “non-covered loans.” Table 10a presents a breakout of covered and non-covered loans as of December 31, 2011.

The loan portfolio is the largest category of our earning assets and is comprised of commercial loans, real estate mortgage loans, real estate construction loans, and consumer loans. We restrict virtually all of our lending to our 36 county market area, which is located in western, central and eastern North Carolina, four counties in southern Virginia and five counties in northeastern South Carolina. The diversity of the region’s economic base has historically provided a stable lending environment.

In 2011, loans outstanding decreased $23.7 million, or 1.0% to $2.43 billion. In 2010, loans outstanding decreased $198.7 million, or 7.5% to $2.45 billion. As previously discussed, the declines for both years were mainly due to loan payoffs and loan foreclosures exceeding new loan growth as loan demand in most of our market areas remained weak.

The majority of our loan portfolio over the years has been real estate mortgage loans, with loans secured by real estate consistently comprising 86% to 90% of our outstanding loan balances. Except for real estate construction, land development and other land loans, the majority of our “real estate” loans are personal and commercial loans where cash flow from the borrower’s occupation or business is the primary repayment source, with the real estate pledged providing a secondary repayment source.

Table 10 indicates that the two types of loans that have had the largest variances in the amount outstanding as a percent of total loans have been construction/land development loans and residential mortgage loans. In 2005 we expanded our branch network to what was then the fast-growing southeast coast of North Carolina, which had a high demand for construction and land development loans. In 2008, due to recessionary conditions, particularly in the new housing market, loan demand for these types of loans weakened and we tightened our loan underwriting criteria for these types of loans, which reduced growth. Due to economic conditions, for the past three years we have made very few new acquisition and land development loans, and we expect this trend to continue.

Our concentration of residential mortgage loans increased in 2009 as a result of the Cooperative acquisition, because Cooperative’s loan portfolio was heavily concentrated in residential mortgages.

In 2011, due to The Bank of Asheville acquisition, our percentage of commercial real estate loans increased slightly as that bank’s primary business had been commercial lending.

Table 11 provides a summary of scheduled loan maturities over certain time periods, with fixed rate loans and adjustable rate loans shown separately. Approximately 23% of our accruing loans outstanding at December 31, 2011 mature within one year and 67% of total loans mature within five years. As of December 31, 2011, the percentages of variable rate loans and fixed rate loans as compared to total performing loans were 47% and 53%, respectively. We intentionally make a blend of fixed and variable rate loans so as to reduce interest rate risk.

Nonperforming Assets

Nonperforming assets include nonaccrual loans, troubled debt restructurings, loans past due 90 or more days and still accruing interest, and other real estate. As a matter of policy we place all loans that are past due 90 or more days on nonaccrual basis, and thus there were no loans at any of the past five year ends that were 90 days past due and still accruing interest.

Nonaccrual loans are loans on which interest income is no longer being recognized or accrued because management has determined that the collection of interest is doubtful. Placing loans on nonaccrual status negatively impacts earnings because (i) interest accrued but unpaid as of the date a loan is placed on nonaccrual status is reversed and deducted from interest income, (ii) future accruals of interest income are not recognized until it becomes probable that both principal and interest will be paid and (iii) principal charged-off, if appropriate, may necessitate additional provisions for loan losses that are charged against earnings. In some cases, where borrowers are experiencing financial difficulties, loans may be restructured to provide terms significantly different from the originally contracted terms.

Table 12 summarizes our nonperforming assets at the dates indicated. Because of the loss protection provided by the FDIC, we present separately nonperforming assets subject to the loss share agreements as “covered” and nonperforming assets that are not subject to the loss share agreements as “non-covered.”

Due largely to the economic downturn that began in late 2007 and continued to worsen over the past few years, we have experienced increases in our non-covered nonperforming assets. Our total nonperforming assets were also significantly impacted by the Cooperative acquisition in 2009.

Table 12a presents our nonperforming assets at December 31, 2011 by general geographic region and further segregated into “covered” nonperforming assets and “non-covered” nonperforming assets. The majority of our nonperforming assets are located in the Eastern North Carolina region, which has experienced the most negative effects of the recession of any of our regions.

Non-covered nonperforming loans totaled $85.2 million, $96.0 million, and $83.5 million, as of December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Total non-covered nonperforming loans as a percentage of total non-covered loans amounted to 4.12%, 4.61%, and 3.91%, at December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.

At December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, non-covered troubled debt restructurings amounted to $11.7 million, $33.7 million, and $21.3 million, respectively. The decline in 2011 is primarily a result of troubled debt restructurings that re-defaulted and were placed on nonaccrual status. The increase in 2010 was the result of our initiative to work with borrowers experiencing financial difficulties by modifying certain loan terms.

We also had $14.2 million and $14.4 million of covered troubled debt restructurings at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, compared to none in 2009.

The following is the composition, by loan type, of all of our nonaccrual loans at each period end, as classified for regulatory purposes:

(1) Includes both covered and non-covered loans.

The following segregates our nonaccrual loans at December 31, 2011 into covered and non-covered loans, as classified for regulatory purposes:

The following segregates our nonaccrual loans at December 31, 2010 into covered and non-covered loans, as classified for regulatory purposes:

The tables above indicate that covered nonaccrual loans declined from $58.5 million at December 31, 2010 to $41.5 million at December 31, 2011. This decrease was primarily a result of many of the nonaccrual loans at December 31, 2010 being either charged-off or being foreclosed upon in 2011 and their balances being transferred to other real estate during the year.

Non-covered nonaccrual loans increased from $62.3 million at December 31, 2010 to $73.6 million at December 31, 2011, which was the result of continued economic hardship in our market areas, particularly for the commercial real estate business.

If the nonaccrual and restructured loans as of December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 had been current in accordance with their original terms and had been outstanding throughout the period (or since origination if held for part of the period), gross interest income in the amounts of approximately $8,724,000, $8,136,000 and $9,800,000 for nonaccrual loans and $1,873,000, $1,943,000 and $1,200,000 for restructured loans would have been recorded for 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Interest income on such loans that was actually collected and included in net income in 2011, 2010 and 2009 amounted to approximately $2,578,000, $3,195,000 and $2,147,000 for nonaccrual loans (prior to their being placed on nonaccrual status), and $1,351,000, $1,342,000, and $866,000 for restructured loans, respectively. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had no commitments to lend additional funds to debtors whose loans were nonperforming.

Management routinely monitors the status of certain large loans that, in management’s opinion, have credit weaknesses that could cause them to become nonperforming loans. In addition to the nonperforming loan amounts discussed above, management believes that an estimated $5 million of non-covered loans and $16 million of covered loans that were performing in accordance with their contractual terms at December 31, 2011 have the potential to develop problems depending upon the particular financial situations of the borrowers and economic conditions in general. Management has taken these potential problem loans into consideration when evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses at December 31, 2011 (see discussion below).

Loans classified for regulatory purposes as loss, doubtful, substandard, or special mention that have not been disclosed in the problem loan amounts and the potential problem loan amounts discussed above do not represent or result from trends or uncertainties that management reasonably expects will materially impact future operating results, liquidity, or capital resources, or represent material credits about which management is aware of any information that causes management to have serious doubts as to the ability of such borrowers to comply with the loan repayment terms.

Other real estate includes foreclosed, repossessed, and idled properties. Non-covered other real estate has increased over the past three years, amounting to $37.0 million at December 31, 2011, $21.1 million at December 31, 2010, and $8.8 million at December 31, 2009. At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, we also held $85.3 million, $94.9 million and $47.4 million, respectively, in other real estate that is subject to loss share agreements with the FDIC. We believe that the fair values of the items of other real estate, less estimated costs to sell, equal or exceed their respective carrying values at the dates presented.

The following table presents the detail of our other real estate at each of the past two year ends:

(1) Includes both covered and non-covered real estate.

The following segregates our other real estate at December 31, 2011 into covered and non-covered:

The following segregates our other real estate at December 31, 2010 into covered and non-covered:

Allowance for Loan Losses and Loan Loss Experience

The allowance for loan losses is created by direct charges to operations (known as a “provision for loan losses” for the period in which the charge is taken). Losses on loans are charged against the allowance in the period in which such loans, in management’s opinion, become uncollectible. The recoveries realized during the period are credited to this allowance. We consider our procedures for recording the amount of the allowance for loan losses and the related provision for loan losses to be a critical accounting policy. See the heading “Critical Accounting Policies” above for further discussion.

The factors that influence management’s judgment in determining the amount charged to operating expense include past loan loss experience, composition of the loan portfolio, evaluation of probable inherent losses and current economic conditions.

We use a loan analysis and grading program to facilitate our evaluation of probable inherent loan losses and the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses. In this program, credit risk grades are assigned by management and tested by an independent third party consulting firm. The testing program includes an evaluation of a sample of new loans, loans we identify as having potential credit weaknesses, loans past due 90 days or more, loans originated by new loan officers, nonaccrual loans and any other loans identified during previous regulatory and other examinations.

We strive to maintain our loan portfolio in accordance with what management believes are conservative loan underwriting policies that result in loans specifically tailored to the needs of our market areas. Every effort is made to identify and minimize the credit risks associated with such lending strategies. We have no foreign loans, few agricultural loans and do not engage in significant lease financing or highly leveraged transactions. Commercial loans are diversified among a variety of industries. The majority of loans captioned in the tables discussed below as “real estate” loans are personal and commercial loans where real estate provides additional security for the loan. Collateral for virtually all of these loans is located within our principal market area.

The allowance for loan losses amounted to $41.4 million at December 31, 2011 compared to $49.4 million at December 31, 2010 and $37.3 million at December 31, 2009. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, $5.8 million and $11.2 million, respectively, of the allowance for loan losses is attributable to covered loans that have exhibited credit quality deterioration due to lower collateral valuations, while the allowance for loan losses for non-covered loans amounted to $35.6 million and $38.3 million at those dates. For all prior periods, the entire allowance for loan losses is attributable to non-covered loans.

The ratio of the allowance for non-covered loan losses to non-covered loans was 1.72%, 1.84%, and 1.75%, as of December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. The decrease in the percentage for 2011 is primarily attributable to lower specific reserves at December 31, 2011. The increased allowance percentage in 2010 was necessary due to the higher level of delinquencies and classified and nonperforming loans.

Table 13 sets forth the allocation of the allowance for loan losses at the dates indicated. The amount of the unallocated portion of the allowance for loan losses did not vary materially at any of the past three year ends. The allowance for loan losses is available to absorb losses in all categories. Table 13a segregates the allocation of the allowance for loan losses as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 into covered and non-covered categories. As indicated in Tables 13 and 13a, the amount of the allowance allocated to “Real Estate – Construction and Land Development” declined by $5-$6 million from December 31, 2010 to December 31, 2011. This decline was due to charge-offs and the foreclosure and transfer to “other real estate” of a significant amount of covered land development loans.

Management considers the allowance for loan losses adequate to cover probable loan losses on the loans outstanding as of each reporting date. It must be emphasized, however, that the determination of the allowance using our procedures and methods rests upon various judgments and assumptions about economic conditions and other factors affecting loans. No assurance can be given that we will not in any particular period sustain loan losses that are sizable in relation to the amount reserved or that subsequent evaluations of the loan portfolio, in light of conditions and factors then prevailing, will not require significant changes in the allowance for loan losses or future charges to earnings.

In addition, various regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review the allowance for loan losses and losses on foreclosed real estate. Such agencies may require us to recognize additions to the allowance based on the examiners’ judgments about information available to them at the time of their examinations.

For the years indicated, Table 14 summarizes our balances of loans outstanding, average loans outstanding, and a detailed rollforward of the allowance for loan losses.

Table 14a presents a detailed rollforward of the 2011 and 2010 activity for the allowance for loan losses segregated into covered and non-covered activity.

Net loan charge-offs of non-covered loans amounted to $31.2 million in 2011, $32.7 million in 2010, and $12.1 million in 2009. The elevated amounts in 2010 and 2011 reflect the impact of deteriorating loan quality that has been impacted by the economic downturn. Also in 2010 and 2011, we recorded $8.6 million and $9.0 million, respectively, in partial charge-offs of non-covered loans. Previously, we recorded specific reserves on collateral-deficient nonaccrual loans within the allowance for loans losses, but did not record charge-offs until the loans had been foreclosed upon. Net non-covered charge-offs as a percentage of average non-covered loans represented 1.52%, 1.55%, and 0.56%, during 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.

We recorded $18.1 million and $9.8 million in charge-offs of covered loans during 2011 and 2010, respectively, primarily related to collateral dependent nonaccrual loans for which we received updated appraisals that reflected lower valuations.

Deposits and Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase

At December 31, 2011, deposits outstanding amounted to $2.755 billion, an increase of $103 million from December 31, 2010. To begin 2011, deposits initially grew by $193 million as a result of the acquisition of The Bank of Asheville in January 2011. For the remainder of the year, our deposit base declined by $90 million as a lack of loan growth allowed us to reduce our reliance on higher cost deposits. Our NOW deposits increased approximately $131 million during 2011, with $31 million being assumed in The Bank of Asheville acquisition and another $38 million of the growth resulting from customers shifting their funds from securities sold under agreements to repurchase to a commercial interest bearing NOW account (discussed earlier). In 2011, despite the addition of $62 million in time deposits and $43 million in internet deposits from The Bank of Asheville acquisition, we experienced overall net declines in these categories of $73 million and $17 million, respectively, due to our ability to lessen our reliance on these higher cost deposits as a result of weak loan demand and growth in our other lower-cost deposit categories.

In 2010, deposits declined from $2.933 billion to $2.653 billion, a decrease of $281 million, or 9.6%, from December 31, 2009. Approximately $237 million, or 84%, of the decline in deposits was attributable to decreases in time deposits. We also experienced a $70 million decrease in our NOW accounts during 2010, primarily as a result of two depositors who withdrew their funds during the last week of the year in anticipation of the expiration of certain provisions of the FDIC transaction account guarantee program.

The nature of our deposit growth is illustrated in the table on page 46. The following table reflects the mix of our deposits at each of the past three year ends:

The deposit mix remained relatively consistent from 2009 to 2011. Our mix has gradually shifted over the past few years to a heavier concentration in transaction accounts and less concentration in our time deposits. The percentages for retail time deposits have declined because we have chosen not to match certain promotional time deposit interest rates being offered by several of our local competitors, which we felt were too high compared to alternative funding sources. Our growth in other categories of deposits and our weak loan demand eliminated the need to match the higher competitor rates.

We routinely engage in activities designed to grow and retain deposits, such as (1) emphasizing relationship banking to new and existing customers, where borrowers are encouraged and normally expected to maintain deposit accounts with us, (2) pricing deposits at rate levels that will attract and/or retain deposits, and (3) continually working to identify and introduce new products that will attract customers or enhance our appeal as a primary provider of financial services.

Table 15 presents the average amounts of our deposits and the average yield paid for those deposits for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009.

As of December 31, 2011, we held approximately $753.2 million in time deposits of $100,000 or more. Table 16 is a maturity schedule of time deposits of $100,000 or more as of December 31, 2011. This table shows that 66% of our time deposits greater than $100,000 mature within one year.

At each of the past three year ends, we have no deposits issued through foreign offices, nor do we believe that we held any deposits by foreign depositors.

Borrowings

We had borrowings outstanding of $133.9 million at December 31, 2011 compared to $196.9 million at December 31, 2010 and $176.8 million at December 31, 2009. Borrowings decreased from 2010 to 2011 primarily as a result of a decline in loans and growth in deposits that provided funds to pay down our borrowings. During most of 2010, we held a lower level of borrowings until late in the year when we obtained borrowings to offset a portion of the liquidity decline we experienced as a result of the loss of deposits that was previously discussed. Table 2 shows that average borrowings were $122.7 million in 2011 compared to $79.8 million in 2010 and $151.2 million in 2009.

At December 31, 2011, the Company had four sources of readily available borrowing capacity – 1) an approximately $389 million line of credit with the FHLB, of which $88 million was outstanding at December 31, 2011 and $62 million was outstanding at December 31, 2010, 2) a $50 million overnight federal funds line of credit with a correspondent bank, of which none was outstanding at December 31, 2011 and $33 million was outstanding at December 31, 2010, 3) an approximately $79 million line of credit through the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s (FRB) discount window, of which none was outstanding at December 31, 2011 and $55 million was outstanding at December 31, 2010, and 4) a $10 million holding company line of credit with a commercial bank (none of which was outstanding at December 31, 2011 or 2010).

Our line of credit with the FHLB can be structured as either short-term or long-term borrowings, depending on the particular funding or liquidity need, and is secured by our FHLB stock and a blanket lien on most of our real estate loan portfolio. As of December 31, 2011, none of the $88 million outstanding with the FHLB were overnight borrowings. All the FHLB borrowings were at fixed rates with a weighted average interest rate of 1.36% and maturity dates ranging from April 2012 to June 2014. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the average amount of FHLB borrowings outstanding was approximately $76 million with a weighted average interest rate for the year of 1.49%. The maximum amount of short-term FHLB borrowings outstanding at any month-end during 2011 was $92 million.

In addition to the outstanding borrowings from the FHLB that reduce the available borrowing capacity of the line of credit, our borrowing capacity was further reduced by $203 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010 as a result of our pledging letters of credit backed by the FHLB for public deposits at each of those dates.

Our correspondent bank relationship allows us to purchase up to $50 million in federal funds on an overnight, unsecured basis (federal funds purchased). We had no borrowings under this line at December 31, 2011. We had $33 million outstanding under this line at December 31, 2010 with a weighted average interest rate of 0.65%. There were no federal funds purchased outstanding at any month-end during 2011.

We also have a line of credit with the FRB discount window. This line is secured by a blanket lien on a portion of our commercial and consumer loan portfolio (excluding real estate loans). Based on the collateral that we owned as of December 31, 2011, the available line of credit was approximately $79 million. At December 31, 2011, we had no borrowings outstanding under this line. At December 31, 2010, we had $55 million in borrowings outstanding under this line. There were no FRB borrowings outstanding at any month-end during 2011.

At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we had a $10 million holding company line of credit with a correspondent bank that was secured by 100% of the common stock of our bank subsidiary. This line of credit expires and is subject to renewal in March of each year. The line of credit had no outstanding balance at December 31, 2011 or 2010, and was not drawn upon during 2011 or 2010.

In addition to the lines of credit described above, in which we had $88 million and $150 million outstanding as of December 31, 2011, and 2010, respectively, we also had a total of $46.4 million in trust preferred security debt outstanding at December 31, 2011 and 2010. We have initiated three trust preferred security issuances since 2002 totaling $67.0 million, with one of those issuances for $20.6 million being redeemed in 2007. These borrowings each have 30 year final maturities and were structured in a manner that allows them to qualify as capital for regulatory capital adequacy requirements. We may call these debt securities at par on any quarterly interest payment date five years after their issue date. We issued $20.6 million of this debt on October 29, 2002 (which we called in 2007), an additional $20.6 million on December 19, 2003, and $25.8 million on April 13, 2006. The interest rate on these debt securities adjusts on a quarterly basis at a rate of three-month LIBOR plus 2.70% for the securities issued in 2003, and three-month LIBOR plus 1.39% for the securities issued in 2006.

Liquidity, Commitments, and Contingencies

We have a pending agreement to purchase eleven branches of another bank with approximately $180 million in total deposits and $98 million in total loans. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

Our liquidity is determined by our ability to convert assets to cash or to acquire alternative sources of funds to meet the needs of our customers who are withdrawing or borrowing funds, and our ability to maintain required reserve levels, pay expenses and operate the Company on an ongoing basis. Our primary liquidity sources are net income from operations, cash and due from banks, federal funds sold and other short-term investments. Our securities portfolio is comprised almost entirely of readily marketable securities which could also be sold to provide cash.

As noted above, in addition to internally generated liquidity sources, we currently (March 2012) have the ability to obtain borrowings from the following four sources – 1) an approximately $389 million line of credit with the FHLB, 2) a $50 million overnight federal funds line of credit with a correspondent bank, 3) an approximately $79 million line of credit through the FRB’s discount window and 4) a holding company line of credit with a limit of $10 million.

Our overall liquidity increased slightly during 2011 compared to 2010. Our loans decreased by $24 million, while our deposits increased by $103 million. As a result, our liquid assets (cash and securities) as a percentage of our total deposits and borrowings increased from 15.4% at December 31, 2010 to 15.7% at December 31, 2011.

We continue to believe our liquidity sources, including unused lines of credit, are at an acceptable level and remain adequate to meet our operating needs in the foreseeable future. We will continue to monitor our liquidity position carefully and will explore and implement strategies to increase liquidity if deemed appropriate.

In the normal course of business we have various outstanding contractual obligations that will require future cash outflows. In addition, there are commitments and contingent liabilities, such as commitments to extend credit, that may or may not require future cash outflows.

Table 18 reflects our contractual obligations and other commercial commitments outstanding as of December 31, 2011. Any of our $88 million in outstanding borrowings with the FHLB may be accelerated immediately by the FHLB in certain circumstances, including material adverse changes in our condition or if our qualifying collateral is less than the amount required under the terms of the borrowing agreement.

In the normal course of business there are various outstanding commitments and contingent liabilities such as commitments to extend credit, which are not reflected in the financial statements. The following table presents a summary of our outstanding loan commitments as of December 31, 2011:

At December 31, 2011 and 2010, we also had $7.1 million and $7.5 million, respectively, in standby letters of credit outstanding. We had no carrying amount for these standby letters of credit at either of those dates. The nature of the standby letters of credit is that of a guarantee made on behalf of our customers to suppliers of the customers to guarantee payments owed to the supplier by the customer. The standby letters of credit are generally for terms of one year, at which time they may be renewed for another year if both parties agree. The payment of the guarantees would generally be triggered by a continued nonpayment of an obligation owed by the customer to the supplier. The maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) we could be required to make under the guarantees in the event of nonperformance by the parties to whom credit or financial guarantees have been extended is represented by the contractual amount of the financial instruments discussed above. In the event that we are required to honor a standby letter of credit, a note, already executed by the customer, becomes effective providing repayment terms and any collateral. Over the past two years, we have had to honor only a few standby letters of credit, which involved insignificant amounts of funds and have been or are being repaid by the borrower without any loss to us. We expect any draws under existing commitments to be funded through normal operations.

It has been our experience that deposit withdrawals are generally replaced with new deposits, thus not requiring any net cash outflow. Based on that assumption, management believes that it can meet its contractual cash obligations and existing commitments from normal operations.

We are not involved in any legal proceedings that, in management’s opinion, could have a material effect on the consolidated financial position of the Company.

Capital Resources and Shareholders’ Equity

Shareholders’ equity at December 31, 2011 amounted to $345.2 million compared to $344.6 million at December 31, 2010. The two basic components that typically have the largest impact on our shareholders’ equity are net income, which increases shareholders’ equity, and dividends declared, which decreases shareholders’ equity. Additionally, any stock issuances can significantly increase shareholders’ equity.

In 2011, the most significant factors that impacted our equity were the redemption of $65.0 million of our Series A Preferred Stock issued under the U.S. Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program (also known as TARP) and the simultaneous issuance of $63.5 million of Series B Preferred Stock under the Treasury’s Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF). Net income of $13.6 million for 2011 increased equity, while common stock dividends declared of $5.4 million and preferred stock dividends declared of $3.2 million reduced equity. We also recorded accretion of the discount on preferred stock of $2.9 million due to the redemption of the Series A Preferred Stock. (See Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for further information on these transactions.) Another significant factor negatively impacting equity in 2011 was a $4.5 million increase in accumulated other comprehensive loss that was caused by an increase in our pension liability. The increase in the pension liability was primarily due to the impact of lower interest rates on the actuarial calculations involved in determining the liability. Our policy is to use the Citigroup Pension Index yield curve in the computation of the pension liability. At December 31, 2011, that index had a weighted average rate of 4.39%, which was a decline from the rate of 5.59% at December 31, 2010. See the Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity within the consolidated financial statements for disclosure of other less significant items affecting shareholders’ equity.

In 2010, the most significant factors that impacted our equity were net income of $10.0 million, which increased equity, and common stock dividends declared of $5.4 million and preferred stock dividends declared of $3.3 million, which reduced equity. See the Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity within the consolidated financial statements for disclosure of other less significant items affecting shareholders’ equity.

In 2009, the most significant item that impacted our equity was our issuance of $65 million in preferred stock to the U.S. Treasury in connection with our participation in the Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program (see Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements). In addition, other significant factors were net income of $60.3 million, which increased equity, and common stock dividends declared of $5.3 million and preferred stock dividends declared of $3.2 million, which reduced equity. See the consolidated financial statements for other less significant factors that impacted equity in 2009.

We are not aware of any recommendations of regulatory authorities or otherwise which, if they were to be implemented, would have a material effect on our liquidity, capital resources, or operations.

The Company and the Bank must comply with regulatory capital requirements established by the FRB and the FDIC. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory, and possibly additional discretionary, actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on the Company’s financial statements. These capital standards require the Company and the Bank to maintain minimum ratios of “Tier 1” capital to total risk-weighted assets (“Tier I Capital Ratio”) and total capital to risk-weighted assets (“Total Capital Ratio”) of 4.00% and 8.00%, respectively. Tier 1 capital is comprised of total shareholders’ equity, excluding unrealized gains or losses from the securities available for sale, less intangible assets, and total capital is comprised of Tier 1 capital plus certain adjustments, the largest of which for the Company and the Bank is the allowance for loan losses. Risk-weighted assets refer to the on- and off-balance sheet exposures of the Company and the Bank, adjusted for their related risk levels using formulas set forth in FRB and FDIC regulations.

In addition to the risk-based capital requirements described above, the Company and the Bank are subject to a leverage capital requirement, which calls for a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital (as defined above) to quarterly average total assets (“Leverage Ratio) of 3.00% to 5.00%, depending upon the institution’s composite ratings as determined by its regulators. The FRB has not advised us of any requirement specifically applicable to the Company.

Table 21 presents our regulatory capital ratios as of December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009. All of our capital ratios have significantly exceeded the minimum regulatory thresholds for all periods covered by this report.

In addition to the minimum capital requirements described above, the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action also contains specific capital guidelines for a bank’s classification as “well capitalized.” The specific guidelines are as follows – Tier I Capital Ratio of at least 6.00%, Total Capital Ratio of at least 10.00%, and a Leverage Ratio of at least 5.00%. If a bank falls below “well capitalized” status in any of these three ratios, it must ask for FDIC permission to originate or renew brokered deposits. The Bank’s regulatory ratios exceeded the threshold for “well-capitalized” status at December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009 – see Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for a table that presents the Bank’s regulatory ratios.

In addition to shareholders’ equity, we have supplemented our capital in past years with trust preferred security debt issuances, which because of their structure qualify as regulatory capital. This was necessary in past years because our balance sheet growth outpaced the growth rate of our capital. Additionally, we have frequently purchased bank branches over the years that resulted in our recording intangible assets, which negatively impacted regulatory capital ratios. As discussed in “Borrowings” above, we have issued a total of $67.0 million in trust preferred securities since 2002, with the most recent issuance being a $25.8 million issuance that occurred in April 2006. We currently have $46.4 million in trust preferred securities outstanding.

In this economic environment, our goal is to maintain our capital ratios at levels at least 200 basis points higher than the “well-capitalized” thresholds set for banks. At December 31, 2011, our total risk-based capital ratio was 16.72% compared to the 10.00% “well-capitalized” threshold.

In addition to regulatory capital ratios, we also closely monitor our ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets (“TCE Ratio”). Our TCE ratio was 6.58% at December 31, 2011 compared to 6.52% at December 31, 2010.

See “Supervision and Regulation” under “Business” above and Note 16 to the consolidated financial statements for discussion of other matters that may affect our capital resources.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Derivative Financial Instruments

Off-balance sheet arrangements include transactions, agreements, or other contractual arrangements pursuant to which we have obligations or provide guarantees on behalf of an unconsolidated entity. We have no off-balance sheet arrangements of this kind other than letters of credit and repayment guarantees associated with our trust preferred securities.

Derivative financial instruments include futures, forwards, interest rate swaps, options contracts, and other financial instruments with similar characteristics. We have not engaged in derivatives activities through December 31, 2011 and have no current plans to do so.

Return on Assets and Equity

Table 20 shows return on assets (net income available to common shareholders divided by average total assets), return on common equity (net income available to common shareholders divided by average common shareholders’ equity), dividend payout ratio (dividends per share divided by net income per common share) and shareholders’ equity to assets ratio (average total shareholders’ equity divided by average total assets) for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011.

Interest Rate Risk (Including Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk – Item 7A.)

Net interest income is our most significant component of earnings. Notwithstanding changes in volumes of loans and deposits, our level of net interest income is continually at risk due to the effect that changes in general market interest rate trends have on interest yields earned and paid with respect to our various categories of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. It is our policy to maintain portfolios of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities with maturities and repricing opportunities that will afford protection, to the extent practical, against wide interest rate fluctuations. Our exposure to interest rate risk is analyzed on a regular basis by management using standard GAP reports, maturity reports, and an asset/liability software model that simulates future levels of interest income and expense based on current interest rates, expected future interest rates, and various intervals of “shock” interest rates. Over the years, we have been able to maintain a fairly consistent yield on average earning assets (net interest margin). Over the past five calendar years, our net interest margin has ranged from a low of 3.74% (realized in 2008) to a high of 4.72% (realized in 2011). During that five year period, the prime rate of interest has ranged from a low of 3.25% (which was the rate as of December 31, 2011) to a high of 8.25%. The consistency of the net interest margin is aided by the relatively low level of long-term interest rate exposure that we maintain. At December 31, 2011, approximately 82% of our interest-earning assets are subject to repricing within five years (because they are either adjustable rate assets or they are fixed rate assets that mature) and substantially all of our interest-bearing liabilities reprice within five years.

Table 17 sets forth our interest rate sensitivity analysis as of December 31, 2011, using stated maturities for all fixed rate instruments except mortgage-backed securities (which are allocated in the periods of their expected payback) and securities and borrowings with call features that are expected to be called (which are shown in the period of their expected call). As illustrated by this table, at December 31, 2011, we had $682 million more in interest-bearing liabilities that are subject to interest rate changes within one year than earning assets. This generally would indicate that net interest income would experience downward pressure in a rising interest rate environment and would benefit from a declining interest rate environment. However, this method of analyzing interest sensitivity only measures the magnitude of the timing differences and does not address earnings, market value, or management actions. Also, interest rates on certain types of assets and liabilities may fluctuate in advance of changes in market interest rates, while interest rates on other types may lag behind changes in market rates. In addition to the effects of “when” various rate-sensitive products reprice, market rate changes may not result in uniform changes in rates among all products. For example, included in interest-bearing liabilities subject to interest rate changes within one year at December 31, 2011 are deposits totaling $1.084 billion comprised of NOW, savings, and certain types of money market deposits with interest rates set by management. These types of deposits historically have not repriced with, or in the same proportion, as general market indicators.

Overall we believe that in the near term (twelve months), net interest income will not likely experience significant downward pressure from rising interest rates. Similarly, we would not expect a significant increase in near term net interest income from falling interest rates. Generally, when rates change, our interest-sensitive assets that are subject to adjustment reprice immediately at the full amount of the change, while our interest-sensitive liabilities that are subject to adjustment reprice at a lag to the rate change and typically not to the full extent of the rate change. In the short-term (less than six months), this results in us being asset-sensitive, meaning that our net interest income benefits from an increase in interest rates and is negatively impacted by a decrease in interest rates. However, in the twelve-month horizon, the impact of having a higher level of interest-sensitive liabilities lessens the short-term effects of changes in interest rates.

The Federal Reserve has made no changes to interest rates since 2008, and since that time the difference between market driven short-term interest rates and longer-term interest rates has generally widened, with short-term interest rates steadily declining and longer term interest rates not declining by as much. The higher long term interest rate environment enhanced our ability to require higher interest rates on loans. As it relates to funding, we have been able to reprice many of our maturing time deposits at lower interest rates. We were also able to generally decrease the rates we paid on other categories of deposits as a result of declining short-term interest rates in the marketplace and an increase in liquidity that lessened our need to offer premium interest rates. Our net interest margin increased throughout 2010 and 2011. Our net interest margin was 4.72% for 2011, a 33 basis point increase from the 4.39% margin realized in 2010.

As previously discussed in the section “Net Interest Income,” our net interest income was impacted by certain purchase accounting adjustments related primarily to our acquisitions of Cooperative Bank and The Bank of Asheville. The purchase accounting adjustments related to the premium amortization on loans, deposits and borrowings are based on amortization schedules and are thus systematic and predictable. The accretion of the loan discount on loans acquired from Cooperative Bank and The Bank of Asheville, which amounted to $11.6 million and $7.6 million for 2011 and 2010, respectively, is less predictable and could be materially different among periods. This is because of the magnitude of the discounts that were initially recorded ($280 million in total) and the fact that the accretion being recorded is dependent on both the credit quality of the acquired loans and the impact of any accelerated loan repayments, including payoffs. If the credit quality of the loans declines, some, or all, of the remaining discount will cease to be accreted into income. If the underlying loans experience accelerated paydowns or are paid off, the remaining discount will be accreted into income on an accelerated basis, which in the event of total payoff will result in the remaining discount being entirely accreted into income in the period of the payoff. Each of these factors is difficult to predict and susceptible to volatility.

Based on our most recent interest rate modeling, which assumes no changes in interest rates for 2012 (federal funds rate = 0.25%, prime = 3.25%), we project that our net interest margin for 2012 will remain relatively consistent with the net interest margins recently realized. With interest rates having been stable for a relatively long period of time, most of our interest-sensitive assets and interest-sensitive liabilities have been repriced at rates near today’s interest rates.

We have no market risk sensitive instruments held for trading purposes, nor do we maintain any foreign currency positions. Table 19 presents the expected maturities of our other than trading market risk sensitive financial instruments. Table 19 also presents the estimated fair values of market risk sensitive instruments as estimated in accordance with relevant accounting guidance. Our assets and liabilities have estimated fair values that do not materially differ from their carrying amounts.

See additional discussion regarding net interest income, as well as discussion of the changes in the annual net interest margin, in the section entitled “Net Interest Income” above.

Inflation

Because the assets and liabilities of a bank are primarily monetary in nature (payable in fixed determinable amounts), the performance of a bank is affected more by changes in interest rates than by inflation. Interest rates generally increase as the rate of inflation increases, but the magnitude of the change in rates may not be the same. The effect of inflation on banks is normally not as significant as its influence on those businesses that have large investments in plant and inventories. During periods of high inflation, there are normally corresponding increases in the money supply, and banks will normally experience above average growth in assets, loans and deposits. Also, general increases in the price of goods and services will result in increased operating expenses.

Current Accounting Matters

We prepare our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures in conformity with standards established by, among others, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”). Because the information needed by users of financial reports is dynamic, the FASB frequently issues new rules and proposes new rules for companies to apply in reporting their activities. See Note 1(t) to our consolidated financial statements for a discussion of recent rule proposals and changes.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

The information responsive to this Item is found in Item 7 under the caption “Interest Rate Risk.”