FIRST COMMUNITY BANKSHARES INC /VA/ - Annual Report: 2011 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

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 000-19297

FIRST COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (276) 326-9000

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.    ¨  Yes    x  No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.    ¨  Yes    x  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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, 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).    x  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 this Form 10-K or any amendment to this 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    x  No

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

Approximately $184.73 million based on the closing sales price at June 30, 2011.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of Common Stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Class – Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value; 17,849,376 shares outstanding as of February 27, 2012.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the annual meeting of shareholders to be held on April 24, 2012, are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

2

Table of Contents

PART I

Corporate Overview

First Community Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) is a financial holding company incorporated in 1997 under the laws of the State of Nevada and founded in 1989. The Company serves as the holding company for First Community Bank (the “Bank”) which is a Virginia-chartered banking institution founded in 1874. The Company also owns Greenpoint Insurance Group, Inc. (“Greenpoint”), a full-service insurance agency. The Bank is the parent of First Community Wealth Management, a registered investment advisory firm that offers wealth management and investment advice. The Company is the Common Stockholder of FCBI Capital Trust, which was created in October 2003 to issue trust preferred securities to raise capital for the Company.

The Company’s banking operations are expected to remain the principal business and major source of revenue for the Company. The Company also considers and evaluates options for growth and expansion of the existing subsidiary banking operations. Although the Company is a corporate entity, legally separate and distinct from its affiliates, bank holding companies, such as the Company, are required to act as a source of financial strength for their subsidiary banks. The principal source of the Company’s income is dividends from the Bank. Dividend payments by the Bank are determined in relation to earnings, asset growth, and capital position and are subject to certain restrictions by regulatory agencies as described more fully under “Regulation and Supervision – The Bank” of this item.

The Company’s principal executive offices are located at One Community Place, Bluefield, Virginia 24605 and its telephone number is (276) 326-9000.

Business Overview

Through its subsidiaries, the Company offers commercial and consumer banking services and products, as well as wealth management and insurance services. Those products and services include the following:

The Company provides financial services and conducts banking operations within the states of Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The Company serves a diverse customer base consisting of individual consumers and a wide variety of industries, including, among others, manufacturing, mining, services, construction, retail, healthcare, military and transportation. The Company is not dependent upon any single industry or customer. The Company had total consolidated assets of $2.16 billion at December 31, 2011, and conducts its banking operations through 55 locations.

Operating Segments

The Company’s operations are managed along two reportable business segments consisting of community banking and insurance services. See “Note 19 – Segment Information” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 herein.

Competition

There is significant competition among banks in the Company’s market areas. The Company also competes with other providers of financial services, such as thrifts, savings and loan associations, credit unions, consumer finance companies, securities firms, insurance companies, insurance agencies, commercial finance and leasing companies, full service brokerage firms, and discount brokerage firms. The Company faces substantial competition for deposits and loans throughout its market areas. The primary factors in competing for deposits are interest rates, personalized services, the quality and range of financial services, convenience of office locations, automated services and office hours. Competition for deposits comes primarily from other commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, mutual funds and other investment alternatives. The primary factors in competing for commercial and business loans are interest rates, loan origination fees, the quality and range of lending services and personalized service. Competition for origination of mortgage loans comes primarily from savings institutions, mortgage banking firms, mortgage brokers, other commercial banks and insurance companies. Factors which affect competition include the general and local economic conditions, current interest rate levels and volatility in the

3

Table of Contents

mortgage markets. Some of the Company’s competitors have greater resources and, as such, may have higher lending limits and may offer other services that are not provided by the Company. Competition could intensify in the future as a result of industry consolidation, the increasing availability of products and services from non-banks, greater technological developments in the industry, and banking regulatory reform. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Executive Overview – Competition” in Item 7 herein.

Employees

The Company and its subsidiaries employed 633 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2011. Management considers employee relations to be excellent.

Regulation and Supervision

General

The supervision and regulation of the Company and its subsidiaries by applicable federal and state banking agencies is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and the banking system as a whole, and not for the protection of stockholders or creditors. The banking agencies have broad enforcement power over bank holding companies and banks, including the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties for violations of laws and regulations.

The following description summarizes some of the laws to which the Company and the Bank are subject. References in the following description to applicable statutes and regulations are brief summaries of these statutes and regulations, do not purport to be complete, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company and its subsidiaries could have a material effect on the business of the Company.

The Dodd-Frank Act

On July 21, 2010, sweeping financial regulatory reform legislation entitled the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act implements far-reaching changes across the financial regulatory landscape, including provisions that, among other things:

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on the Company, its customers or the financial industry generally. Provisions in the legislation that affect deposit insurance assessments, payment of interest on demand deposits and interchange fees could increase the costs associated with deposits as well as place limitations on certain revenues those deposits may generate.

4

Table of Contents

The Company

The Company is a financial holding company pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB Act”) and a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”). Accordingly, the Company is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve Board. The BHCA, the GLB Act, and other federal laws subject financial and bank holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations. The BHCA generally provides for “umbrella” regulation of financial holding companies, such as the Company, by the Federal Reserve Board, and for functional regulation of banking activities by bank regulators, securities activities by securities regulators, and insurance activities by insurance regulators.

Regulatory Restrictions on Dividends; Source of Strength. It is the policy of the Federal Reserve Board that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only from income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. The policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to each of its banking subsidiaries and commit resources to their support. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement, the Company is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including at times when the Company may not be in a financial position to provide such resources. As discussed below, a bank holding company in certain circumstances could be required to guarantee the capital plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary.

Scope of Permissible Activities. Under the BHCA, bank holding companies generally may not acquire a direct or indirect interest in or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank or bank holding company or engage in activities other than those of banking, managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiaries, except that it may engage in, directly or indirectly, certain activities that the Federal Reserve Board determined to be closely related to banking or managing and controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the GLB Act eliminated the barriers to affiliations among banks, securities firms, insurance companies and other financial service providers and permits bank holding companies to become financial holding companies and thereby affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature. The GLB Act defines “financial in nature” to include securities underwriting, dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities and activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. No regulatory approval is generally required for a financial holding company to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature, as determined by the Federal Reserve Board.

Under the GLB Act, a bank holding company may become a financial holding company by filing a declaration with the Federal Reserve Board if each of its subsidiary banks is well capitalized under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) prompt corrective action provisions, is well managed and has at least a satisfactory rating under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”). The Company elected financial holding company status in December 2006. Beginning in July 2011, the Company’s financial holding company status also depends upon it maintaining its status as “well capitalized” and “well managed’ under applicable Federal Reserve Board regulations. If a financial holding company ceases to meet these requirements, the Federal Reserve Board may impose corrective capital and/or managerial requirements on the financial holding company and place limitations on its ability to conduct the broader financial activities permissible for financial holding companies. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board may require divestiture of the holding company’s depository institutions if the deficiencies persist.

Anti-Tying Restrictions. Bank holding companies and their affiliates are prohibited from tying the provision of certain services, such as extensions of credit, to other services offered by a holding company or its affiliates.

Stock Repurchases. A bank holding company is required to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The Federal Reserve Board has promulgated capital adequacy guidelines for use in its examination and supervision of bank holding companies. If a bank holding company’s capital falls below minimum required levels, then the bank holding company must implement a plan to increase its capital and its ability to pay dividends, or making acquisitions of new banks or engaging in certain other activities may be restricted or prohibited.

5

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve Board currently uses two types of capital adequacy guidelines for holding companies, a two-tiered risk-based capital guideline and a leverage capital ratio guideline. The two-tiered risk-based capital guideline assigns risk weightings to all assets and certain off-balance sheet items of the holding company’s operations, and then establishes a minimum ratio of the holding company’s Tier 1 capital to the aggregate dollar amount of risk-weighted assets (which amount is usually less than the aggregate dollar amount of such assets without risk weighting) and a minimum ratio of the holding company’s total capital (Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital, as adjusted) to the aggregate dollar amount of such risk-weighted assets. The leverage ratio guideline establishes a minimum ratio of the holding company’s Tier 1 capital to its total tangible assets (total assets less goodwill and certain identifiable intangibles), without risk-weighting. As discussed below, the Bank is subject to similar capital requirements.

Under both guidelines, Tier 1 capital is defined to include: common shareholders’ equity (including retained earnings), qualifying noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus, qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries (limited to a maximum of 25% of Tier 1 capital), and certain trust preferred securities. The Dodd-Frank Act excludes trust preferred securities issued after May 19, 2010, from being included in Tier 1 capital, unless the issuing company is a bank holding company with less than $500 million in total assets. Trust preferred securities issued prior to that date will continue to count as Tier 1 capital for bank holding companies with less than $15 billion in total assets, such as the Company. Goodwill and most intangible assets are deducted from Tier 1 capital. For purposes of the total risk-based capital guidelines, Tier 2 capital (sometimes referred to as “supplementary capital”) is defined to include, subject to limitations: perpetual preferred stock not included in Tier 1 capital, intermediate-term preferred stock and any related surplus, certain hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt securities, allowances for loan and lease losses, and intermediate-term subordinated debt instruments. The maximum amount of qualifying Tier 2 capital is 100% of qualifying Tier 1 capital. For purposes of the total capital guideline, total capital equals Tier 1 capital, plus qualifying Tier 2 capital, minus investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries, reciprocal holdings of bank holding company capital securities, and deferred tax assets and other deductions. The Federal Reserve Board’s current capital adequacy guidelines require that a bank holding company maintain a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 4.00% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8.00%. At December 31, 2011, the Company’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets was 16.89% and its ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets was 18.15%.

In addition to the risk-based capital guidelines, the Federal Reserve Board uses a leverage ratio as an additional tool to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. The leverage ratio is a company’s Tier 1 capital divided by its average total consolidated assets. Certain highly rated bank holding companies may maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 3.00%, but other bank holding companies are required to maintain a leverage ratio of 4.00% or more, depending on their overall condition. At December 31, 2011, the Company’s leverage ratio was 11.50%.

The federal banking agencies’ risk-based and leverage ratios are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria, assuming that they have the highest regulatory rating. Banking organizations not meeting these criteria are expected to operate with capital positions well above the minimum ratios. The federal bank regulatory agencies may set capital requirements for a particular banking organization that are higher than the minimum ratios when circumstances warrant. Federal Reserve Board guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets.

The current risk-based capital guidelines that apply to the Company and the Bank are based on the 1988 capital accord of the International Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors, as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board. In 2004, the Basel Committee published a new capital accord, which is referred to as “Basel II,” to replace Basel I. Basel II provides two approaches for setting capital standards for credit risk: an internal ratings-based approach tailored to individual institutions’ circumstances and a standardized approach that bases risk weightings on external credit assessments to a much greater extent than permitted in existing risk-based capital guidelines, which became effective in 2008 for large international banks (total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated foreign exposure of $10 billion or more). Other U.S. banking organizations can elect to adopt the requirements of this rule (if they meet applicable qualification requirements), but they are not required to apply them. Basel II emphasizes internal assessment of credit, market and operational risk, as well as supervisory assessment and market discipline in determining minimum capital requirements.

In December 2010 and January 2011, the Basel Committee published the final texts of reforms on capital and liquidity, which is referred to as “Basel III.” Although Basel III is intended to be implemented by participating countries for large, internationally active banks, its provisions are likely to be considered by United States banking regulators in developing new regulations applicable to other banks in the United States. Basel III will require bank holding companies and their bank subsidiaries to maintain substantially more capital, with a greater emphasis on common equity. The implementation of the Basel III final framework will commence January 1, 2013. On that date, banking institutions will be required to meet the following minimum capital ratios: (i) 3.5% Common Equity Tier 1 (generally consisting of common shares and retained earnings) to risk-weighted assets; (ii) 4.5% Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets; and (iii) 8.0% Total capital to risk-weighted assets.

6

Table of Contents

When fully phased-in on January 1, 2019, and if implemented by the U.S. banking agencies, Basel III will require banks to maintain:

Basel III also includes the following significant provisions:

Since the Basel III framework is not self-executing, the rules and standards promulgated under Basel III require that the U.S. federal banking regulators adopt them prior to becoming effective in the U.S. Although U.S. federal banking regulators have expressed support for Basel III, the timing and scope of its implementation, as well as any potential modifications or adjustments that may result during the implementation process, are not yet known.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires or permits the federal banking agencies to adopt regulations affecting banking institutions’ capital requirements in a number of respects, including potentially more stringent capital requirements for systemically important financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) and the FDIC to adopt regulations imposing a continuing “floor” of the Basel I-based capital requirements in cases where the Basel II-based capital requirements and any changes in capital regulations resulting from Basel III otherwise would permit lower requirements. In December 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking that would implement this requirement, which the agencies implemented as proposed, effective July 28, 2011. This final rule applies to large international banks (total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated foreign exposure of $10 billion or more) and, therefore, will not have any immediate impact on the Company or the Bank.

Acquisitions by Bank Holding Companies. The BHCA requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board before it may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank, if after such acquisition it would own or control, directly or indirectly, more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank. In approving bank acquisitions by bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve Board is required to consider the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding company and the banks concerned, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, and various competitive factors.

Incentive Compensation. In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC issued their final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk taking. The final guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. The Federal Reserve Board indicated that all banking organizations are to evaluate their incentive compensation arrangements and related risk management, controls, and corporate governance processes and immediately address deficiencies in these arrangements or processes that are inconsistent with safety and soundness.

7

Table of Contents

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

In February 2011, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC approved a joint proposed rulemaking to implement Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking by covered financial institutions and are deemed to be excessive, or that may lead to material losses.

The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future. It cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect the Company’s ability to hire, retain and motivate its key employees.

The Bank

Effective with the close of business on June 28, 2011, the Bank converted its charter from a national association to a Virginia state-chartered banking institution. The Bank will continue operating under the name First Community Bank. The charter conversion does not affect insurance coverage of the Bank’s deposits, which are insured by the FDIC to the maximum amounts permitted by law, and does not affect the financial services or products provided by the Bank. As a Virginia state-chartered bank, the Bank is supervised and regulated by the Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions (the “Virginia Bureau”) and as a member of the Federal Reserve, the Bank’s primary federal regulator is the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (“FRB”), both of which are based in the Company’s home state of Virginia. The regulations of these agencies govern most aspects of the Bank’s business, including required reserves against deposits, loans, investments, mergers and acquisitions, borrowing, dividends and location and number of branch offices.

Restrictions on Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders. Transactions between the Bank and its non-banking subsidiaries and/or affiliates, including the Company, are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. In general, Section 23A imposes limits on the amount of such transactions, and also requires certain levels of collateral for loans to affiliated parties. It also limits the amount of advances to third parties which are collateralized by the securities or obligations of the Company or its subsidiaries.

Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which generally requires that certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other non-affiliated persons. The Federal Reserve Board has issued Regulation W which codifies prior regulations under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and interpretive guidance with respect to affiliate transactions.

The Dodd-Frank Act generally enhances the restrictions on transactions with affiliates under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered credit transactions must be satisfied. Insider transaction limitations are expanded through the strengthening of loan restrictions to insiders and the expansion of the types of transactions subject to the various limits, including derivatives transactions, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements and securities lending or borrowing transactions. Restrictions are also placed on certain asset sales to and from an insider to an institution, including requirements that such sales be on market terms and, in certain circumstances, approved by the institution’s board of directors.

The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured institutions and their subsidiaries and holding companies. These restrictions include limits on loans to one borrower and conditions that must be met before such a loan can be made. There is also an aggregate limitation on all loans to such persons. These loans cannot exceed the institution’s total unimpaired capital and surplus, and the FDIC may determine that a lesser amount is appropriate.

Restrictions on Distribution of Subsidiary Bank Dividends and Assets. Dividends paid by the Bank have provided the Company’s operating funds and for the foreseeable future it is anticipated that dividends paid by the Bank to the Company will continue to be the Company’s primary source of operating funds.

8

Table of Contents

Capital adequacy requirements applicable to insured depository institutions serve to limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by the Bank. Under federal law, the Bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, it will be classified as “undercapitalized.” Further, prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board is required if cash dividends declared in any given year exceed the total of the Bank’s net profits for such year, plus its retained profits for the preceding two years. Virginia law also imposes restrictions on the ability of Virginia-chartered banks to pay dividends if such dividends would impair a bank’s paid-in capital. The payment of dividends by the Bank may also be limited by other factors, such as requirements to maintain capital above regulatory guidelines. The Virginia Bureau and the Federal Reserve Board have the general authority to limit dividends paid by the Bank if such payments are deemed to constitute an unsafe and unsound practice.

Because the Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries, its right to participate in the distribution of assets of any subsidiary upon the subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization will be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. In the event of liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution, such as the Bank, the claims of depositors and other general or subordinated creditors are entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of holders of any obligation of the institution to its shareholders, including any depository institution holding company or any shareholder or creditor thereof.

Examinations. Under the FDICIA, all insured institutions must undergo regular on-site examination by their appropriate banking agency and such agency may assess the institution for its costs of conducting the examination. As a state-chartered, Federal Reserve member bank, the Bank is subject to examination by the Virginia Bureau and FRB. These examinations review areas such as capital adequacy, reserves, loan portfolio quality and management, consumer and other compliance issues, investments, information systems, disaster recovery, and contingency planning and management practices.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The various federal bank regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve Board, have adopted risk-based capital requirements for assessing the capital adequacy of banks and bank holding companies. The federal capital standards define capital and establish minimum capital requirements in relation to assets and off-balance sheet exposure, as adjusted for credit risk. The risk-based capital standards currently in effect are designed to make regulatory capital requirements more sensitive to differences in risk profile among bank holding companies and banks, to account for off-balance sheet exposure and to minimize disincentives for holding liquid assets. Assets and off-balance sheet items are assigned to broad risk categories, each with appropriate risk weights. The resulting capital ratios represent capital as a percentage of total risk-weighted assets and off-balance sheet items.

Pursuant to the Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based capital requirements, state member banks are required to meet a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4.00% and a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8.00%. The capital categories have the same definitions for the Bank as for the Company. See “Regulation and Supervision – The Company – Capital Adequacy Requirements” for additional information on the capital requirements applicable to the Bank.

In addition to the risk-based capital requirements, the Federal Reserve Board has adopted regulations that supplement the risk-based guidelines to include a minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to quarterly average assets (“leverage ratio”) of 3.00%. The Federal Reserve Board has emphasized that the foregoing standards are supervisory minimums and that a banking organization will be permitted to maintain such minimum levels of capital only if it receives the highest rating under the regulatory rating system and the banking organization is not experiencing or anticipating significant growth. All other banking organizations are required to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 4.00% to 5.00% of Tier 1 capital. These rules further provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels and comparable to peer group averages, without significant reliance on intangible assets.

Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies. The federal banking regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to capital-deficient institutions. Agency regulations define, for each capital category, the levels at which institutions are “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized.” A “well capitalized” institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 5.0% or higher; and is not subject to any written agreement, order or directive requiring it to maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. An “adequately capitalized” institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 4.0% or higher (3.0% or higher if the bank was rated a composite 1 in its most recent examination report and is not experiencing significant growth); and does not meet the criteria for a well capitalized bank. An “undercapitalized” institution has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%. A “significantly undercapitalized” institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%. A “critically undercapitalized” institution’s tangible equity is equal to or less than 2.0% of average quarterly tangible assets. An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital

9

Table of Contents

category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes. The Bank was classified as “well capitalized” for purposes of the FDIC’s prompt corrective action regulation as of December 31, 2011.

In addition to requiring undercapitalized institutions to submit a capital restoration plan, agency regulations contain broad restrictions on certain activities of undercapitalized institutions including asset growth, acquisitions, branch establishment and expansion into new lines of business. With certain exceptions, an insured depository institution is prohibited from making capital distributions, including dividends, and is prohibited from paying management fees to control persons if the institution would be undercapitalized after any such distribution or payment.

As an institution’s capital decreases, the federal regulators’ enforcement powers become more severe. A significantly undercapitalized institution is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management and other restrictions. The FDIC has limited discretion in dealing with a critically undercapitalized institution and is generally required to appoint a receiver or conservator. Banks with risk-based capital and leverage ratios below the required minimums may also be subject to certain administrative actions, including the termination of deposit insurance upon notice and hearing, or a temporary suspension of insurance without a hearing in the event the institution has no tangible capital.

Deposit Insurance Assessments. The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the DIF of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. Currently the FDIC utilizes a risk-based assessment system to evaluate the risk of each financial institution based on three primary sources of information: (1) its supervisory rating, (2) its financial ratios, and (3) its long-term debt issuer rating, if the institution has one. The FDIC’s initial base assessment schedule can be adjusted up or down, and premiums in effect from January 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011, ranged from 12 basis points in the lowest risk category to 45 basis points for banks in the highest risk category. Effective April 1, 2011, the FDIC set initial base assessment rates from 5 basis points in the lowest risk category to 35 basis points for banks in the higher risk category.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to increase the DIF’s reserves against future losses, which will necessitate increased deposit insurance premiums that are to be borne primarily by institutions with assets of greater than $10 billion. In October 2010, the FDIC addressed plans to bolster the DIF by increasing the required reserve ratio for the industry to 1.35 percent (ratio of reserves to insured deposits) by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The FDIC also proposed to raise its industry target ratio of reserves to insured deposits to 2 percent, 65 basis points above the statutory minimum.

In February 2011, the FDIC adopted new rules that amend its current deposit insurance assessment regulations. The new rules implement a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that changed the assessment base for deposit insurance premiums from one based on domestic deposits to one based on average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. The rules also changed the assessment rate schedules for insured depository institutions so that approximately the same amount of revenue would be collected under the new assessment base as would be collected under the current rate schedule and the schedules previously proposed by the FDIC in October 2010. In addition, the new rules revised the risk-based assessment system for large insured depository institutions (generally, institutions with at least $10 billion in total assets) and “highly complex” institutions by requiring that the FDIC use a scorecard method to calculate assessment rates for all such institutions. The Bank will not be deemed a “highly complex” institution for these purposes.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (the “FDIA”), the FDIC may terminate deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC.

Safety and Soundness Standards. The FDIA requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to prescribe standards, by regulations or guidelines, relating to internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, stock valuation and compensation, fees and benefits, and such other operational and managerial standards as the agencies deem appropriate. Guidelines adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines. The guidelines prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder. In addition, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an agency to order an institution that has been given notice by an agency that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an acceptable compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution is subject under the “prompt corrective action” provisions of the FDIA.

10

Table of Contents

See “Regulation and Supervision – The Bank – Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies” for additional information. If an institution fails to comply with such an order, the agency may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties.

Enforcement Powers. The FDIC and the other federal banking agencies have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and supervisory agreements could subject the Company or the Bank, as well as officers, directors and other institution-affiliated parties of these organizations, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil money penalties. The appropriate federal banking agency may appoint the FDIC as conservator or receiver for a banking institution (or the FDIC may appoint itself, under certain circumstances) if any one or more of a number of circumstances exist, including, without limitation, the fact that the banking institution is undercapitalized and has no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized; fails to become adequately capitalized when required to do so; fails to submit a timely and acceptable capital restoration plan; or materially fails to implement an accepted capital restoration plan.

Consumer Laws and Regulations. In addition to the laws and regulations discussed herein, the Bank is also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the list set forth herein is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Fair Housing Act, and various state counterparts. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. The Bank must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of their ongoing customer relations.

In addition, federal law currently contains extensive customer privacy protection provisions. Under these provisions, a financial institution must provide to its customers, at the inception of the customer relationship and annually thereafter, the institution’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of customers’ nonpublic personal financial information. These provisions also provide that, except for certain limited exceptions, a financial institution may not provide such personal information to unaffiliated third parties unless the institution discloses to the customer that such information may be so provided and the customer is given the opportunity to opt out of such disclosure.

The Dodd-Frank Act provided for the creation of the CFPB as an independent entity within the Federal Reserve Board. The CFPB has broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards. The CFPB’s functions include investigating consumer complaints, rulemaking, supervising and examining banks’ consumer transactions, and enforcing rules related to consumer financial products and services. Banks with less than $10 billion in assets, such as the Bank, will continue to be examined for compliance with federal consumer financial laws by their primary federal banking agency.

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“Patriot Act”) was enacted in October 2001. The Patriot Act has broadened existing anti-money laundering legislation while imposing new compliance and due diligence obligations on banks and other financial institutions, with a particular focus on detecting and reporting money laundering transactions involving domestic or international customers. The U.S. Treasury Department has issued and will continue to issue regulations clarifying the Patriot Act’s requirements. The Patriot Act requires all “financial institutions,” as defined, to establish certain anti-money laundering compliance and due diligence programs. Recently, the regulatory agencies have intensified their examination procedures in light of the Patriot Act’s anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act requirements. The Company believes that its controls and procedures were in compliance with the Patriot Act as of December 31, 2011.

Interstate Banking and Branching. The federal banking agencies are authorized to approve interstate bank merger transactions without regard to whether the transaction is prohibited by the law of any state, unless the home state of one of the banks has opted out of the interstate bank merger provisions of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (the “Riegle-Neal Act”) or by adopting a law after the date of enactment of the Riegle-Neal Act and prior to June 1, 1997, that applies equally to all out-of-state banks and expressly prohibits merger transactions involving out-of-state banks. Interstate acquisitions of branches are permitted only if the law of the state in which the branch is located permits such acquisitions. Such interstate bank mergers and branch acquisitions are also subject to the nationwide and statewide insured deposit concentration limitations described in the Riegle-Neal Act.

Prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, national and state-chartered banks were generally permitted to branch across state lines by merging with banks in other states if allowed by the applicable states’ laws. However, interstate branching is now permitted for all national and state-chartered banks as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, provided that a state bank chartered by the state in which the branch is to be located would also be permitted to establish a branch, thus effectively giving out of state banks parity with in state banks with respect to de novo branching.

11

Table of Contents

Repurchase of Securities Issued in the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program

On November 21, 2008, the Company issued and sold to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) (i) 41,500 shares of the Company’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A (the “Preferred Shares”) and (ii) a Warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase 176,546 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, par value $1.00 per share (the “Common Stock”), for an aggregate purchase price of $41.50 million in cash. On June 5, 2009, the Company completed a public offering of its Common Stock that resulted in the reduction of the shares of Common Stock underlying the Warrant from 176,546 shares to 88,273 shares. On July 8, 2009, the Company repurchased from the Treasury all of the Preferred Shares that it had issued to the Treasury in November 2008. On November 23, 2011, the Company repurchased the Warrant from the Treasury for $30,600. The purchase price represents the amount that the Company bid in a public auction for the Warrant that took place on November 17, 2011. The Warrant had a 10-year term and was immediately exercisable upon its issuance, with an initial per share exercise price of $35.26.

Series A Noncumulative Convertible Preferred Stock

On May 20, 2011, the Company completed a private placement of 18,921 shares of its 6.00% Series A Noncumulative Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”). The shares carry a 6.00% dividend rate and are noncumulative. Each share is convertible into 69 shares of the Company’s Common Stock at any time and mandatorily converts after five years. The Company may redeem the shares at face value after the third anniversary.

Available Information

Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), the Company is required to file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Any document the Company files with the SEC may be read and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at (800) SEC-0330 for further information about the public reference room. The SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

The Company makes available, free of charge, on its website at www.fcbinc.com its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments thereto, as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company files such reports with, or furnishes them to, the SEC. Investors are encouraged to access these reports and the other information about the Company’s business on its website. Information found on the Company’s website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Company will also provide copies of its Annual Report on Form 10-K, free of charge, upon written request of the Investor Relations Department at the Company’s main address, P.O. Box 989, Bluefield, VA 24605.

Also posted on the Company’s website, and available in print upon written request of any shareholder to the Company’s Investor Relations Department, are the charters of the standing committees of its Board of Directors, the Standards of Conduct governing the Company’s directors, officers, and employees, and the Company’s Insider Trading & Disclosure Policy.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K may include “forward-looking statements,” which are made in good faith by the Company pursuant to the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include, among others, statements with respect to the Company’s beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, guidelines, expectations, anticipations, estimates and intentions that are subject to significant risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, many of which are beyond the Company’s control. The words “may,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The following factors, among others, could cause the Company’s financial performance to differ materially from that expressed in such forward-looking statements:

12

Table of Contents

The Company cautions that the foregoing list of important factors is not all-inclusive. If one or more of the factors affecting these forward-looking statements proves incorrect, then the Company’s actual results, performance, or achievements could differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Therefore, the Company cautions you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

The Company does not intend to update these forward-looking statements, whether written or oral, to reflect change. All forward-looking statements attributable to the Company are expressly qualified by these cautionary statements.

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

If any of the following risks actually occur, the Company’s financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the market price of the Company’s Common Stock could decline significantly, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to the Company’s Business

The current economic environment poses significant challenges for the Company and could adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations.

The U.S. economy was in recession from December 2007 through June 2009. Business activity across a wide range of industries and regions in the U. S. was greatly reduced. Although economic conditions have improved, certain sectors, such as real estate and manufacturing, remain weak and unemployment remains high. Continued declines in real estate values, home sales volumes, and financial stress on borrowers as a result of the uncertain economic environment could have an adverse effect on the Company’s borrowers or its customers, which could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. In addition, local governments and many businesses are still experiencing difficulty due to lower consumer spending and decreased liquidity in the credit markets. Deterioration in local economic conditions, particularly within the Company’s geographic regions and markets, could drive losses beyond that which is provided for in its allowance for loan losses. The Company may also face the following risks in connection with these events:

As the above conditions or similar ones continue to exist or worsen, the Company could experience continuing or increased adverse effects on its financial condition and results of operations.

13

Table of Contents

The Company and its subsidiary business are subject to interest rate risk and variations in interest rates may negatively affect its financial performance.

The Company’s earnings and cash flows are largely dependent upon its net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest income earned on interest-earning assets, such as loans and securities, and interest expense paid on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowed funds. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond the Company’s control, including general economic conditions and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies and, in particular, the Federal Reserve Board. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence not only the interest the Company receives on loans and securities and the amount of interest it pays on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect (i) the Company’s ability to originate loans and obtain deposits, and (ii) the fair value of the Company’s financial assets and liabilities. If the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster rate than the interest rates received on loans and other investments, the Company’s net interest income, and therefore earnings, could be adversely affected. Earnings could also be adversely affected if the interest rates received on loans and other investments fall more quickly than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings.

The Bank’s allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual losses.

Like all financial institutions, the Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses to provide for probable losses. The Bank’s allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual loan losses and future provisions for loan losses could materially and adversely affect the Bank’s operating results. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires the Bank to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. The Bank’s allowance for loan losses is determined by analyzing historical loan losses, current trends in delinquencies and charge-offs, plans for problem loan resolution, changes in the size and composition of the loan portfolio, and industry information. Also included in management’s estimates for loan losses are considerations with respect to the impact of economic events, the outcome of which are uncertain. The amount of future losses is susceptible to changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates, which may be beyond the Bank’s control, and these losses may exceed current estimates. Federal regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review the Bank’s loans and allowance for loan losses. Although the Company believes that the Bank’s allowance for loan losses is adequate to provide for probable losses, there are no assurances that future increases in the allowance for loan losses will not be needed or that regulators will not require the Bank to increase its allowance. Either of these occurrences could materially and adversely affect the Company’s earnings and profitability.

The Company has experienced increases in the levels of non-performing assets in recent periods. The Company’s total non-performing assets totaled $31.00 million at December 31, 2011, $29.65 million at December 31, 2010, and $23.50 million at December 31, 2009. The Company had $9.32 million of net loan charge-offs for the year ended December 31, 2011, compared to $12.55 million and $9.31 million in net loan charge-offs for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The Company’s provision for loan losses was $9.05 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, $14.76 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, and $15.80 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. At December 31, 2011, the ratios of the Company’s allowance for loan losses to non-performing loans and to total loans outstanding were 104.5% and 1.88%, respectively. Additional increases in the Company’s non-performing assets or loan charge-offs may require an increase to the allowance for loan losses, which would have an adverse effect upon the Company’s future results of operations.

The declining real estate market could impact the Company’s business.

The Company’s business activities are conducted in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and the surrounding regions. Over the past several years, the real estate market in these regions experienced declines with falling home prices and increased foreclosures. As a result of the Company’s elevated net charge-offs during this period and in recognition of the continued deterioration in the real estate market and the potential for further increases in non-performing assets, the Company increased its provision for loan losses over historical levels during 2009, 2010, and 2011. A continued downturn in this regional real estate market could hurt the Company’s business because its operations are concentrated within this geographic area and the vast majority of the Company’s loans are secured by real estate. If there is a further decline in real estate values, the collateral for the Company’s loans will provide less security. As a result, the Company’s ability to recover on defaulted loans by selling the underlying real estate will be diminished, and it will be more likely to suffer losses on defaulted loans.

Additionally, recent weakness in the secondary market for residential lending could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s profitability. Significant ongoing disruptions in the secondary market for residential mortgage loans have limited the market for and liquidity of most mortgage loans other than conforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. The effects of ongoing mortgage market challenges, combined with the ongoing correction in residential real estate market prices and reduced levels of home sales, could adversely affect the value of collateral securing mortgage loans, mortgage loan originations and gains on sale of mortgage loans. Continued declines in real estate values and home sales volumes, and

14

Table of Contents

financial stress on borrowers as a result of job losses or other factors, could have further adverse effects on borrowers that result in higher delinquencies and greater charge-offs in future periods, which could materially and adversely affect the Company.

The Company’s level of credit risk may increase due to its focus on commercial lending and the concentration on small businesses and middle market customers with significant vulnerability to economic conditions.

Commercial business and commercial real estate loans generally are considered riskier than single family residential loans because they have larger balances to a single borrower or group of related borrowers. Commercial business and commercial real estate loans involve risks because the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans typically depends primarily on the successful operation of the businesses or the properties securing the loans. Most of the Company’s commercial business loans are made to small business or middle market customers who may have a significant vulnerability to economic conditions. Moreover, a portion of these loans have been made or acquired by the Company in recent years and the borrowers may not have experienced a complete business or economic cycle. At December 31, 2011, the Company’s largest outstanding commercial business loan and largest outstanding commercial real estate loan amounted to $6.18 million and $7.30 million, respectively. At such date, the Company’s commercial business loans amounted to $93.31 million, or 6.68% of the Company’s total loan portfolio, and the Company’s commercial real estate loans amounted to $556.96 million, or 39.90% of the Company’s total loan portfolio.

In addition to commercial real estate and commercial business loans, the Company holds a portfolio of commercial construction loans. Construction loans generally have a higher risk of loss primarily due to the critical nature of the initial estimates of a property’s value upon completion of construction compared with the estimated costs, including interest, of construction as well as other assumptions. If the estimates upon which construction loans are made prove to be inaccurate, the Company may be confronted with projects that, upon completion, have values which are below the loan amounts. While the Company is not aware of any specific, material impediments impacting any of its builder/developer borrowers at this time, there continues to be nationwide reports of significant problems which have adversely affected many property developers and builders as well as the institutions that have provided those loans. If significant numbers of the builder/developers to which the Company has extended construction loans experience the type of difficulties that are being reported, it could have adverse consequences upon future results of operations. At December 31, 2011, the Company’s largest outstanding commercial construction loan amounted to $5.74 million. At such date, the Company’s commercial construction loans amounted to $61.77 million, or 4.42% of the Company’s total loan portfolio.

The Bank may suffer losses in its loan portfolio despite its underwriting practices.

The Bank seeks to mitigate the risks inherent in the Bank’s loan portfolio by adhering to specific underwriting practices. These practices include analysis of a borrower’s prior credit history, financial statements, tax returns and cash flow projections, valuation of collateral based on reports of independent appraisers and verification of liquid assets. Although the Bank believes that its underwriting criteria are appropriate for the various kinds of loans it makes, the Bank may incur losses on loans that meet its underwriting criteria, and these losses may exceed the amounts set aside as reserves in the Bank’s allowance for loan losses.

Changes in the fair value of the Company’s securities may reduce its stockholders’ equity and net income.

At December 31, 2011, $482.43 million of the Company’s securities were classified as available-for-sale. At such date, the aggregate unrealized losses on the Company’s available-for-sale securities totaled $21.74 million. The Company increases or decreases stockholders’ equity by the amount of the change in the unrealized gain or loss (the difference between the estimated fair value and the amortized cost) of the Company’s available-for-sale securities portfolio, net of the related tax effect, under the category of accumulated other comprehensive loss. Therefore, a decline in the estimated fair value of this portfolio will result in a decline in reported stockholders’ equity, as well as book value per common share and tangible book value per common share. This decrease will occur even though the securities are not sold. In the case of debt securities, if these securities are never sold and there are no credit impairments, the decrease will be recovered at the maturity of the securities. In the case of equity securities which have no stated maturity, the declines in fair value may or may not be recovered over time.

The Company conducts periodic reviews and evaluations of its entire securities portfolio to determine if the decline in the fair value of any security below its cost basis is other-than-temporary. Factors which the Company considered in its analysis of debt securities include, but are not limited to, intent to sell the security, evidence available to determine if it is more likely than not that the Company will have to sell the securities before recovery of the amortized cost, and probable credit losses. Probable credit losses are evaluated based upon, but are not limited to: the present value of future cash flows, the severity and duration of the decline in fair value of the security below its amortized cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, whether the decline appears to be related to issuer conditions or general market or industry conditions, the payment structure of the security, failure of the security to make scheduled interest or principal payments, and changes to the

15

Table of Contents

rating of the security by rating agencies. The Company generally views changes in fair value for debt securities caused by changes in interest rates as temporary, which is consistent with the Company’s experience. If the Company deems such decline to be other-than-temporary, the security is written down to a new cost basis and the resulting loss is charged to earnings as a component of noninterest income. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recognized other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) charges of $2.29 million on its debt securities portfolio.

Factors that the Company considers in its analysis of equity securities include, but are not limited to: intent to sell the security before recovery of the cost, the severity and duration of the decline in fair value of the security below its cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, and whether the decline appears to be related to issuer conditions or general market or industry conditions. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recognized no OTTI charges on its equity securities portfolio.

The Company continues to monitor the fair value of its entire securities portfolio as part of its ongoing OTTI evaluation process. No assurance can be given that the Company will not need to recognize OTTI charges related to securities in the future.

The enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 may have a material effect on the Company’s operations.

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, or the Dodd-Frank Act, which imposes significant regulatory and compliance changes. The key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that are anticipated to affect the Company’s operations include:

Many of the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented over time and most will be subject to the rulemaking process at various regulatory agencies. Given the uncertainty associated with the manner in which the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented by the various regulatory agencies and through regulations, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on the Company’s operations is unclear. The changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require the Company to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with the new requirements or with any future changes in laws or regulations may negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation which could adversely affect them.

The Company and its subsidiaries’ operations are subject to extensive regulation and supervision by federal and state governmental authorities and are subject to various laws and judicial and administrative decisions imposing requirements and restrictions on part or all of the Company’s operations. Banking regulations governing the Company’s operations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not stockholders. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. Changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations or policies, could affect the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such changes could subject the Company to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products the Company may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties and/or reputation damage, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. While the Company has policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, there can be no assurance that such violations will not occur. These laws, rules and regulations, or any other laws, rules or regulations that may be adopted in the future, could make compliance more difficult or expensive, restrict the Company’s ability to originate, broker or sell loans, further limit or restrict the amount of commissions, interest or other charges earned on loans originated or sold by the Bank and otherwise adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition or prospects.

The financial services industry is likely to face increased regulation and supervision as a result of the recent financial crisis. Such additional regulation and supervision may increase the Company’s costs and limit its ability to pursue business opportunities. The affects of such recently enacted, and proposed, legislation and regulatory programs on the Company cannot reliably be determined at this time.

16

Table of Contents

The Bank’s ability to pay dividends is subject to regulatory limitations which, to the extent the Company requires such dividends in the future, may affect the Company’s ability to pay its obligations and pay dividends.

The Company is a separate legal entity from the Bank and its subsidiaries and does not have significant operations of its own. The Company currently depends on the Bank’s cash and liquidity as well as dividends from the Bank to pay the Company’s operating expenses and dividends to its stockholders. No assurance can be made that in the future the Bank will have the capacity to pay the necessary dividends and that the Company will not require dividends from the Bank to satisfy the Company’s obligations. The availability of dividends from the Bank is limited by various statutes and regulations. It is possible, depending upon the financial condition of the Bank and other factors, that the Federal Reserve Board or the Virginia Bureau, the Bank’s primary regulators, could assert that payment of dividends or other payments by the Bank are an unsafe or unsound practice. In the event the Bank is unable to pay dividends sufficient to satisfy the Company’s obligations or is otherwise unable to pay dividends to the Company, the Company may not be able to service its obligations as they become due, including payments required to be made to the FCBI Capital Trust, a business trust subsidiary of the Company, or pay dividends on the Company’s Common Stock or Series A Preferred Stock. Consequently, the inability to receive dividends from the Bank could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.

The Company faces strong competition from other financial institutions, financial service companies and other organizations offering services similar to those offered by the Company and its subsidiaries, which could hurt the Company’s business.

The Company’s business operations are centered primarily in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Increased competition within these regions may result in reduced loan originations and deposits. Ultimately, the Company may not be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors. Many competitors offer the types of loans and banking services that the Bank offers. These competitors include other savings associations, national banks, regional banks and other community banks. The Company also faces competition from other types of financial institutions, including finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, credit unions, mortgage banks and other financial intermediaries. In particular, the Bank’s competitors include other state and national banks and major financial companies whose greater resources may afford them a marketplace advantage by enabling them to maintain numerous banking locations and mount extensive promotional and advertising campaigns.

Additionally, banks and other financial institutions with larger capitalization and financial intermediaries not subject to bank regulatory restrictions have larger lending limits and are thereby able to serve the credit needs of larger clients. These institutions, particularly to the extent they are more diversified than the Company, may be able to offer the same loan products and services that the Company offers at more competitive rates and prices. If the Company is unable to attract and retain banking clients, the Company may be unable to continue the Bank’s loan and deposit growth and the Company’s business, financial condition and prospects may be negatively affected.

Potential acquisitions may disrupt the Company’s business and dilute stockholder value.

The Company may seek merger or acquisition partners that are culturally similar and have experienced management and possess either significant market presence or have potential for improved profitability through financial management, economies of scale or expanded services. Acquiring other banks, businesses, or branches involves various risks commonly associated with acquisitions, including, among other things:

17

Table of Contents

The Company regularly evaluates merger and acquisition opportunities and conducts due diligence activities related to possible transactions with other financial institutions and financial services companies. As a result, merger or acquisition discussions and, in some cases, negotiations may take place and future mergers or acquisitions involving the payment of cash or the issuance of debt or equity securities may occur at any time. Acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and market values, and, therefore, some initial dilution of the Company’s tangible book value and net income per common share may occur in connection with any future transaction. Furthermore, failure to realize the expected revenue increases, cost savings, increases in geographic or product presence, and/or other projected benefits from an acquisition could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company may engage in FDIC-assisted transactions, which could present additional risks to its business.

The Company may have opportunities to acquire the assets and liabilities of failed banks in FDIC-assisted transactions, which present the risks of acquisitions discussed above, as well as some risks specific to these transactions. Because FDIC-assisted acquisitions provide for limited diligence and negotiation of terms, these transactions may require additional resources and time, including servicing acquired problem loans and costs related to integration of personnel and operating systems, and the establishment of processes to service acquired assets. Such transactions may also require the Company to raise additional capital, which may be dilutive to existing stockholders. If the Company is unable to manage these risks, FDIC-assisted acquisitions could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results of operations.

Attractive acquisition opportunities may not be available in the future.

The Company expects that other banking and financial companies, many of which have significantly greater resources, will compete with it to acquire financial services businesses. This competition could increase prices for potential acquisitions that the Company believes are attractive. Also, acquisitions are subject to various regulatory approvals. If the Company fails to receive the appropriate regulatory approvals, it will not be able to consummate an acquisition that it believes is in its best interests. Among other things, the Company’s regulators consider the Company’s capital, liquidity, profitability, regulatory compliance and levels of goodwill and intangibles when considering acquisition and expansion proposals. Any acquisition could be dilutive to the Company’s earnings and stockholders’ equity per share of the Company’s Common Stock and Series A Preferred Stock.

The Company’s goodwill may be determined to be impaired.

As of December 31, 2011, the carrying amount of the Company’s goodwill was $83.06 million. The Company tests goodwill for impairment on an annual basis, or more frequently if necessary. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and are to be used as the basis for measuring impairment, when available. Other acceptable valuation methods include present-value measurements based on multiples of earnings or revenues, or similar performance measures. If the Company determines that the carrying amount of its goodwill exceeds its implied fair value, the Company would be required to write-down the value of the goodwill on its balance sheet. This, in turn, would result in a charge against earnings and, thus, a reduction in the Company’s stockholders’ equity and certain related capital measures. During 2011, the Company recognized a charge of $1.24 million to write-down the value of goodwill at its insurance agency subsidiary.

The Company may lose members of its management team and have difficulty attracting skilled personnel.

The Company’s success depends, in large part, on its ability to attract and retain key people. Competition for the best people can be intense and the Company may not be able to hire such people or to retain them. The unexpected loss of services of key personnel of the Company could have a material adverse impact on its business because of their skills, knowledge of the Company’s market, years of industry experience and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel. In addition, recent regulatory proposals and guidance relating to compensation may negatively impact the Company’s ability to retain and attract skilled personnel.

An increase in FDIC deposit insurance premiums could adversely affect the Company’s earnings.

Market developments have significantly depleted the DIF of the FDIC and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits. As a result of recent economic conditions and the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC revised its assessment rates which raised deposit premiums for certain insured depository institutions. If these increases are insufficient for the DIF to meet its funding requirements, further special assessments or increases in deposit insurance premiums may be required. The Company is generally unable to control the amount of premiums that it is required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures, the FDIC may increase the deposit insurance assessment rates. Any future assessments, increases or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums may materially adversely affect the Company’s earnings and could have a material adverse effect on the value of its Common Stock.

18

Table of Contents

The Company may seek to raise additional capital in the future, and such capital may not be available on acceptable terms or at all.

The Company may seek to raise additional capital in the future to provide it with sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet its commitments, business needs, and growth objectives, particularly if its asset quality or earnings were to deteriorate significantly. The Company’s ability to raise additional capital will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of its control, and its financial performance. Economic conditions and the loss of confidence in financial institutions may increase the Company’s cost of funding and limit access to certain customary sources of capital, including inter-bank borrowings, repurchase agreements and borrowings from the discount window of the FRB. Any occurrence that may limit the Company’s access to the capital markets may adversely affect the Company’s capital costs and its ability to raise capital and, in turn, its liquidity. Accordingly, the Company cannot provide any assurance that additional capital will be available on acceptable terms or at all. An inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s businesses, financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity risk could impair the Company’s ability to fund operations and jeopardize its financial condition.

Liquidity is essential to the Company’s business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, equity and debt offerings and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on the Company’s liquidity. The Company’s access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance its activities, or on terms attractive to the Company, could be impaired by factors that affect the Company specifically or the financial services industry in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact the Company’s access to liquidity sources include a reduction in its credit ratings, if any, an increase in costs of capital in financial capital markets, a decrease in the level of its business activity due to a market downturn or adverse regulatory action against the Company, or a decrease in depositor or investor confidence. The Company’s access to liquidity sources could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to it, such as a severe disruption of the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole.

The Company’s controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented.

Management regularly reviews and updates the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of the Company’s controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

The failure of other financial institutions could adversely affect the Company.

The Company’s ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by future failures of financial institutions and the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty and other relationships. The Company has exposure to different industries and counterparties and routinely executes transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, investment companies and other institutional clients. In certain of these transactions, the Company is required to post collateral to secure the obligations to the counterparties. In the event of a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving one of such counterparties, the Company may experience delays in recovering the assets posted as collateral or may incur a loss to the extent that the counterparty was holding collateral in excess of the obligation to such counterparty.

In addition, many of these transactions expose the Company to credit risk in the event of a default by the Company’s counterparty or client. In addition, the credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by the Company cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure due to the Company. Any losses resulting from the Company’s routine funding transactions may materially and adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations.

The Company is subject to environmental liability risk associated with lending activities.

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

19

Table of Contents

Risks Associated with the Company’s Common Stock

The Company’s Common Stock price can be volatile.

Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for holders of the Company’s Common Stock to resell when desired. The Company’s Common Stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors including, among other things:

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

The trading volume in the Company’s Common Stock is less than that of other larger financial services companies.

Although the Company’s Common Stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ, the trading volume in its Common Stock is less than that of other, larger financial services companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of the Company’s Common Stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which the Company has no control. Given the lower trading volume of the Company’s Common Stock, significant sales of the Company’s Common Stock, or the expectation of these sales, could cause the Company’s stock price to fall.

The Company may not continue to pay dividends on its Common Stock in the future.

The Company’s Common Stockholders are only entitled to receive such dividends the Company’s board of directors declares out of funds legally available for such payments. Although the Company has historically declared cash dividends on its Common Stock, it is not required to do so and may reduce or eliminate its Common Stock dividend in the future. This could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s Common Stock. Also, the Company is a financial holding company and its ability to declare and pay dividends is dependent on certain federal regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve Board regarding capital adequacy and dividends.

An investment in the Company’s Common Stock is not an insured deposit.

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

Certain banking laws may have an anti-takeover effect.

Provisions of federal banking laws, including regulatory approval requirements, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire the Company, even if doing so would be perceived to be beneficial to the Company’s shareholders. These provisions effectively inhibit a non-negotiated merger or other business combination, which, in turn, could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s Common Stock.

20

Table of Contents

The Company issued Series A Preferred Stock, which ranks senior to its Common Stock.

The Company issued 18,921 shares of Series A Preferred Stock in May 2011. The Series A Preferred Stock ranks senior to shares of the Company’s Common Stock. As a result, the Company must make dividend payments on its Series A Preferred Stock before any dividends can be paid on the Company’s Common Stock and, in the event of its bankruptcy, dissolution or liquidation, the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock must be satisfied before any distributions can be made on the Company’s Common Stock. If the Company does not remain current in the payment of dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock, no dividends may be paid on its Common Stock. In addition, the dividends declared on the Series A Preferred Stock will reduce any net income available to holders of Common Stock and earnings per common share.

The Company has no unresolved staff comments as of the filing date of this 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Company’s corporate headquarters are located at One Community Place in Bluefield, Virginia, where the Company owns and occupies approximately 36,000 square feet of office space. In addition to its corporate headquarters, the Company’s community banking segment operated 55 banking centers, loan production, administrative, or other financial services offices at December 31, 2011, of which 45 were owned and 11 were leased or located on leased land. The banking centers were located throughout Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The Company’s insurance services segment headquarters are located at 711 Gallimore Dairy Road in High Point, North Carolina. Including its headquarters, the Company’s insurance segment operated seven insurance offices at December 31, 2011, of which one was owned, four were leased, and two were located within the Company’s banking centers. The insurance agency offices were located throughout North Carolina, West Virginia, and Virginia. There were no mortgages or liens against any property of the Company. A complete list of all branch and ATM locations can be found on the Company’s website at www.fcbinc.com. Information contained on such website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. See “Note 6 – Premises and Equipment” of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 herein.

The Company is currently a defendant in various legal actions and asserted claims in the normal course of business. Although the Company and legal counsel are unable to assess the ultimate outcome of each of these matters with certainty, they are of the belief that the resolution of these actions should not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.

None.

21

Table of Contents

PART II

Common Stock Market Prices and Dividends

The number of Common Stockholders of record on February 27, 2012, was 2,757 and outstanding shares totaled 17,849,376. The number of Common Stockholders is measured by the number of record holders. The Company’s Common Stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select market under the symbol “FCBC”.

The Company’s ability to pay dividends on its Common Stock is principally dependent on the Bank’s ability to pay dividends to the Company, which is subject to various regulatory restrictions and limitations. For information on the regulatory restrictions and limitations on the ability of the Company to pay dividends to its stockholders and on the Bank to pay dividends to the Company, see “Business – Regulation and Supervision – The Company – Regulatory Restrictions on Dividends; Source of Strength.” and “Business – Regulation and Supervision – The Bank – Restrictions on Distribution of Subsidiary Bank Dividends and Assets” in Item 1 herein. Cash dividends on Common Stock totaled $0.40 per share for 2011 and $0.40 per share in 2010. Total dividends paid on Common Stock for the years ended December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, totaled $7.16 million and $7.12 million, respectively. Total cash dividends paid on the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock for the year ended December 31, 2011, totaled $558 thousand.

The following table sets forth the high and low stock prices and dividends paid per share on the Company’s Common Stock during the periods indicated:

Stock Repurchase Plan

The following table provides information with respect to purchases made by or on behalf of the Company or any “affiliated purchaser” (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Exchange Act) of the Company’s Common Stock during the fourth quarter of 2011:

22

Table of Contents

Total Return Analysis

The following chart was compiled by SNL Financial LC, and compares cumulative total shareholder return of the Company’s Common Stock for the five-year period ended December 31, 2011, with the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index, the NASDAQ Composite Index, and the Asset Size & Regional Peer Group. The Asset Size & Regional Peer Group consists of 48 bank holding companies that are traded on the NASDAQ, OTC Bulletin Board, and pink sheets with total assets between $1 billion and $5 billion and are located in the Southeast Region of the United States. The cumulative returns include reinvestment of dividends by the Company.

23

Table of Contents

The following consolidated selected financial data is derived from the Company’s audited financial statements as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2011. The consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. All of the Company’s acquisitions during the five years ended December 31, 2011, were accounted for using the purchase method. Accordingly, the operating results of the acquired companies are included with the Company’s results of operations since their respective dates of acquisition.

24

Table of Contents

Executive Overview

First Community Bancshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that, through its bank subsidiary, provides commercial banking services and has positioned itself as a regional community bank and a financial services alternative to larger banks which often provide less emphasis on personal relationships, and smaller community banks which lack the capital and resources to efficiently serve customer needs. The Company has focused its growth efforts on building financial partnerships and more enduring and complete relationships with businesses and individuals through a very personal and local approach to banking and financial services. The Company and its operations are guided by a strategic plan which includes growth through acquisitions and through office expansion in market areas including Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. While the Company’s mission remains that of a community bank, management believes that entry into new markets will accelerate the Company’s growth rate by diversifying the demographics of its customer base and customer prospects and by generally increasing its sales and service network.

Economy

The local economies in which the Company operates are diverse and span a four-state region. The economies of West Virginia and Southwest Virginia have significant exposure to extractive industries, such as coal, timber and natural gas. The local economies in the central portion of North Carolina have suffered in recent years due to foreign competition in both furniture and textiles, as well as consolidation in the financial services industry. Despite these detractions, the economies in this region continue to benefit from national companies operating in the Triad and Central Piedmont area of North Carolina. The Eastern Virginia local economies have, in recent years, benefited from key corporate and government activities. The economy in Eastern Tennessee continues to benefit from the stability of higher education, healthcare services and tourism.

Despite the stable and positive aspects of the regional economies in which the Company primarily operates, the Company’s markets have experienced significant declines in residential development and construction, not inconsistent with national trends. These declines have led to contraction in residential land development and construction, which has historically been important components of the Company’s lending activities. The economies of the Company’s Southwest Virginia and West Virginia markets have remained stable compared with the national economy and unemployment levels were generally lower than the national average at December 31, 2011.

Competition

As the Company competes for increased market share and growth in both loans and deposits, it continues to encounter strong competition from many sources. Many of the markets targeted by the Company are also being entered by other banks in nearby and distant markets. The expansion of banks, credit unions, and other non-depository financial companies over recent years has intensified competitive pressures on core deposit generation and retention. Competitive forces impact the Company through pressure on interest yields, product fees, and loan structure and terms; however, the Company has countered these pressures with its relationship style of banking, competitive pricing, cost efficiencies, and a disciplined approach to loan underwriting.

Application of Critical Accounting Policies

The Company’s consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and conform to general practices within the banking industry. The Company’s financial position and results of operations are affected by management’s application of accounting policies, including judgments made to arrive at the carrying value of assets and liabilities and amounts reported for revenues, expenses and related disclosures. Different assumptions in the application of these policies could result in material changes in the Company’s consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations.

Estimates, assumptions, and judgments are necessary principally when assets and liabilities are required to be recorded at estimated fair value, when a decline in the value of an asset carried on the financial statements at fair value warrants an impairment write-down or valuation reserve to be established, or when an asset or liability needs to be recorded based upon the probability of occurrence of a future event. Carrying assets and liabilities at fair value inherently results in more financial statement volatility. The fair values and the information used to record valuation adjustments for certain assets and liabilities are based either on quoted market prices or are provided by third party sources, when available. When third party information is not available, valuation adjustments are estimated by management primarily through the use of financial modeling techniques and appraisal estimates.

The Company’s accounting policies are fundamental to understanding Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation. The following is a summary of the Company’s more subjective and complex “critical

25

Table of Contents

accounting policies.” In addition, the disclosures presented in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations provide information on how significant assets and liabilities are valued in the financial statements and how those values are determined. Based on the valuation techniques used and the sensitivity of financial statement amounts to the methods, assumptions, and estimates underlying those amounts, management has identified investment valuation, determination of the allowance for loan losses, accounting for acquisitions and intangible assets, and accounting for income taxes as the accounting areas that require the most subjective or complex judgments.

Investment Securities

Management performs an extensive review of the investment securities portfolio quarterly to determine the cause of declines in the fair value of each security within each segment of the portfolio. The Company uses inputs provided by an independent third party to determine the fair values of its investment securities portfolio. Inputs provided by the third party are reviewed and corroborated by management. Evaluations of the causes of the unrealized losses are performed to determine whether the impairment is temporary or other-than-temporary in nature. Considerations such as the Company’s intent and ability to hold the securities, recoverability of the invested amounts over the Company’s intended holding period, severity in pricing decline, credit rating, and receipt of amounts contractually due, among other factors, are applied in determining whether a security is other-than-temporarily impaired. If a decline in value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the value of the security is reduced and a corresponding charge to earnings is recognized.

Allowance for Loan Losses

The allowance for loan losses is maintained at a level management deems sufficient to absorb probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio, and is based on management’s evaluation of the risks in the loan portfolio and changes in the nature and volume of loan activity. The Company consistently applies a review process to periodically evaluate loans for changes in credit risk. This process serves as the primary means by which the Company evaluates the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses.

The Company determines the allowance for loan losses by making specific allocations to impaired loans that exhibit inherent weaknesses and various credit risk and by general allocations to commercial, residential real estate, and consumer loans by giving weight to risk ratings, historical loss trends and management’s judgment concerning those trends, and other relevant factors. These factors may include, but are not limited to, actual versus estimated losses, regional and national economic conditions, business segment and portfolio concentrations, industry competition and consolidation, and the impact of government regulations. The foregoing analysis is performed by management to evaluate the portfolio and calculate an estimated valuation allowance through a quantitative and qualitative analysis that applies risk factors to those identified risk areas.

This risk management evaluation is applied at both the portfolio level and the individual loan level for commercial loans and credit relationships while the level of consumer and residential mortgage loan allowance is determined primarily on a total portfolio level based on a review of historical loss percentages and other qualitative factors including concentrations, industry specific factors and economic conditions. The commercial portfolio requires more specific analysis of individually significant loans and the borrower’s underlying cash flow, business conditions, capacity for debt repayment and the valuation of secondary sources of payment, such as collateral. This analysis may result in specifically identified weaknesses and corresponding specific impairment allowances. While allocations are made to specific loans and classifications within the various categories of loans, the allowance for loan losses is available for all loan losses.

The use of various estimates and judgments in the Company’s ongoing evaluation of the required level of allowance can significantly impact the Company’s results of operations and financial condition and may result in either greater provisions against earnings to increase the allowance or reduced provisions based upon management’s current view of the portfolio and economic conditions and the application of revised estimates and assumptions. Differences between actual loan loss experience and estimates are reflected through adjustments that are made by increasing or decreasing the loan loss provision based upon current measurement criteria.

Acquisitions and Intangible Assets

The Company may, from time to time, engage in business combinations with other companies. Purchase accounting requires the recording of underlying assets and liabilities of the entity acquired at their fair market value. Any excess of the purchase price of the business over the net assets acquired is recorded as goodwill. In instances where the price of the acquired business is less than the net assets acquired, a gain on purchase is recorded. Fair values are assigned based on quoted prices for similar assets, if readily available, or appraisal by qualified independent parties for relevant asset and liability categories. Financial assets and liabilities are typically valued using discount models which apply current discount rates to streams of cash flow. All of these valuation methods require the use of assumptions which can result in alternate valuations and varying levels of goodwill and amounts of bargain purchase gain and, in some cases, amortization expense or accretion income.

26

Table of Contents

Management must also make estimates of useful or economic lives of certain acquired assets and liabilities. These lives are used in establishing amortization and accretion of some intangible assets and liabilities, such as the intangible associated with core deposits acquired in the acquisition of a commercial bank.

Goodwill is recorded as the excess of the purchase price, if any, over the fair value of the acquired net assets. Goodwill is tested annually in the fourth quarter for possible impairment by comparing the fair value of each reporting unit to its book value, including goodwill (step 1). If the fair value of the reporting unit is greater than its book value, no goodwill impairment exists. However, if the book value of the reporting unit is greater than its determined fair value, goodwill impairment may exist and further testing is required to determine the amount, if any, of the actual impairment loss (step 2). The step 1 test utilizes a combination of two methods to determine the fair value of the reporting units. For both reporting units, a discounted cash flow model is created projecting cash flows from operations of the business reporting unit, the results of which are weighted 70%. For the banking reporting unit a market multiple model utilizes price to net income and price to tangible book value inputs for closed transactions and for certain common sized institutions and the results are weighted 30%. For the insurance reporting unit the market multiple model primarily utilizes price to sales for closed transactions and certain similar industry public companies and the results are weighted 30%. The end results for both reporting units are then compared to the respective book values to consider if impairment is evident. To determine the overall reasonableness of the reporting unit computations, the combined computed fair value is then compared to the overall market capitalization of the consolidated Company to determine the level of implied control premium.

The discounted cash flow analysis uses estimates in the form of growth and attrition rates, anticipated rates of return, and discount rates. These estimates have a direct bearing on the results of the impairment testing and serve as the basis for management’s conclusions as to potential impairment.

The results of the step 1 analysis performed during the fourth quarter of 2011 determined that no impairment was evident for the banking reporting unit. For the insurance reporting unit the step 1 analysis indicated impairment. A step 2 analysis was performed for the insurance reporting unit resulting in impairment to goodwill of $1.24 million. An adjustment to the weighting of the results, a decline in the market multiples used, further decline in the banking and retail insurance industry valuations, or further decline in our Common Stock price could result in future potential impairment.

Income Taxes

The establishment of provisions for federal and state income taxes is a complex area of accounting which also involves the use of judgments and estimates in applying relevant tax statutes. The Company operates in multiple state tax jurisdictions and this requires the appropriate allocation of income and expense to each state based on a variety of apportionment or allocation bases. The Company is also subject to audit by federal and state tax authorities. Results of these audits may produce indicated liabilities which differ from Company estimates and provisions. The Company continually evaluates its exposure to possible tax assessments arising from audits and records its estimate of possible exposure based on current facts and circumstances.

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the tax effects of differing carrying values of assets and liabilities for tax and financial statement purposes that will reverse in future periods. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are reflected at currently enacted income tax rates applicable to the period in which the deferred tax assets or liabilities are expected to be realized or settled. As changes in tax laws or rates are enacted, deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted through the provision for income taxes. When uncertainty exists concerning the recoverability of a deferred tax asset, the carrying value of the asset may be reduced by a valuation allowance. The amount of any valuation allowance established is based upon an estimate of the deferred tax asset that is more likely than not to be recovered. Increases or decreases in the valuation allowance result in increases or decreases to the provision for income taxes.

Recent Acquisitions and Divestitures

In July 2009, the Company acquired TriStone Community Bank (“TriStone”), based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. TriStone had two full service locations in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. At acquisition, TriStone had total assets of $166.82 million, total loans of $132.23 million and total deposits of $142.27 million. Each outstanding common share of TriStone was exchanged for .5262 shares of the Company’s Common Stock and the overall acquisition cost was $10.78 million. The acquisition of TriStone significantly augmented the Company’s market presence and human resources in the Winston-Salem, North Carolina market.

Greenpoint Insurance Group (“Greenpoint”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, has acquired seven insurance agencies and sold three since its acquisition by the Company in September 2007. In 2011, Greenpoint recorded a net gain of $67 thousand on the sale of two insurance agencies and has the potential to recognize an additional $650 thousand over time as

27

Table of Contents

earn-out payments are received. In connection with those sales, the Company eliminated $1.30 million of goodwill and $379 thousand of other intangibles to the Company’s balance sheet in 2011. In 2010, Greenpoint acquired one insurance agency and issued cash consideration of $190 thousand.

Results of Operations

2011 Compared To 2010

Net income available to common shareholders for 2011 was $19.33 million, a decrease of $2.52 million from $21.85 million in 2010. Basic and diluted earnings per common share for 2011 were $1.08 and $1.07, respectively, as compared to basic and diluted earnings per common share of $1.23 in 2010. The Company’s return on average assets was 0.88% in 2011 compared to 0.97% in 2010. Return on average common equity was 6.81% in 2011 compared to 8.11% in 2010.

Net Interest Income

The primary source of the Company’s earnings is net interest income, the difference between income on earning assets and the cost of funds supporting those assets. Significant categories of earning assets are loans and securities while deposits and borrowings represent the major portion of interest-bearing liabilities. Net interest income was $72.03 million for 2011, as compared to $73.86 million for 2010, a decrease of $1.83 million, or 2.48%. Tax equivalent net interest income totaled $74.99 million for 2011, a decrease of $2.23 million, or 2.89%, from $77.22 million reported for 2010. The decrease in tax equivalent net interest income was primarily due to decreases in the balances of loans and securities coupled with lower rates of interest earned on those assets.

For purposes of the following discussion, comparison of net interest income is performed on a tax equivalent basis, which provides a common basis for comparing yields on earning assets exempt from federal income taxes to those assets which are fully taxable (see the table titled Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest Income Analysis).

Average earning assets decreased $44.31 million while average interest-bearing liabilities decreased $102.80 million during 2011, as compared to the prior year. The yield on average earning assets decreased 39 basis points to 5.01% for 2011 from 5.40% for 2010. Short-term market interest rates continued to remain low throughout 2011, as the Federal Reserve Board held the “range” of zero to 25 basis points as its target for federal funds. The prevailing low interest rate environment was the largest driver in the overall decrease in the Company’s yield on average earning assets.

Total cost of average interest-bearing liabilities decreased 35 basis points to 1.32% during 2011. The Company’s time deposit portfolio experienced downward repricing during 2011, as many of the higher-rate certificates were redeemed or renewed at lower rates. The net result was a decrease of 4 basis points in the net interest rate spread, or the difference between interest income on earning assets and expense on interest-bearing liabilities, for 2011 compared to 2010. The net interest rate spread for 2011 was 3.69% compared to 3.73% for 2010. The Company’s net interest margin, or net interest income to average earning assets, of 3.87% for 2011 represents a decrease of 3 basis points from 3.90% in 2010.

Loan interest income decreased $4.16 million during 2011, as compared to 2010 as the average volume and the yield on loans decreased. During 2011, the yield on loans decreased 22 basis points to 5.84% while the average balance decreased $17.96 million, as compared to 2010. During 2011, the yield on available-for-sale securities decreased 70 basis points to 3.63% while the average balance decreased $58.12 million, as compared to 2010.

Average interest-bearing balances that the Company maintained with third party banks increased $34.08 million during 2011 to $116.06 million, while the yield increased 1 basis point to 0.25% during the same period. Interest-bearing balances with third party banks are comprised largely of excess liquidity bearing overnight market rates.

The average balance of interest-bearing deposits decreased $63.44 million, or 4.42%, and the average rate paid on those deposits decreased 46 basis points to 0.93% during 2011 compared to the prior year. The average rate paid on interest-bearing demand deposits decreased 23 basis points, while the average rate paid on savings deposits, which include money market and savings accounts, decreased 43 basis points in 2011 compared to 2010. In 2011, average time deposits decreased $77.29 million, or 10.17%, and the average rate paid on those deposits decreased 44 basis points to 1.68%, as compared to 2010. The decrease can be attributed to rate sensitive customers not renewing investments at lower interest rates. The level of average noninterest-bearing demand deposits increased $16.84 million to $223.23 million in 2011 compared to the prior year.

The average balance of retail repurchase agreements, which consists of collateralized retail deposits and commercial treasury accounts, decreased $13.97 million in 2011 and the average rate paid on those funds decreased 37 basis points to 0.65% during the same period. The average balance of federal funds purchased totaled $77 thousand in 2011. The average balance of wholesale repurchase agreements remained unchanged at $50.00 million between 2011 and 2010, while the rate increased 3 basis points due to structure within those borrowings. The average balance of Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”)

28

Table of Contents

advances and other borrowings decreased $25.47 million, or 13.10%, and the rate paid on those borrowings increased 51 basis points in 2011 compared to 2010. Other borrowings include the Company’s trust preferred issuance of $15.46 million, which is indexed to 3-month LIBOR. The Company prepaid $25.00 million of a $75.00 million FHLB convertible advance that carried a 4.00% interest rate during the first quarter of 2011. The advance was a structured borrowing where the interest rate floated with 3-month LIBOR, but changed to a 4.00% fixed cost in the first quarter of 2011.

Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest Income Analysis

29

Table of Contents

Rate and Volume Analysis of Interest

The following table summarizes the changes in tax-equivalent interest earned and paid detailing the amounts attributable to (i) changes in volume (change in the average volume times the prior year’s average rate), (ii) changes in rate (changes in the average rate times the prior year’s average volume), and (iii) changes in rate/volume (change in the average volume column times the change in average rate):