FIRST COMMUNITY CORP /SC/ - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report, including information included or incorporated by reference in this document, contains statements which constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements may relate to, among other matters, the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, and business of our Company. Forward-looking statements are based on many assumptions and estimates and are not guarantees of future performance. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, as they will depend on many factors about which we are unsure, including many factors which are beyond our control. The words “may,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “predict,” “project,” “potential,” “continue,” “assume,” “believe,” “intend,” “plan,” “forecast,” “goal,” and “estimate,” as well as similar expressions, are meant to identify such forward-looking statements. Potential risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in our forward-looking statements include, without limitation, those described under the heading “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the following:

Because of these and other risks and uncertainties, our actual future results may be materially different from the results indicated by any forward-looking statements. For additional information with respect to factors that could cause actual results to differ from the expectations stated in the forward-looking statements, see “Risk Factors” under Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, our past results of operations do not necessarily indicate our future results. Therefore, we caution you not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking information and statements.

All forward-looking statements in this report are based on information available to us as of the date of this report. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in our forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee you that these expectations will be achieved. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or otherwise revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

PART I

Item 1. Business. General

First Community Corporation (the “Company”), a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, was incorporated under the laws of South Carolina in 1994 primarily to own and control all of the capital stock of First Community Bank (the “Bank”), which commenced operations in August 1995. The Bank’s primary federal regulator is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). The Bank is also regulated and examined by the South Carolina Board of Financial Institutions (the “S.C. Board”).

We engage in a commercial banking business from our main office in Lexington, South Carolina and our 15 full-service offices located in the Midlands of South Carolina to include: Lexington County (6), Richland County (4), Newberry County (2) and Kershaw County (1) and the Central Savannah River area to include: Aiken County (1) and Augusta (1) which is located in Richmond County, Georgia. In addition, we conduct business from a loan production office located in Greenville County, South Carolina and a mortgage loan production office in Richland County, South Carolina. We offer a wide-range of traditional banking products and services for professionals and small-to medium-sized businesses, including consumer and commercial, mortgage, brokerage and investment, and insurance services. We also offer online banking to our customers.

We have grown organically and through acquisitions. On September 26, 2014, the Bank completed its acquisition of approximately $40 million in deposits and $8.7 million in loans from First South Bank (“First South”). This represented all of the deposits and a portion of the loans at First South’s Columbia, South Carolina banking office located at 1333 Main Street. The Bank paid a premium of $714 thousand for the deposits and loans acquired. The deposits and loans from First South were consolidated into the Bank’s branch located at 1213 Lady Street, Columbia, South Carolina. The premium paid of $714 thousand plus fair value adjustments recorded on loans and deposits acquired resulted in a core deposit intangible of $365.9 thousand and other identifiable intangible assets in the amount of $538.6 thousand.

On February 1, 2014, we completed our acquisition of Savannah River Financial Corporation (“Savannah River”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Savannah River Banking Company. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Savannah River shareholders received either $11.00 in cash or 1.0618 shares of the Company’s common stock, or a combination thereof, for each Savannah River share they owned immediately prior to the merger, subject to the limitation that 60% of the outstanding shares of Savannah River common stock were exchanged for cash and 40% of the outstanding shares of Savannah River common stock were exchanged for shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company issued 1,274,330 shares of common stock in the merger. This acquisition added two additional branches to our branch network, one located in Aiken, South Carolina and the other in Augusta, Georgia.

Our stock trades on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “FCCO”.

Location and Service Area

The Bank is engaged in a general commercial and retail banking business, emphasizing the needs of small-to-medium sized businesses, professional concerns and individuals, primarily in Richland, Lexington, Kershaw and Newberry Counties of South Carolina and the surrounding areas. We refer to these counties as the “Midlands” region of South Carolina. Lexington County is home to six of our Bank’s branch offices. Richland County, in which we have four branches as well as a mortgage loan production office, is the second largest county in South Carolina. Columbia is located within Richland County and is South Carolina’s capital city and is geographically positioned in the center of the state between the industrialized Upstate region of South Carolina and the coastal city of Charleston, South Carolina. Intersected by three major interstate highways (I-20, I-77 and I-26), Columbia’s strategic location has contributed greatly to its commercial appeal and growth. With the acquisition of Savannah River we added a branch in Aiken, South Carolina and a branch in Augusta, Georgia (Richmond County). We refer to the three-county area of Aiken County (South Carolina), Richmond County (Georgia) and Columbia County (Georgia) as the Central Savannah River Area market (CSRA region). During 2016, we activated a loan production office in Greenville County, located in the upstate of South Carolina.

The following table shows data as to deposits, market share and population for the three market areas (deposits in thousands):

We believe that we serve attractive banking markets with long-term growth potential and a well educated employment base that helps to support our diverse and relatively stable local economy. According to 2010 U.S. Census Data, Aiken, Richmond, Lexington, Richland, Kershaw and Newberry counties had median household incomes of $44,509, $37,749, $54,069, $48,359, $43,765 and $41,718, respectively, compared to $44,779 for South Carolina and $49,179 for Georgia as a whole. The principal components of the economy within our market areas are service industries, government and education, and wholesale and retail trade. The largest employers in the Midlands market area, each of which employs in excess of 3,000 people, are Fort Jackson Army Base, the University of South Carolina, Palmetto Health Alliance, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Lexington Medical Center. The largest employers in our CSRA market area, each of which employs in excess of 3,000 people, are Fort Gordon Army Base, Georgia Regents University, Georgia Regents Health System, University Hospital and Savannah River Nuclear Solutions. Greenville County major employers include, among others, Bon Secours St Francis Health System, Michelin North America Inc., and GE Power and Water. Company believes that this diversified economic base has reduced, and will likely continue to reduce, economic volatility in our market areas. Our markets have experienced steady economic and population growth over the past 10 years, and we expect that the area, as well as the service industry needed to support it, will continue to grow.

Banking Services

We offer a full range of deposit services that are typically available in most banks and thrift institutions, including checking accounts, NOW accounts, savings accounts and other time deposits of various types, ranging from daily money market accounts to longer-term certificates of deposit. The transaction accounts and time certificates are tailored to our principal market area at rates competitive to those offered in the area. In addition, we offer certain retirement account services, such as Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”). All deposit accounts are insured by the FDIC up to the maximum amount allowed by law (currently, $250,000, subject to aggregation rules).

We also offer a full range of commercial and personal loans. Commercial loans include both secured and unsecured loans for working capital (including inventory and receivables), business expansion (including acquisition of real estate and improvements), and the purchase of equipment and machinery. Consumer loans include secured and unsecured loans for financing automobiles, home improvements, education, and personal investments. We also make real estate construction and acquisition loans. We originate fixed and variable rate mortgage loans, substantially all of which are sold into the secondary market. Our lending activities are subject to a variety of lending limits imposed by federal law. While differing limits apply in certain circumstances based on the type of loan or the nature of the borrower (including the borrower’s relationship to the bank), in general, we are subject to a loans-to-one-borrower limit of an amount equal to 15% of the Bank’s unimpaired capital and surplus, or 25% of the unimpaired capital and surplus if the excess over 15% is approved by the board of directors of the Bank and is fully secured by readily marketable collateral. As a result, our lending limit will increase or decrease in response to increases or decreases in the Bank’s level of capital. Based upon the capitalization of the Bank at December 31, 2016, the maximum amount we could lend to one borrower is $13.9 million. In addition, we may not make any loans to any director, officer, employee, or 10% shareholder of the Company or the Bank unless the loan is approved by our board of directors and is made on terms not more favorable to such person than would be available to a person not affiliated with the Bank.

Other bank services include internet banking, cash management services, safe deposit boxes, travelers checks, direct deposit of payroll and social security checks, and automatic drafts for various accounts. We offer non-deposit investment products and other investment brokerage services through a registered representative with an affiliation through LPL Financial. We are associated with Jeannie, Star, and Plus networks of automated teller machines and MasterCard debit cards that may be used by our customers throughout South Carolina and other regions. We also offer VISA and MasterCard credit card services through a correspondent bank as our agent.

We currently do not exercise trust powers, but we can begin to do so with the prior approval of our primary banking regulators, the FDIC and the S.C. Board.

Competition

The banking business is highly competitive. We compete as a financial intermediary with other commercial banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions and money market mutual funds operating in Richland, Lexington, Kershaw and Newberry Counties and elsewhere. As of June 30, 2016, there were 21 financial institutions operating approximately 189 offices in Lexington, Richland, Kershaw and Newberry Counties. With the acquisition of Savannah River Financial Corporation we added a branch in Aiken, South Carolina and one in Augusta, Georgia. These two counties, along with Columbia County (Georgia) which is contiguous to Richmond County, make up the area we refer to as the CSRA market. There are 16 financial institutions in the CSRA market operating 104 branches. The competition among the various financial institutions is based upon a variety of factors, including interest rates offered on deposit accounts, interest rates charged on loans, credit and service charges, the quality of services rendered, the convenience of banking facilities and, in the case of loans to large commercial borrowers, relative lending limits. Size gives larger banks certain advantages in competing for business from large corporations. These advantages include higher lending limits and the ability to offer services in other areas of South Carolina. As a result, we do not generally attempt to compete for the banking relationships of large corporations, but concentrate our efforts on small-to-medium sized businesses and individuals. We believe we have competed effectively in this market by offering quality and personal service. In addition, many of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive federal regulations that govern bank holding companies and federally insured banks.

Employees

As of December 31, 2016, we had 202 full-time employees. We believe that we have good relations with our employees.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

Both the Company and the Bank are subject to extensive state and federal banking laws and regulations that impose specific requirements or restrictions on and provide for general regulatory oversight of virtually all aspects of our operations. These laws and regulations are generally intended to protect depositors, not shareholders. The following summary is qualified by reference to the statutory and regulatory provisions discussed. Changes in applicable laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and prospects. Our operations may be affected by legislative changes and the policies of various regulatory authorities. We cannot predict the effect that fiscal or monetary policies, economic control, or new federal or state legislation may have on our business and earnings in the future.

We own 100% of the outstanding capital stock of the Bank, and, therefore, we are considered to be a bank holding company under the federal Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “Bank Holding Company Act”). As a result, we are primarily subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (the “Federal Reserve”) under the Bank Holding Company Act and its regulations promulgated there under. Moreover, as a bank holding company of a bank located in South Carolina, we also are subject to the South Carolina Banking and Branching Efficiency Act.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law in July 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act impacts financial institutions in numerous ways, including:

There are many provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act mandating regulators to adopt new regulations and conduct studies upon which future regulation may be based. While some have been issued, many remain to be issued. Governmental intervention and new regulations could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Basel Capital Standards. Regulatory capital rules released by the federal bank regulatory agencies in July 2013 to implement capital standards, referred to as Basel III and developed by an international body known as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, impose higher minimum capital requirements for bank holding companies and banks. The rules apply to all national and state banks and savings associations regardless of size and bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with more than $1 billion in total consolidated assets. More stringent requirements are imposed on “advanced approaches” banking organizations, which are organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets, with $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures, or that have opted in to the Basel II capital regime. The new regulatory capital rules became effective for the Company and the Bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period for certain provisions), and all of the requirements in the rules will be fully phased in by January 1, 2019.

The rules include certain new and higher risk-based capital and leverage requirements than those previously in place. Specifically, the following minimum capital requirements apply to us:

Under the rules, Tier 1 capital is redefined to include two components: Common Equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The new and highest form of capital, Common Equity Tier 1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital includes other perpetual instruments historically included in Tier 1 capital, such as noncumulative perpetual preferred stock. The rules permit bank holding companies with less than $15.0 billion in total consolidated assets to continue to include trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued before May 19, 2010 in Tier 1 capital, but not in Common Equity Tier 1 capital, subject to certain restrictions. Tier 2 capital consists of instruments that currently qualify in Tier 2 capital plus instruments that the rules have disqualified from Tier 1 capital treatment. Cumulative perpetual preferred stock, formerly includable in Tier 1 capital, is now included only in Tier 2 capital. Accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) is presumptively included in Common Equity Tier 1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. The rules provided a one-time opportunity at the end of the first quarter of 2015 for covered banking organizations to opt-out of much of this treatment of AOCI. We made this opt-out election and, as a result, will retain the pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

In addition, in order to avoid restrictions on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments to executives, a covered banking organization must maintain a “capital conservation buffer” on top of its minimum risk-based capital requirements. This buffer must consist solely of Tier 1 Common Equity, but the buffer applies to all three measurements (Common Equity Tier 1, Tier 1 capital and total capital). The capital conservation buffer will be phased in incrementally over time, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019, and will consist of an additional amount of common equity equal to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. As of January 1, 2017, we are required to hold a capital conservation buffer of 1.25%, increasing by 0.625% amount each successive year until 2019.

In general, the rules have had the effect of increasing capital requirements by increasing the risk weights on certain assets, including high volatility commercial real estate, certain loans past due 90 days or more or in nonaccrual status, mortgage servicing rights not includable in Common Equity Tier 1 capital, equity exposures, and claims on securities firms, that are used in the denominator of the three risk-based capital ratios.

Volcker Rule. Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, known as the “Volcker Rule,” prohibits any bank, bank holding company, or affiliate (referred to collectively as “banking entities”) from engaging in two types of activities: “proprietary trading” and the ownership or sponsorship of private equity or hedge funds that are referred to as “covered funds.” Proprietary trading is, in general, trading in securities on a short-term basis for a banking entity’s own account. Funds subject to the ownership and sponsorship prohibition are those not required to register with the SEC because they have only accredited investors or no more than 100 investors. In December 2013, our primary federal regulators, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, together with other federal banking agencies, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, finalized a regulation to implement the Volcker Rule. At December 31, 2016, the Company has evaluated our securities portfolio and has determined that we do not hold any covered funds.

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

Permitted Activities. Under the Bank Holding Company Act, a bank holding company is generally permitted to engage in, or acquire direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company engaged in, the following activities:

·          banking or managing or controlling banks;

·          furnishing services to or performing services for our subsidiaries; and

·          any activity that the Federal Reserve determines to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking.

Activities that the Federal Reserve has found to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking include:

·          factoring accounts receivable;

·          making, acquiring, brokering or servicing loans and usual related activities;

·          leasing personal or real property;

·          operating a non-bank depository institution, such as a savings association;

·          trust company functions;

·          financial and investment advisory activities;

·          conducting discount securities brokerage activities;

·          underwriting and dealing in government obligations and money market instruments;

·          providing specified management consulting and counseling activities;

·          performing selected data processing services and support services;

·          acting as agent or broker in selling credit life insurance and other types of insurance in connection with credit transactions; and

·          performing selected insurance underwriting activities.

As a bank holding company, we also can elect to be treated as a “financial holding company,” which would allow us to engage in a broader array of activities. In sum, a financial holding company can engage in activities that are financial in nature or incidental or complimentary to financial activities, including insurance underwriting, sales and brokerage activities, providing financial and investment advisory services, underwriting services and limited merchant banking activities. We have not sought financial holding company status, but may elect such status in the future as our business matures. If we were to elect in writing for financial holding company status, each insured depository institution we control would have to be well capitalized, well managed and have at least a satisfactory rating under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) (discussed below).

The Federal Reserve has the authority to order a bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any of these activities or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when it has reasonable cause to believe that the bank holding company’s continued ownership, activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of it or any of its bank subsidiaries.

Change in Control. Two statutes, the Bank Holding Company Act and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with regulations promulgated under them, require some form of regulatory review before any company may acquire “control” of a bank or a bank holding company. Under the Bank Holding Company Act, control is deemed to exist if a company acquires 25% or more of any class of voting securities of a bank holding company; controls the election of a majority of the members of the board of directors; or exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company. In guidance issued in 2008, the Federal Reserve has stated that an investor generally will not be viewed as having a controlling influence over a bank holding company when the investor holds, in aggregate, less than 33% of the total equity of a bank or bank holding company (voting and nonvoting equity), provided such investor’s ownership does not include 15% or more of any class of voting securities. Prior Federal Reserve approval is necessary before an entity acquires sufficient control to become a bank holding company. Natural persons, certain non-business trusts, and other entities are not treated as companies (or bank holding companies), and their acquisitions are not subject to review under the Bank Holding Company Act. State laws generally, including South Carolina law, require state approval before an acquirer may become the holding company of a state bank.

Under the Change in Bank Control Act, a person or company is generally required to file a notice with the Federal Reserve if it will, as a result of the transaction, own or control 10% or more of any class of voting securities or direct the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company and either if the bank or bank holding company has registered securities or if the acquirer would be the largest holder of that class of voting securities after the acquisition. For a change in control at the holding company level, both the Federal Reserve and the subsidiary bank’s primary federal regulator must approve the change in control; at the bank level, only the bank’s primary federal regulator is involved. Transactions subject to the Bank Holding Company Act are exempt from Change in Control Act requirements. For state banks, state laws, including that of South Carolina, typically require approval by the state bank regulator as well.

Source of Strength. There are a number of obligations and restrictions imposed by law and regulatory policy on bank holding companies with regard to their depository institution subsidiaries that are designed to minimize potential loss to depositors and to the FDIC insurance funds in the event that the depository institution becomes in danger of defaulting under its obligations to repay deposits. Under a policy of the Federal Reserve, a bank holding company is required to serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary depository institutions and to commit resources to support such institutions in circumstances where it might not do so absent such policy. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), to avoid receivership of its insured depository institution subsidiary, a bank holding company is required to guarantee the compliance of any insured depository institution subsidiary that may become “undercapitalized” within the terms of any capital restoration plan filed by such subsidiary with its appropriate federal banking agency up to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5% of the institution’s total assets at the time the institution became undercapitalized, or (ii) the amount which is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all applicable capital standards as of the time the institution fails to comply with such capital restoration plan.

The Federal Reserve also has the authority under the Bank Holding Company Act to require a bank holding company to terminate any activity or relinquish control of a nonbank subsidiary (other than a nonbank subsidiary of a bank) upon the Federal Reserve’s determination that such activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness or stability of any subsidiary depository institution of the bank holding company. Further, federal law grants federal bank regulatory authorities’ additional discretion to require a bank holding company to divest itself of any bank or nonbank subsidiary if the agency determines that divestiture may aid the depository institution’s financial condition.

In addition, the “cross guarantee” provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) require insured depository institutions under common control to reimburse the FDIC for any loss suffered or reasonably anticipated by the FDIC as a result of the default of a commonly controlled insured depository institution or for any assistance provided by the FDIC to a commonly controlled insured depository institution in danger of default. The FDIC’s claim for damages is superior to claims of shareholders of the insured depository institution or its holding company, but is subordinate to claims of depositors, secured creditors and holders of subordinated debt (other than affiliates) of the commonly controlled insured depository institutions.

The FDIA also provides that amounts received from the liquidation or other resolution of any insured depository institution by any receiver must be distributed (after payment of secured claims) to pay the deposit liabilities of the institution prior to payment of any other general or unsecured senior liability, subordinated liability, general creditor or shareholder. This provision would give depositors a preference over general and subordinated creditors and shareholders in the event a receiver is appointed to distribute the assets of our Bank.

Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

Capital Requirements. The Federal Reserve imposes certain capital requirements on the bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act, including a minimum leverage ratio and a minimum ratio of “qualifying” capital to risk-weighted assets. These requirements are essentially the same as those that apply to the Bank and are described below under “First Community Bank—Capital Regulations.” Subject to our capital requirements and certain other restrictions, we are able to borrow money to make a capital contribution to the Bank, and these loans may be repaid from dividends paid from the Bank to the Company. Our ability to pay dividends depends on, among other things, the Bank’s ability to pay dividends to us, which is subject to regulatory restrictions as described below in “First Community Bank—Dividends.” We are also able to raise capital for contribution to the Bank by issuing securities without having to receive regulatory approval, subject to compliance with federal and state securities laws.

Dividends. Since the Company is a bank holding company, its ability to declare and pay dividends is dependent on certain federal and state regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies. In general, the Federal Reserve’s policies provide that dividends should be paid only out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the bank holding company appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve’s policies also require that a bank holding company serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks by standing ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to those banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and by maintaining the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks where necessary. In addition, under the prompt corrective action regulations, the ability of a bank holding company to pay dividends may be restricted if a subsidiary bank becomes undercapitalized. These regulatory policies could affect the ability of the Company to pay dividends or otherwise engage in capital distributions.

In addition, since the Company is legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and does not conduct stand-alone operations, its ability to pay dividends depends on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to it, which is also subject to regulatory restrictions as described below in “First Community Bank – Dividends.”

South Carolina State Regulation. As a South Carolina bank holding company under the South Carolina Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, we are subject to limitations on sale or merger and to regulation by the S.C. Board. We are not required to obtain the approval of the S.C. Board prior to acquiring the capital stock of a national bank, but we must notify them at least 15 days prior to doing so. We must receive the S.C. Board’s approval prior to engaging in the acquisition of a South Carolina state chartered bank or another South Carolina bank holding company.

First Community Bank

As a South Carolina state bank, the Bank’s primary federal regulator is the FDIC and the Bank is also regulated and examined by the S.C. Board. Deposits in the Bank are insured by the FDIC up to a maximum amount of $250,000. The FDIC insurance coverage limit applies per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category.

The S.C. Board and the FDIC regulate or monitor virtually all areas of the Bank’s operations, including:

These agencies, and the federal and state laws applicable to the Bank’s operations, extensively regulate various aspects of our banking business, including, among other things, permissible types and amounts of loans, investments and other activities, capital adequacy, branching, interest rates on loans and on deposits, the maintenance of reserves on demand deposit liabilities, and the safety and soundness of our banking practices.

All insured institutions must undergo regular on-site examinations by their appropriate banking agency. The cost of examinations of insured depository institutions and any affiliates may be assessed by the appropriate federal banking agency against each institution or affiliate as it deems necessary or appropriate. Insured institutions are required to submit annual reports to the FDIC, their federal regulatory agency, and state supervisor when applicable. The FDIC has developed a method for insured depository institutions to provide supplemental disclosure of the estimated fair market value of assets and liabilities, to the extent feasible and practicable, in any balance sheet, financial statement, report of condition or any other report of any insured depository institution. The FDIC and the other federal banking regulatory agencies also have issued standards for all insured depository institutions relating, among other things, to the following:

Prompt Corrective Action. The FDICIA established a “prompt corrective action” program in which every bank is placed in one of five regulatory categories, depending primarily on its regulatory capital levels. The FDIC and the other federal banking regulators are permitted to take increasingly severe action as a bank’s capital position or financial condition declines below the “Adequately Capitalized” level described below. Regulators are also empowered to place in receivership or require the sale of a bank to another depository institution when a bank’s leverage ratio reaches two percent. Better capitalized institutions are generally subject to less onerous regulation and supervision than banks with lesser amounts of capital. The FDIC’s regulations set forth five capital categories, each with specific regulatory consequences. The categories are:

If the FDIC determines, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, that the bank is in an unsafe or unsound condition, the regulator is authorized to reclassify the bank to the next lower capital category (other than critically undercapitalized) and require the submission of a plan to correct the unsafe or unsound condition.

If a bank is not well capitalized, it cannot accept brokered deposits without prior regulatory approval. In addition, a bank that is not well capitalized cannot offer an effective yield in excess of 75 basis points over interest paid on deposits of comparable size and maturity in such institution’s normal market area for deposits accepted from within its normal market area, or national rate paid on deposits of comparable size and maturity for deposits accepted outside the bank’s normal market area. Moreover, the FDIC generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be categorized as undercapitalized. Undercapitalized institutions are subject to growth limitations (an undercapitalized institution may not acquire another institution, establish additional branch offices or engage in any new line of business unless determined by the appropriate federal banking agency to be consistent with an accepted capital restoration plan, or unless the FDIC determines that the proposed action will further the purpose of prompt corrective action) and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The agencies may not accept a capital restoration plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with the capital restoration plan. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of an amount equal to 5.0% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became categorized as undercapitalized or the amount that is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards applicable with respect to such institution as of the time it fails to comply with the plan. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is categorized as significantly undercapitalized.

Significantly undercapitalized categorized depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become categorized as adequately capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. The appropriate federal banking agency may take any action authorized for a significantly undercapitalized institution if an undercapitalized institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fails in any material respect to implement a plan accepted by the agency. A critically undercapitalized institution is subject to having a receiver or conservator appointed to manage its affairs and for loss of its charter to conduct banking activities.

An insured depository institution may not pay a management fee to a bank holding company controlling that institution or any other person having control of the institution if, after making the payment, the institution, would be undercapitalized. In addition, an institution cannot make a capital distribution, such as a dividend or other distribution that is in substance a distribution of capital to the owners of the institution if following such a distribution the institution would be undercapitalized. Thus, if payment of such a management fee or the making of such would cause a bank to become undercapitalized, it could not pay a management fee or dividend to the bank holding company.

As of December 31, 2016, the Bank was deemed to be “well capitalized.”

Standards for Safety and Soundness. The FDIA also requires the federal banking regulatory agencies to prescribe, by regulation or guideline, operational and managerial standards for all insured depository institutions relating to: (i) internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems; (ii) loan documentation; (iii) credit underwriting; (iv) interest rate risk exposure; and (v) asset growth. The agencies also must prescribe standards for asset quality, earnings, and stock valuation, as well as standards for compensation, fees and benefits. The federal banking agencies have adopted regulations and Interagency Guidelines Prescribing Standards for Safety and Soundness to implement these required standards. These guidelines set forth the safety and soundness standards that the federal banking agencies use to identify and address problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. Under the regulations, if the FDIC determines that the Bank fails to meet any standards prescribed by the guidelines, the agency may require the Bank to submit to the agency an acceptable plan to achieve compliance with the standard, as required by the FDIC. The final regulations establish deadlines for the submission and review of such safety and soundness compliance plans.

Regulatory Examination. The FDIC also requires the Bank to prepare annual reports on the Bank’s financial condition and to conduct an annual audit of its financial affairs in compliance with its minimum standards and procedures.

All insured institutions must undergo regular on-site examinations by their appropriate banking agency. The cost of examinations of insured depository institutions and any affiliates may be assessed by the appropriate federal banking agency against each institution or affiliate as it deems necessary or appropriate. Insured institutions are required to submit annual reports to the FDIC, their federal regulatory agency, and state supervisor when applicable. The FDIC has developed a method for insured depository institutions to provide supplemental disclosure of the estimated fair market value of assets and liabilities, to the extent feasible and practicable, in any balance sheet, financial statement, report of condition or any other report of any insured depository institution. The federal banking regulatory agencies prescribe, by regulation, standards for all insured depository institutions and depository institution holding companies relating, among other things, to the following:

Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders. The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and its other subsidiaries. Various legal limitations restrict the Bank from lending or otherwise supplying funds to the Company or its non-bank subsidiaries. The Company and the Bank are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve Regulation W.

Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act places limits on the amount of loans or extensions of credit by a bank to any affiliate, including its holding company, and on a bank’s investments in, or certain other transactions with, affiliates and on the amount of advances to third parties collateralized by the securities or obligations of any affiliates of the bank. Section 23A also applies to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that cause a bank to have credit exposure to an affiliate. The aggregate of all covered transactions is limited in amount, as to any one affiliate, to 10% of the Bank’s capital and surplus and, as to all affiliates combined, to 20% of the Bank’s capital and surplus. Furthermore, within the foregoing limitations as to amount, each covered transaction must meet specified collateral requirements. The Bank is forbidden to purchase low quality assets from an affiliate.

Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, among other things, prohibits an institution from engaging in certain transactions with certain affiliates unless the transactions are on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to such institution or its subsidiaries, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with nonaffiliated companies. If there are no comparable transactions, a bank’s (or one of its subsidiaries’) affiliate transaction must be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that in good faith would be offered to, or would apply to, nonaffiliated companies. These requirements apply to all transactions subject to Section 23A as well as to certain other transactions.

The affiliates of a bank include any holding company of the bank, any other company under common control with the bank (including any company controlled by the same shareholders who control the bank), any subsidiary of the bank that is itself a bank, any company in which the majority of the directors or trustees also constitute a majority of the directors or trustees of the bank or holding company of the bank, any company sponsored and advised on a contractual basis by the bank or an affiliate, and any mutual fund advised by a bank or any of the bank’s affiliates. Regulation W generally excludes all non-bank and non-savings association subsidiaries of banks from treatment as affiliates, except to the extent that the Federal Reserve decides to treat these subsidiaries as affiliates.

The Bank is also subject to certain restrictions on extensions of credit to executive officers, directors, certain principal stockholders, and their related interests. Extensions of credit include derivative transactions, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and lending transactions to the extent that such transactions cause a bank to have credit exposure to an insider. Any extension of credit to an insider (i) must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral requirements, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with unrelated third parties and (ii) must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features

Dividends. The Company’s principal source of cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to its shareholders, is dividends it receives from the Bank. Statutory and regulatory limitations apply to the Bank’s payment of dividends to the Company. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board. The FDIC also has the authority under federal law to enjoin a bank from engaging in what in its opinion constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting its business, including the payment of a dividend under certain circumstances.

Branching. Federal legislation permits out-of-state acquisitions by bank holding companies, interstate branching by banks, and interstate merging by banks. The Dodd-Frank Act removed previous state law restrictions on de novo interstate branching in states such as South Carolina and Georgia. This change effectively permits out of state banks to open de novo branches in states where the laws of such state would permit a bank chartered by that sate to open a de novo branch.

Anti-Tying Restrictions. Under amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act and Federal Reserve regulations, a bank is prohibited from engaging in certain tying or reciprocity arrangements with its customers. In general, a bank may not extend credit, lease, sell property, or furnish any services or fix or vary the consideration for these on the condition that (i) the customer obtain or provide some additional credit, property, or services from or to the bank, the bank holding company or subsidiaries thereof or (ii) the customer may not obtain some other credit, property, or services from a competitor, except to the extent reasonable conditions are imposed to assure the soundness of the credit extended. Certain arrangements are permissible: a bank may offer combined-balance products and may otherwise offer more favorable terms if a customer obtains two or more traditional bank products; and certain foreign transactions are exempt from the general rule. A bank holding company or any bank affiliate also is subject to anti-tying requirements in connection with electronic benefit transfer services.

Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA requires that the FDIC evaluate the record of the Bank in meeting the credit needs of its local community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. These factors are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions, and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria could impose additional requirements and limitations on our Bank.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “GLBA”) made various changes to the CRA. Among other changes, CRA agreements with private parties must be disclosed and annual CRA reports must be made available to a bank’s primary federal regulator. A bank holding company will not be permitted to become a financial holding company and no new activities authorized under the GLBA may be commenced by a holding company or by a bank financial subsidiary if any of its bank subsidiaries received less than a satisfactory CRA rating in its latest CRA examination.

Financial Subsidiaries. Under the GLBA, subject to certain conditions imposed by their respective banking regulators, national and state-chartered banks are permitted to form “financial subsidiaries” that may conduct financial or incidental activities, thereby permitting bank subsidiaries to engage in certain activities that previously were impermissible. The GLBA imposes several safeguards and restrictions on financial subsidiaries, including that the parent bank’s equity investment in the financial subsidiary be deducted from the bank’s assets and tangible equity for purposes of calculating the bank’s capital adequacy. In addition, the GLBA imposes new restrictions on transactions between a bank and its financial subsidiaries similar to restrictions applicable to transactions between banks and non-bank affiliates.

Consumer Protection Regulations. Activities of the Bank are subject to a variety of statutes and regulations designed to protect consumers. Interest and other charges collected or contracted for by the Bank are subject to state usury laws and federal laws concerning interest rates. The Bank’s loan operations are also subject to federal laws applicable to credit transactions, such as:

The deposit operations of the Bank also are subject to:

Enforcement Powers. The Bank and its “institution-affiliated parties,” including its management, employee’s agent’s independent contractors and consultants, such as attorneys and accountants, and others who participate in the conduct of the financial institution’s affairs, are subject to potential civil and criminal penalties for violations of law, regulations or written orders of a government agency. These practices can include the failure of an institution to timely file required reports or the filing of false or misleading information or the submission of inaccurate reports. Civil penalties may be as high as $1,000,000 a day for such violations. Criminal penalties for some financial institution crimes have been increased to twenty years. In addition, regulators are provided with greater flexibility to commence enforcement actions against institutions and institution-affiliated parties. Possible enforcement actions include the termination of deposit insurance. Furthermore, banking agencies’ powers to issue cease-and-desist orders have been expanded. Such orders may, among other things, require affirmative action to correct any harm resulting from a violation or practice, including restitution, reimbursement, indemnifications or guarantees against loss. A financial institution may also be ordered to restrict its growth, dispose of certain assets, rescind agreements or contracts, or take other actions as determined by the ordering agency to be appropriate.

Anti-Money Laundering. Financial institutions must maintain anti-money laundering programs that include established internal policies, procedures, and controls; a designated compliance officer; an ongoing employee training program; and testing of the program by an independent audit function. The Company and the Bank are also prohibited from entering into specified financial transactions and account relationships and must meet enhanced standards for due diligence and “knowing your customer” in their dealings with foreign financial institutions and foreign customers. Financial institutions must take reasonable steps to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and to report any suspicious transactions, and recent laws provide law enforcement authorities with increased access to financial information maintained by banks. Anti-money laundering obligations have been substantially strengthened as a result of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (which we refer to as the “USA PATRIOT Act”), enacted in 2001 and renewed through 2019. Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations and are required to consider compliance in connection with the regulatory review of applications. The regulatory authorities have been active in imposing cease and desist orders and money penalty sanctions against institutions that have not complied with these requirements.

USA PATRIOT Act/Bank Secrecy Act. Financial institutions must maintain anti-money laundering programs that include established internal policies, procedures, and controls; a designated compliance officer; an ongoing employee training program; and testing of the program by an independent audit function. The USA PATRIOT Act, amended, in part, the Bank Secrecy Act and provides for the facilitation of information sharing among governmental entities and financial institutions for the purpose of combating terrorism and money laundering by enhancing anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws, as well as enhanced information collection tools and enforcement mechanics for the U.S. government, including: (i) requiring standards for verifying customer identification at account opening; (ii) rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering; (iii) reports by nonfinancial trades and businesses filed with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for transactions exceeding $10,000; and (iv) filing suspicious activities reports if a bank believes a customer may be violating U.S. laws and regulations and requires enhanced due diligence requirements for financial institutions that administer, maintain, or manage private bank accounts or correspondent accounts for non-U.S. persons. Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations and are required to consider compliance in connection with the regulatory review of applications.

On February 18, 2015, the Bank entered into a Stipulation to the Issuance of a Consent Order with the FDIC consenting to the issuance by the FDIC of a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”). The Consent Order required the Bank to take certain actions with respect to the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws and regulations (collectively referred to as the “BSA”), including, among other things, enhancing its annual BSA risk assessment processes; revising certain internal controls related to BSA; and further developing and implementing certain BSA-related training programs. The Bank took immediate actions to correct and resolve all of the BSA issues included in the Consent Order and, on January 28, 2016, the FDIC advised the Bank that the Consent Order had been terminated.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) can send to the banking regulatory agencies lists of the names of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. The Bank can be requested, to search its records for any relationships or transactions with persons on those lists. If the Bank finds any relationships or transactions, it must file a suspicious activity report and contact the FBI.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which is a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”), is responsible for helping to insure that United States entities do not engage in transactions with “enemies” of the United States, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress. OFAC has sent, and will send, our banking regulatory agencies lists of names of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts. If the Bank finds a name on any transaction, account or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, it must freeze such account, file a suspicious activity report and notify the FBI. The Bank has appointed an OFAC compliance officer to oversee the inspection of its accounts and the filing of any notifications. The Bank actively checks high-risk OFAC areas such as new accounts, wire transfers and customer files. The Bank performs these checks utilizing software, which is updated each time a modification is made to the lists provided by OFAC and other agencies of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.

Privacy, Data Security and Credit Reporting. Financial institutions are required to disclose their policies for collecting and protecting confidential information. Customers generally may prevent financial institutions from sharing nonpublic personal financial information with nonaffiliated third parties except under narrow circumstances, such as the processing of transactions requested by the consumer. Additionally, financial institutions generally may not disclose consumer account numbers to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing or other marketing to consumers. It is the Bank’s policy not to disclose any personal information unless required by law.

Recent cyber attacks against banks and other institutions that resulted in unauthorized access to confidential customer information have prompted the Federal banking agencies to issue several warnings and extensive guidance on cyber security. The agencies are likely to devote more resources to this part of their safety and soundness examination than they have in the past.

In addition, pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the “FACT Act”) and the implementing regulations of the federal banking agencies and Federal Trade Commission, the Bank is required to have in place an “identity theft red flags” program to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft. The Bank has implemented an identity theft red flags program designed to meet the requirements of the FACT Act and the joint final rules. Additionally, the FACT Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to generally prohibit a person from using information received from an affiliate to make a solicitation for marketing purposes to a consumer, unless the consumer is given notice and a reasonable opportunity and a reasonable and simple method to opt out of the making of such solicitations.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies. Our earnings are affected by domestic economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States government and its agencies. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have had, and are likely to continue to have, an important impact on the operating results of commercial banks through its power to implement national monetary policy in order, among other things, to curb inflation or combat a recession. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve have major effects upon the levels of bank loans, investments and deposits through its open market operations in United States government securities and through its regulation of the discount rate on borrowings of member banks and the reserve requirements against member bank deposits. It is not possible to predict the nature or impact of future changes in monetary and fiscal policies. In December 2016, the Federal Open Market Committee raised the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points and indicated the potential for further gradual increases in the federal funds rate depending on the economic outlook.

Insurance of Accounts and Regulation by the FDIC. The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC. As insurer, the FDIC imposes deposit insurance premiums and is authorized to conduct examinations of and to require reporting by FDIC insured institutions. It also may prohibit any FDIC insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious risk to the insurance fund. The FDIC also has the authority to initiate enforcement actions against savings institutions, after giving the bank’s regulatory authority an opportunity to take such action, and may terminate the deposit insurance if it determines that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices or is in an unsafe or unsound condition.

As an FDIC-insured bank, the Bank must pay deposit insurance assessments to the FDIC based on its average total assets minus its average tangible equity. The Bank’s assessment rates are currently based on its risk classification (i.e., the level of risk it poses to the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund). Institutions classified as higher risk pay assessments at higher rates than institutions that pose a lower risk. In addition, following the fourth consecutive quarter (and any applicable phase-in period) where an institution’s total consolidated assets equal or exceed $10 billion, the FDIC will use a performance score and a loss-severity score to calculate an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses an institution’s capital level and regulatory supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess an institution’s ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations. In addition to ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances.

The FDIC’s deposit insurance fund is currently underfunded, and the FDIC has raised assessment rates and imposed special assessments on certain institutions during recent years to raise funds. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the minimum designated reserve ratio for the deposit insurance fund is 1.35% of the estimated total amount of insured deposits. In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a restoration plan to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the fund and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking if required.

In addition, FDIC insured institutions are required to pay a Financing Corporation assessment to fund the interest on bonds issued to resolve thrift failures in the 1980s. The Financing Corporation quarterly assessment for the fourth quarter of 2014 equaled 1.725 basis points for each $100 of average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. These assessments, which may be revised based upon the level of deposits, will continue until the bonds mature in the years 2017 through 2019. The amount assessed on individual institutions is in addition to the amount, if any, paid for deposit insurance according to the FDIC’s risk-related assessment rate schedules. Assessment rates may be adjusted quarterly to reflect changes in the assessment base.

The FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any insured depository institution, including the Bank, if it determines after a hearing that the institution has engaged in unsafe or 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. It also may suspend deposit insurance temporarily during the hearing process for the permanent termination of insurance, if the institution has no tangible capital. If insurance of accounts is terminated, the accounts at the institution at the time of the termination, less subsequent withdrawals, shall continue to be insured for a period of six months to two years, as determined by the FDIC. Management is not aware of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of the Bank’s deposit insurance.

Incentive Compensation. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulators and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities having at least $1 billion in total assets that encourage inappropriate risks by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements. The agencies proposed such regulations in April 2011. However, the 2011 proposal was replaced with a new proposal in May 2016, which makes explicit that the involvement of risk management and control personnel includes not only compliance, risk management and internal audit, but also legal, human resources, accounting, financial reporting and finance roles responsible for identifying, measuring, monitoring or controlling risk-taking. A final rule had not been adopted as of December 31, 2016.

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC issued a comprehensive 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 guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, 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 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.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the federal banking agencies, the SEC, and certain other federal agencies to jointly issue a regulation on incentive compensation. The agencies proposed such a rule in 2011, which reflected the 2010 guidance. However, the 2011 proposal was replaced with a new proposal rule in May 2016, which makes explicit that the involvement of risk management and control personnel includes not only compliance, risk management and internal audit, but also legal, human resources, accounting, financial reporting and finance roles responsible for identifying, measuring, monitoring or controlling risk-taking. A final rule had not been adopted as of December 31, 2016.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be harmed by any of the following risks, or other risks that have not been identified or which we believe are immaterial or unlikely. Shareholders should carefully consider the risks described below in conjunction with the other information in this Form 10-K and the information incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes.

General Business Risks

Our business may be adversely affected by economic conditions.

Our financial performance generally, and in particular the ability of borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, as well as demand for loans and other products and services we offer, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the primary markets where we operate and in the U.S. as a whole. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence; limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital; increases in inflation or interest rates; high unemployment, natural disasters; or a combination of these or other factors. While economic conditions in our local markets in South Carolina and Georgia have improved since the end of the economic recession, economic growth has been slow and uneven, unemployment remains relatively high, and concerns still exist over the federal deficit, government spending, and economic risks. A return of recessionary conditions and/or negative developments in the domestic and international credit markets may significantly affect the markets in which we do business, the value of our loans and investments, and our ongoing operations, costs and profitability. Declines in real estate value and sales volumes and high unemployment levels may result in higher than expected loan delinquencies and a decline in demand for our products and services. These negative events may cause us to incur losses and may adversely affect our capital, liquidity, and financial condition.

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve, in an attempt to help the overall economy, has among other things, kept interest rates low through its targeted federal funds rate and the purchase of U.S. Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. The Federal Reserve increased the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points in December 2016 and indicated the potential for further gradual increases in the target rate depending on the economic outlook. As the federal funds rate increases, market interest rates will likely rise, which may negatively impact the housing markets and the U.S. economic recovery.

Our decisions regarding credit risk and reserves for loan losses may materially and adversely affect our business.

Making loans and other extensions of credit is an essential element of our business. Although we seek to mitigate risks inherent in lending by adhering to specific underwriting practices, our loans and other extensions of credit may not be repaid. The risk of nonpayment is affected by a number of factors, including:

We attempt to maintain an appropriate allowance for loan losses to provide for potential losses in our loan portfolio. We periodically determine the amount of the allowance based on consideration of several factors, including:

There is no precise method of predicting credit losses; therefore, we face the risk that charge-offs in future periods will exceed our allowance for loan losses and that additional increases in the allowance for loan losses will be required. Additions to the allowance for loan losses would result in a decrease of our net income, and possibly our capital.

Federal and state regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of our management. Any increase in the amount of our provision or loans charged-off as required by these regulatory agencies could have a negative effect on our operating results.

We may have higher loan losses than we have allowed for in our allowance for loan losses.

Our actual loan losses could exceed our allowance for loan losses. Our average loan size continues to increase and reliance on our historic allowance for loan losses may not be adequate. As of December 31, 2016, approximately 84.1% of our loan portfolio (excluding loans held for sale) is composed of construction (8.4%) commercial mortgage (67.9%) and commercial loans (7.8%). Repayment of such loans is generally considered more subject to market risk than residential mortgage loans. Industry experience shows that a portion of loans will become delinquent and a portion of loans will require partial or entire charge-off. Regardless of the underwriting criteria utilized, losses may be experienced as a result of various factors beyond our control, including among other things, changes in market conditions affecting the value of loan collateral and problems affecting the credit of our borrowers.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate, and events that negatively impact the real estate market could hurt our business.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate. As of December 31, 2016, approximately 91.7% of our loans (excluding loans held for sale) had real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. While economic conditions and real estate in our local markets in South Carolina and Georgia have improved since the end of the economic recession, there can be no assurance that our local markets will not experience another economic decline. Deterioration in the real estate market could cause us to adjust our opinion of the level of credit quality in our loan portfolio. Such a determination may lead to an additional increase in our provisions for loan losses, which could also adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, fires and floods, which could be exacerbated by potential climate change, may cause uninsured damage and other loss of value to real estate that secures these loans and may also negatively impact our financial condition.

We have a concentration of credit exposure in commercial real estate and challenges faced by the commercial real estate market could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately $406.0 million in loans outstanding to borrowers whereby the collateral securing the loan was commercial real estate, representing approximately 73.4% of our total loans outstanding as of that date. Approximately 40.5% or $164.3 million, of this real estate are owner-occupied properties. Commercial real estate loans are generally viewed as having more risk of default than residential real estate loans. They are also typically larger than residential real estate loans and consumer loans and depend on cash flows from the owner’s business or the property to service the debt. Cash flows may be affected significantly by general economic conditions, and a downturn in the local economy or in occupancy rates in the local economy where the property is located could increase the likelihood of default. Because our loan portfolio contains a number of commercial real estate loans with relatively large balances, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in our level of non-performing loans. An increase in non-performing loans could result in a loss of earnings from these loans, an increase in the related provision for loan losses and an increase in charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our commercial real estate loans have grown 13.5% or $44.1 million, since December 31, 2015. The banking regulators are giving commercial real estate lending greater scrutiny, and may require banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans to implement more stringent underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as possibly higher levels of allowances for losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures.

Repayment of our commercial business loans is often dependent on the cash flows of the borrower, which may be unpredictable, and the collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value.

At December 31, 2016, commercial business loans comprised 7.8% of our total loan portfolio. Our commercial business loans are originated primarily based on the identified cash flow and general liquidity of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower and/or repayment capacity of any guarantor. The borrower’s cash flow may be unpredictable, and collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial business loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use. In addition, business assets may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise, and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. Accordingly, the repayment of commercial business loans depends primarily on the cash flow and credit worthiness of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral value provided by the borrower and liquidity of the guarantor.

Changes in the financial markets could impair the value of our investment portfolio.

Our investment securities portfolio is a significant component of our total earning assets. Total investment securities averaged $283.6 million in 2016, as compared to $275.5 million in 2015. This represents 34.8% and 35.9% of the average earning assets for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. At December 31, 2016, the portfolio was 32.6% of earning assets. Turmoil in the financial markets could impair the market value of our investment portfolio, which could adversely affect our net income and possibly our capital.

As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, securities which have unrealized losses were not considered to be “other than temporarily impaired,” and we believe it is more likely than not we will be able to hold these until they mature or recover our current book value. We currently maintain substantial liquidity which supports our ability to hold these investments until they mature, or until there is a market price recovery. However, if we were to cease to have the ability and intent to hold these investments until maturity or the market prices do not recover, and we were to sell these securities at a loss, it could adversely affect our net income and possibly our capital.

Economic challenges, especially those affecting the local markets in which we operate, may reduce our customer base, our level of deposits, and demand for financial products such as loans.

Our success depends significantly on growth, or lack thereof, in population, income levels, deposits and housing starts in the geographic markets in which we operate. The local economic conditions in these areas have a significant impact on our commercial, real estate and construction loans, the ability of borrowers to repay these loans, and the value of the collateral securing these loans. Unlike larger financial institutions that are more geographically diversified, we are a community banking franchise. Adverse changes in the economic conditions of the Southeast United States in general or in our primary markets in South Carolina and Georgia could negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations and profitability. While economic conditions in the states of South Carolina and Georgia, along with the U.S. and worldwide, have improved since the economic recession, there can be no assurance that these markets will not experience another economic decline. A return of recessionary conditions could result in the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business:

Our focus on lending to small to mid-sized community-based businesses may increase our credit risk.

Most of our commercial business and commercial real estate loans are made to small business or middle market customers. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities and have a heightened vulnerability to economic conditions. If general economic conditions in the markets in which we operate negatively impact this important customer sector, our results of operations and financial condition and the value of our common stock may be adversely affected. Moreover, a portion of these loans have been made by us in recent years and the borrowers may not have experienced a complete business or economic cycle. Furthermore, the deterioration of our borrowers’ businesses may hinder their ability to repay their loans with us, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

If we fail to effectively manage credit risk and interest rate risk, our business and financial condition will suffer.

We must effectively manage credit risk. There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks with respect to the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, risks relating to proper loan underwriting and guidelines, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions, risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers and risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral. There is no assurance that our credit risk monitoring and loan approval procedures are or will be adequate or will reduce the inherent risks associated with lending. Our credit administration personnel, policies and procedures may not adequately adapt to changes in economic or any other conditions affecting customers and the quality of our loan portfolio. Any failure to manage such credit risks may materially adversely affect our business and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

Our deposit insurance premiums could be substantially higher in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our future earnings.

The FDIC insures deposits at FDIC-insured depository institutions, such as the bank, up to applicable limits. The amount of a particular institution’s deposit insurance assessment is based on that institution’s risk classification under an FDIC risk-based assessment system. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to its regulators. Recent market developments and bank failures significantly depleted the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits. As a result of recent economic conditions and the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, banks are now assessed deposit insurance premiums based on the bank’s average consolidated total assets, and the FDIC has modified certain risk-based adjustments, which increase or decrease a bank’s overall assessment rate. This has resulted in increases to the deposit insurance assessment rates and thus raised deposit premiums for many insured depository institutions. If these increases are insufficient for the Deposit Insurance Fund to meet its funding requirements, further special assessments or increases in deposit insurance premiums may be required. We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums than the recently increased levels. Any future additional assessments, increases or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums could reduce our profitability, may limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities or otherwise negatively impact our operations.

Changes in prevailing interest rates may reduce our profitability.

Our results of operations depend in large part upon the level of our net interest income, which is the difference between interest income from interest- earning assets, such as loans and mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”), and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and other borrowings. Depending on the terms and maturities of our assets and liabilities, we believe it is more likely than not a significant change in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our profitability. Many factors cause changes in interest rates, including governmental monetary policies and domestic and international economic and political conditions. While we intend to manage the effects of changes in interest rates by adjusting the terms, maturities, and pricing of our assets and liabilities, our efforts may not be effective and our financial condition and results of operations could suffer.

We will face risks with respect to expansion through future acquisitions or mergers.

From time to time, we may seek to acquire other financial institutions or parts of those institutions. We may also expand into new markets or lines of business or offer new products or services. These activities would involve a number of risks, including:

New or acquired banking office facilities and other facilities may not be profitable.

We may not be able to identify profitable locations for new banking offices. The costs to start up new banking offices or to acquire existing branches, and the additional costs to operate these facilities, may increase our non-interest expense and decrease our earnings in the short term. If branches of other banks become available for sale, we may acquire those offices. It may be difficult to adequately and profitably manage our growth through the establishment or purchase of additional banking offices and we can provide no assurance that any such banking offices will successfully attract enough deposits to offset the expenses of their operation. In addition, any new or acquired banking offices will be subject to regulatory approval, and there can be no assurance that we will succeed in securing such approval.

We are dependent on key individuals, and the loss of one or more of these key individuals could curtail our growth and adversely affect our prospects.

Michael C. Crapps, our president and chief executive officer, has extensive and long-standing ties within our primary market area and substantial experience with our operations, and he has contributed significantly to our business. If we lose the services of Mr. Crapps, he would be difficult to replace and our business and development could be materially and adversely affected.

Our success also depends, in part, on our continued ability to attract and retain experienced loan originators, as well as other management personnel. Competition for personnel is intense, and we may not be successful in attracting or retaining qualified personnel. Our failure to compete for these personnel, or the loss of the services of several of such key personnel, could adversely affect our business strategy and seriously harm our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Our historical operating results may not be indicative of our future operating results.

We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth, and, consequently, our historical results of operations will not necessarily be indicative of our future operations. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and legislative considerations, and competition, may also impede our ability to expand our market presence. If we experience a significant decrease in our historical rate of growth, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected because a high percentage of our operating costs are fixed expenses.

We could experience a loss due to competition with other financial institutions.

We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, both within and beyond our principal markets, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, regional, community and internet banks within the various markets in which we operate. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative and regulatory changes and continued consolidation. In addition, as customer preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for banks to offer products and services in more areas in which they do not have a physical location and for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting), and merchant banking. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than we can.

Our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

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

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

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by the bank cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to the bank. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Failure to keep pace with technological change could adversely affect our business and we are in the process of converting to a new core processing and electronic banking system.

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. In addition, we depend on internal and outsourced technology to support all aspects of our business operations. We expect to convert from our internal core processing and electronic banking system that is used to manage customer accounts to a processing system offered by a third party software vendor with the conversion planned to occur in June 2017. Interruption or failure of these systems, in connection with our conversion or otherwise, could cause business loss as a result of adverse customer experiences and possible diminishing of our reputation, damage claims or civil fines. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry or to successfully convert to a new core processing and electronic banking system could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

New lines of business or new products and services may subject us to additional risk.

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

Consumers may decide not to use banks to complete their financial transactions.

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

Our underwriting decisions may materially and adversely affect our business.

While we generally underwrite the loans in our portfolio in accordance with our own internal underwriting guidelines and regulatory supervisory guidelines, in certain circumstances we have made loans which exceed either our internal underwriting guidelines, supervisory guidelines, or both. As of December 31, 2016, approximately $11.8 million of our loans, or 12.75% of our Bank’s regulatory capital, had loan-to-value ratios that exceeded regulatory supervisory guidelines, of which three loans totaling approximately $0.4 million had loan-to-value ratios of 100% or more. In addition, supervisory limits on commercial loan to value exceptions are set at 30% of our Bank’s capital. At December 31, 2016, $2.3 million of our commercial loans, or 2.53% of our Bank’s regulatory capital, exceeded the supervisory loan to value ratio. The number of loans in our portfolio with loan-to-value ratios in excess of supervisory guidelines, our internal guidelines, or both could increase the risk of delinquencies and defaults in our portfolio.

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information about clients and counterparties and our financial condition could be adversely affected if we rely on misleading information.

In deciding whether to extend credit or to enter into other transactions with clients and counterparties, we may rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of clients and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information, which we do not independently verify. We also may rely on representations of clients and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. For example, in deciding whether to extend credit to clients, we may assume that a customer’s audited financial statements conform with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent we rely on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading.

A failure in or breach of our operational or security systems or infrastructure, or those of our third party vendors and other service providers or other third parties, including as a result of cyber attacks, could disrupt our businesses, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, increase our costs, and cause losses.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Information security risks for financial institutions such as ours have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, and terrorists, activists, and other external parties. As customer, public, and regulatory expectations regarding operational and information security have increased, our operating systems and infrastructure must continue to be safeguarded and monitored for potential failures, disruptions, and breakdowns. Our business, financial, accounting, and data processing systems, or other operating systems and facilities may stop operating properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors, including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control. For example, there could be electrical or telecommunication outages; natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes; disease pandemics; events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts; and as described below, cyber attacks.

As noted above, our business relies on our digital technologies, computer and email systems, software and networks to conduct its operations. Although we have information security procedures and controls in place, our technologies, systems, networks, and our customers’ devices may become the target of cyber attacks or information security breaches that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss, or destruction of our or our customers’ or other third parties’ confidential information. Third parties with whom we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including financial intermediaries, or vendors that provide service or security solutions for our operations, and other unaffiliated third parties, including the South Carolina Department of Revenue, which had customer records exposed in a 2012 cyber attack, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints.

While we have disaster recovery and other policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of the evolving nature of these threats. As a result, cyber security and the continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes, and practices designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data, and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a focus for us. As threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate information security vulnerabilities. Disruptions or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our businesses and clients, or cyber attacks or security breaches of the networks, systems or devices that our clients use to access our products and services could result in client attrition, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, reputation damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs, any of which could have a material effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Negative public opinion surrounding our Company and the financial institutions industry generally could damage our reputation and adversely impact our earnings.

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

Legal and Regulatory Risks

We are subject to extensive regulation that could restrict our activities, have an adverse impact on our operations, and impose financial requirements or limitations on the conduct of our business.

We operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to examination, supervision, and comprehensive regulation by various regulatory agencies. We are subject to Federal Reserve regulation. Our Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, the regulating authority that insures customer deposits. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”), our Bank must comply with applicable regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board and the FHLB. Regulation by these agencies is intended primarily for the protection of our depositors and the deposit insurance fund and not for the benefit of our shareholders. Our Bank’s activities are also regulated under consumer protection laws applicable to our lending, deposit, and other activities. A sufficient claim against us under these laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Further, changes in laws, regulations and regulatory practices affecting the financial services industry could subject us to increased capital, liquidity and risk management requirements, create additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we 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 also result in heightened regulatory scrutiny and in sanctions by regulatory agencies (such as a memorandum of understanding, a written supervisory agreement or a cease and desist order), civil money penalties and/or reputation damage. Any of these consequences could restrict our ability to expand our business or could require us to raise additional capital or sell assets on terms that are not advantageous to us or our shareholders and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, such violations may occur despite our best efforts.

The final Basel III capital rules generally require insured depository institutions and their holding companies to hold more capital, which could adversely affect our financial condition and operations.

In July 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule that revised their risk based capital requirements and the method for calculating risk weighted assets to make them consistent with agreements that were reached by Basel III and certain provisions of the Dodd Frank Act. This rule substantially amended the regulatory risk based capital rules applicable to us. The requirements in the rule began to phase in on January 1, 2015 for the Company and the Bank. The requirements in the rule will be fully phased in by January 1, 2019.

The rule includes certain new and higher risk-based capital and leverage requirements than those currently in place. Specifically, the following minimum capital requirements apply to us:

Under the rule, Tier 1 capital is redefined to include two components: Common Equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The new and highest form of capital, Common Equity Tier 1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital includes other perpetual instruments historically included in Tier 1 capital, such as noncumulative perpetual preferred stock. Tier 2 capital consists of instruments that currently qualify in Tier 2 capital plus instruments that the rule has disqualified from Tier 1 capital treatment. Cumulative perpetual preferred stock, formerly includable in Tier 1 capital, is now included only in Tier 2 capital. Accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) is presumptively included in Common Equity Tier 1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. The rule provided a one-time opportunity at the end of the first quarter of 2015 for covered banking organizations to opt out of much of this treatment of AOCI. We made this opt-out election and, as a result, will retain the pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

In addition, in order to avoid restrictions on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments to executives, a covered banking organization must maintain a “capital conservation buffer” on top of its minimum risk-based capital requirements. This buffer must consist solely of Tier 1 Common Equity, but the buffer applies to all three measurements (Common Equity Tier 1, Tier 1 capital and total capital). The capital conservation buffer will be phased in incrementally over time, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019, and will consist of an additional amount of common equity equal to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. As of January 1, 2017, we are required to hold a capital conservation buffer of 1.25%, increasing by 0.625% each successive year until 2019.

In general, the rules have had the effect of increasing capital requirements by increasing the risk weights on certain assets, including high volatility commercial real estate, certain loans past due 90 days or more or in nonaccrual status, mortgage servicing rights not includable in Common Equity Tier 1 capital, equity exposures, and claims on securities firms, that are used in the denominator of the three risk-based capital ratios.

In addition, in the current economic and regulatory environment, bank regulators may impose capital requirements that are more stringent than those required by applicable existing regulations. The application of more stringent capital requirements for us could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, and result in regulatory actions if we are unable to comply with such requirements. Implementation of changes to asset risk weightings for risk based capital calculations, items included or deducted in calculating regulatory capital or additional capital conservation buffers, could result in management modifying our business strategy and could limit our ability to make distributions, including paying dividends or buying back our shares.

Federal, state and local consumer lending laws may restrict our ability to originate certain mortgage loans or increase our risk of liability with respect to such loans and could increase our cost of doing business.

Federal, state and local laws have been adopted that are intended to eliminate certain lending practices considered “predatory.” These laws prohibit practices such as steering borrowers away from more affordable products, selling unnecessary insurance to borrowers, repeatedly refinancing loans and making loans without a reasonable expectation that the borrowers will be able to repay the loans irrespective of the value of the underlying property. Loans with certain terms and conditions and that otherwise meet the definition of a “qualified mortgage” may be protected from liability to a borrower for failing to make the necessary determinations. In either case, we may find it necessary to tighten our mortgage loan underwriting standards in response to the CFPB rules, which may constrain our ability to make loans consistent with our business strategies. It is our policy not to make predatory loans and to determine borrowers’ ability to repay, but the law and related rules create the potential for increased liability with respect to our lending and loan investment activities. They increase our cost of doing business and, ultimately, may prevent us from making certain loans and cause us to reduce the average percentage rate or the points and fees on loans that we do make.

We are subject to federal and state fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to material penalties.

Federal and state fair lending laws and regulations, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act, impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The Department of Justice, CFPB and other federal and state agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. A successful challenge to our performance under the fair lending laws and regulations could adversely impact our rating under the CRA and result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on merger and acquisition activity and restrictions on expansion activity, which could negatively impact our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in accounting standards could materially affect our financial statements.

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”), the SEC and our bank regulators change the financial accounting and reporting standards, or the interpretation thereof, and guidance that govern the preparation and disclosure of external financial statements. For example, in 2012, the FASB issued a proposed standard on accounting for credit losses. The standard would replace multiple existing impairment models, including replacing an “incurred loss” model for loans with an “expected loss” model. The FASB has indicated a tentative effective date of January 1, 2019, and final guidance is expected to be issued in the second quarter of 2016. These changes are beyond our control, can be hard to predict and could materially impact how we report and disclose our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively, or apply an existing standard differently, also retrospectively, which under some circumstances could potentially result in a need to revise or restate prior period financial statements.

The Federal Reserve may require us to commit capital resources to support the Bank.

The Federal Reserve requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. Under the “source of strength” doctrine, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal bank regulators to require that all companies that directly or indirectly control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength for the institution. Under these requirements, in the future, we could be required to provide financial assistance to our Bank if the Bank experiences financial distress.

A capital injection may be required at times when we do not have the resources to provide it, and therefore we may be required to borrow the funds. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the holding company’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by the holding company in order to make the required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and will adversely impact the holding company’s cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

A downgrade of the U.S. credit rating could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In August 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from “AAA” to “AA+”. If U.S. debt ceiling, budget deficit or debt concerns, domestic or international economic or political concerns, or other factors were to result in further downgrades to the U.S. government’s sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness, it could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions. A downgrade of the U.S. government’s credit rating or any failure by the U.S. government to satisfy its debt obligations could create financial turmoil and uncertainty, which could weigh heavily on the global banking system. It is possible that any such impact could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Failure to comply with government regulation and supervision could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties, and damage to our reputation.

Our operations are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state, and local governmental authorities. Given the current disruption in the financial markets, we expect that the government will continue to pass new regulations and laws that will impact us. Compliance with such regulations may increase our costs and limit our ability to pursue business opportunities. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, and policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties, and damage to our reputation. While we have policies and procedures in place that are designed to prevent violations of these laws, regulations, and policies, there can be no assurance that such violations will not occur.

We are party to various lawsuits incidental to our business. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties such that the expenses and ultimate exposure with respect to many of these matters cannot be ascertained.

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

Risks Related to an Investment in Our Common Stock

Our ability to pay cash dividends is limited, and we may be unable to pay future dividends even if we desire to do so.

The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies. In general, the Federal Reserve’s policies provide that dividends should be paid only out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the bank holding company appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve’s policies also require that a bank holding company serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks by standing ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to those banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and by maintaining the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks where necessary. In addition, under the prompt corrective action regulations, the ability of a bank holding company to pay dividends may be restricted if a subsidiary bank becomes undercapitalized. These regulatory policies could affect the ability of the Company to pay dividends or otherwise engage in capital distributions.

Our ability to pay cash dividends may be limited by regulatory restrictions, by our Bank’s ability to pay cash dividends to the Company and by our need to maintain sufficient capital to support our operations. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board. If our Bank is not permitted to pay cash dividends to the Company, it is unlikely that we would be able to pay cash dividends on our common stock. Moreover, holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends only when, and if declared by our board of directors. Although we have historically paid cash dividends on our common stock, we are not required to do so and our board of directors could reduce or eliminate our common stock dividend in the future.

Our stock price may be volatile, which could result in losses to our investors and litigation against us.

Our stock price has been volatile in the past and several factors could cause the price to fluctuate substantially in the future. These factors include but are not limited to: actual or anticipated variations in earnings, changes in analysts’ recommendations or projections, our announcement of developments related to our businesses, operations and stock performance of other companies deemed to be peers, new technology used or services offered by traditional and non-traditional competitors, news reports of trends, irrational exuberance on the part of investors, new federal banking regulations, and other issues related to the financial services industry. Our stock price may fluctuate significantly in the future, and these fluctuations may be unrelated to our performance. General market declines or market volatility in the future, especially in the financial institutions sector, could adversely affect the price of our common stock, and the current market price may not be indicative of future market prices. Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for you to resell your common stock when you want and at prices you find attractive. Moreover, in the past, securities class action lawsuits have been instituted against some companies following periods of volatility in the market price of its securities. We could in the future be the target of similar litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our normal business.

Future sales of our stock by our shareholders or the perception that those sales could occur may cause our stock price to decline.

Although our common stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ Capital Market, the trading volume in our common stock is lower 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 our common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. Given the relatively low trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that those sales may occur, could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline or to be lower than it otherwise might be in the absence of those sales or perceptions.

Economic and other circumstances may require us to raise capital at times or in amounts that are unfavorable to us. If we have to issue shares of common stock, they will dilute the percentage ownership interest of existing shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock and adversely affect the terms on which we may obtain additional capital.

We may need to incur additional debt or equity financing in the future to make strategic acquisitions or investments or to strengthen our capital position. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control and our financial performance. We cannot provide assurance that such financing will be available to us on acceptable terms or at all, or if we do raise additional capital that it will not be dilutive to existing shareholders.

If we determine, for any reason, that we need to raise capital, subject to applicable NASDAQ rules, our board generally has the authority, without action by or vote of the shareholders, to issue all or part of any authorized but unissued shares of stock for any corporate purpose, including issuance of equity-based incentives under or outside of our equity compensation plans. Additionally, we are not restricted from issuing additional common stock or preferred stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock or preferred stock or any substantially similar securities. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales by us of a large number of shares of common stock or preferred stock or similar securities in the market or from the perception that such sales could occur. If we issue preferred stock that has a preference over the common stock with respect to the payment of dividends or upon liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, or if we issue preferred stock with voting rights that dilute the voting power of the common stock, the rights of holders of the common stock or the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected. Any issuance of additional shares of stock will dilute the percentage ownership interest of our shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock. Shares we issue in connection with any such offering will increase the total number of shares and may dilute the economic and voting ownership interest of our existing shareholders.

An investment in our common stock is not an insured deposit.

Our 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. An investment in our 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, if you acquire our common stock, you may lose some or all of your investment.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties.

The principal place of business of both the Company and our Bank is located at 5455 Sunset Boulevard, Lexington, South Carolina 29072. In addition, we currently operate 15 full-service offices located in the South Carolina counties of Lexington County (6), Richland County (4), Newberry County (2), Kershaw County (1), and Aiken County (1), and Richmond County, Georgia (1), as well as a loan production office located in Greenville County, South Carolina and a mortgage loan production office located in Richland County, South Carolina. All of these properties are owned by the Bank except for the loan production office in Greenville, South Carolina which is leased by the Bank. Although the properties owned are generally considered adequate, we have a continuing program of modernization, expansion and, when necessary, occasional replacement of facilities.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

In the ordinary course of operations, we may be a party to various legal proceedings from time to time. We do not believe that there is any pending or threatened proceeding against us, which, if determined adversely, would have a material effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

None.

PART II

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

As of February 28 2017, there were approximately 1,428 shareholders of record of our common stock. Our common stock trades on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the trading symbol of “FCCO.” The following table sets forth the high and low sales price information as reported by NASDAQ in 2016 and 2015, and the dividends per share declared on our common stock in each such quarter. All information has been adjusted for any stock splits and stock dividends effected during the periods presented.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the future dividend policy of the Company is subject to the discretion of the board of directors and will depend upon a number of factors, including future earnings, financial condition, cash requirements, and general business conditions. Our ability to pay dividends is generally limited by the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to us. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board.

Pursuant to the Company’s 2006 Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, non-employee directors may elect to defer all or any part of annual retainer fees payable in respect of the following calendar year to the director for his or her service on the board of directors or any committee of the board of directors. During the year, a number of deferred stock units are credited to the director’s account at the time such compensation would otherwise have been payable absent the election to defer equal to (i) the otherwise payable amount divided by (ii) the fair market value of a share of the Company’s common stock on the last trading day preceding the credit date. In general, a director’s vested account balance will be distributed in a lump sum of the Company’s common stock on the 30th day following termination of service on the board and on the board of directors of all of the Company’s subsidiaries, including termination of service as a result of death or disability. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company credited an aggregate of 9,862 deferred stock units to accounts for directors who elected to defer annual retainer fees for 2016. The deferred stock units were issued by the Company pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 in reliance upon Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Certain financial information presented above is determined by methods other than in accordance with GAAP. These non-GAAP financial measures include “efficiency ratio,” “tangible book value at period end,” “return on average tangible common equity” and “tangible common shareholders’ equity to tangible assets.” The “efficiency ratio” is defined as non-interest expense, divided by the sum of net interest income on a tax equivalent basis and non-interest income, net of any securities gains or losses and OTTI on securities. Non-interest income for the calculation of efficiency ratio excludes OTTI on securities of $200 thousand in 2012. The efficiency ratio is a measure of the relationship between operating expenses and earnings. “Tangible book value at period end” is defined as total equity reduced by recorded intangible assets divided by total common shares outstanding. “Tangible common shareholders’ equity to tangible assets” is defined as total common equity reduced by recorded intangible assets divided by total assets reduced by recorded intangible assets. Our management believes that these non-GAAP measures are useful because they enhance the ability of investors and management to evaluate and compare our operating results from period-to-period in a meaningful manner. Non-GAAP measures have limitations as analytical tools, and investors should not consider them in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of the Company’s results as reported under GAAP.

The table below provides a reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to GAAP for the five years ended December 31:

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

Overview

The Company is headquartered in Lexington, South Carolina and the bank holding company for the Bank. We operate from our main office in Lexington, South Carolina, and our 15 full-service offices located in the South Carolina counties of Lexington County (6), Richland County (4), Newberry County (2), Kershaw County (1), and Aiken County (1), and Richmond County, Georgia (1). In addition we operate a mortgage loan production office in Richland County, South Carolina and a loan production office in Greenville County, South Carolina. We engage in a general commercial and retail banking business characterized by personalized service and local decision making, emphasizing the banking needs of small to medium-sized businesses, professional concerns and individuals.

The following discussion describes our results of operations for 2016, as compared to 2015 and 2014, and also analyzes our financial condition as of December 31, 2016, as compared to December 31, 2015. Like most community banks, we derive most of our income from interest we receive on our loans and investments. A primary source of funds for making these loans and investments is our deposits, on which we pay interest. Consequently, one of the key measures of our success is our amount of net interest income, or the difference between the income on our interest-earning assets, such as loans and investments, and the expense on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits.

We have included a number of tables to assist in our description of these measures. For example, the “Average Balances” table shows the average balance during 2016, 2015 and 2014 of each category of our assets and liabilities, as well as the yield we earned or the rate we paid with respect to each category. A review of this table shows that our loans typically provide higher interest yields than do other types of interest earning assets, which is why we intend to channel a substantial percentage of our earning assets into our loan portfolio. Similarly, the “Rate/Volume Analysis” table helps demonstrate the impact of changing interest rates and changing volume of assets and liabilities during the years shown. We also track the sensitivity of our various categories of assets and liabilities to changes in interest rates, and we have included a “Sensitivity Analysis Table” to help explain this. Finally, we have included a number of tables that provide detail about our investment securities, our loans, and our deposits and other borrowings.

There are risks inherent in all loans, so we maintain an allowance for loan losses to absorb probable losses on existing loans that may become uncollectible. We establish and maintain this allowance by charging a provision for loan losses against our operating earnings. In the following section we have included a detailed discussion of this process, as well as several tables describing our allowance for loan losses and the allocation of this allowance among our various categories of loans.

In addition to earning interest on our loans and investments, we earn income through fees and other expenses we charge to our customers. We describe the various components of this noninterest income, as well as our noninterest expense, in the following discussion. The discussion and analysis also identifies significant factors that have affected our financial position and operating results during the periods included in the accompanying financial statements. We encourage you to read this discussion and analysis in conjunction with the financial statements and the related notes and the other statistical information also included in this report.

Recent Developments

On February 18, 2015, the Bank entered into a Consent Order with the FDIC (the “Consent Order”). The Consent Order required the Bank to take certain actions with respect to the BSA, including, among other things, enhancing its annual BSA risk assessment processes; revising certain internal controls related to BSA; and further developing and implementing certain BSA-related training programs. The Bank took immediate actions to correct and resolve all of the BSA issues included in the Consent Order and, on January 28, 2016, the FDIC advised the Bank that the Consent Order had been terminated.

On February 1, 2014, we completed our acquisition of Savannah River and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Savannah River Banking Company. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Savannah River shareholders received either $11.00 in cash or 1.0618 shares of the Company’s common stock, or a combination thereof, for each Savannah River share they owned immediately prior to the merger, subject to the limitation that 60% of the outstanding shares of Savannah River common stock were exchanged for cash and 40% of the outstanding shares of Savannah River common stock were exchanged for shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company issued 1,274,200 shares of common stock in the merger.

On September 26, 2014, the Bank completed the acquisition of approximately $40 million in deposits and $8.7 million in loans from First South. This represented all of the deposits and a portion of the loans at First South’s Columbia, South Carolina banking office located at 1333 Main Street. The Bank paid a premium of $714 thousand for the deposits and loans acquired. The deposits and loans from First South have been consolidated into the Bank’s branch located at 1213 Lady Street, Columbia, South Carolina. The premium paid of $714 thousand plus fair value adjustments recorded on loans and deposits acquired resulted in a core deposit intangible of $365.9 thousand and other identifiable intangible assets in the amount of $538.6 thousand being recorded related to this transaction.

Critical Accounting Policies

We have adopted various accounting policies that govern the application of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and with general practices within the banking industry in the preparation of our financial statements. Our significant accounting policies are described in the notes to our consolidated financial statements in this report.

Certain accounting policies involve significant judgments and assumptions by us that have a material impact on the carrying value of certain assets and liabilities. We consider these accounting policies to be critical accounting policies. The judgment and assumptions we use are based on historical experience and other factors, which we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Because of the nature of the judgment and assumptions we make, actual results could differ from these judgments and estimates that could have a material impact on the carrying values of our assets and liabilities and our results of operations.

Allowance for Loan Losses

We believe the allowance for loan losses is the critical accounting policy that requires the most significant judgment and estimates used in preparation of our consolidated financial statements. Some of the more critical judgments supporting the amount of our allowance for loan losses include judgments about the credit worthiness of borrowers, the estimated value of the underlying collateral, the assumptions about cash flow, determination of loss factors for estimating credit losses, the impact of current events, and conditions, and other factors impacting the level of probable inherent losses. Under different conditions or using different assumptions, the actual amount of credit losses incurred by us may be different from management’s estimates provided in our consolidated financial statements. Refer to the portion of this discussion that addresses our allowance for loan losses for a more complete discussion of our processes and methodology for determining our allowance for loan losses.

Goodwill and Other Intangibles

Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the sum of the estimated fair values of the tangible and identifiable intangible assets acquired less the estimated fair value of the liabilities assumed. Goodwill has an indefinite useful life and is evaluated for impairment annually or more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired. An impairment loss is recognized to the extent that the carrying amount exceeds the asset’s fair value. Qualitative factors are assessed to first determine if it is more likely than not (more than 50%) that the carrying value of goodwill is less than fair value. These qualitative factors include but are not limited to overall deterioration in general economic conditions, industry and market conditions, and overall financial performance. If determined that it is more likely than not that there has been a deterioration in the fair value of the carrying value than the first of a two-step process would be performed. The first step, used to identify potential impairment, involves comparing each reporting unit’s estimated fair value to its carrying value, including goodwill. If the estimated fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, goodwill is considered not to be impaired. If the carrying value exceeds estimated fair value, there is an indication of potential impairment and the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment.

If required, the second step involves calculating an implied fair value of goodwill for each reporting unit for which the first step indicated impairment. The implied fair value of goodwill is determined in a manner similar to the amount of goodwill calculated in a business combination, by measuring the excess of the estimated fair value of the reporting unit, as determined in the first step, over the aggregate estimated fair values of the individual assets, liabilities and identifiable intangibles as if the reporting unit was being acquired in a business combination. If the implied fair value of goodwill exceeds the carrying value of goodwill assigned to the reporting unit, there is no impairment. If the carrying value of goodwill assigned to a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value of the goodwill, an impairment charge is recorded for the excess. An impairment loss cannot exceed the carrying value of goodwill assigned to a reporting unit, and the loss establishes a new basis in the goodwill. Subsequent reversal of goodwill impairment losses is not permitted. Management has determined that the Company has four reporting units (See Note 24 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

Core deposit intangibles consist of costs that resulted from the acquisition of deposits from Savannah River and First South. Core deposit intangibles represent the estimated value of long-term deposit relationships acquired in this transaction. These costs are amortized over the estimated useful lives of the deposit accounts acquired on a method that we believe reasonably approximates the anticipated benefit stream from the accounts. The estimated useful lives are periodically reviewed for reasonableness.

Income Taxes and Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities

 Income taxes are provided for the tax effects of the transactions reported in our consolidated financial statements and consist of taxes currently due plus deferred taxes related to differences between the tax basis and accounting basis of certain assets and liabilities, including available-for-sale securities, allowance for loan losses, write downs of OREO properties, accumulated depreciation, net operating loss carry forwards, accretion income, deferred compensation, intangible assets, and pension plan and post-retirement benefits. The deferred tax assets and liabilities represent the future tax return consequences of those differences, which will either be taxable or deductible when the assets and liabilities are recovered or settled. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are reflected at income tax rates applicable to the period in which the deferred tax assets or liabilities are expected to be realized or settled. A valuation allowance is recorded when it is “more likely than not” that a deferred tax asset will not be realized. As changes in tax laws or rates are enacted, deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted through the provision for income taxes. We file a consolidated federal income tax return for our Bank. At December 31, 2016, we are in a net deferred tax asset position.

Other-Than-Temporary Impairment

We evaluate securities for other-than-temporary impairment at least on a quarterly basis. Consideration is given to (1) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, (3) the outlook for receiving the contractual cash flows of the investments, (4) the anticipated outlook for changes in the general level of interest rates, and (5) our intent and ability to retain our investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value or for a debt security whether it is more-likely-than-not that the Company will be required to sell the debt security prior to recovering its fair value (See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

Business Combinations, Method of Accounting for Loans Acquired

We account for acquisitions under FASB ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations, which requires the use of the acquisition method of accounting. All identifiable assets acquired, including loans, are recorded at fair value. No allowance for loan losses related to the acquired loans is recorded on the acquisition date because the fair value of the loans acquired incorporates assumptions regarding credit risk.

Acquired credit-impaired loans are accounted for under the accounting guidance for loans and debt securities acquired with deteriorated credit quality, found in FASB ASC Topic 310-30, Receivables—Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality. and initially measured at fair value, which includes estimated future credit losses expected to be incurred over the life of the loans. Loans acquired in business combinations with evidence of credit deterioration are considered impaired. Loans acquired through business combinations that do not meet the specific criteria of FASB ASC Topic 310-30, but for which a discount is attributable, at least in part to credit quality, are also accounted for under this guidance. Certain acquired loans, including performing loans and revolving lines of credit (consumer and commercial), are accounted for in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 310-20, where the discount is accreted through earnings based on estimated cash flows over the estimated life of the loan. 

Results of Operations

As noted above, on February 1, 2014, we completed the acquisition of Savannah River. Therefore, the results for the year ended December 31, 2014 include the impact of this acquisition from February 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Also, as noted above, on September 26, 2014, we completed the purchase of certain loans and assumption of deposits from First South’s Columbia, South Carolina office located at 1333 Main Street. These loans and deposits were consolidated into the Bank’s branch located at 1213 Lady Street. Therefore, the results for the year ended December 31, 2014 include the impact of this acquisition from September 26, 2014 to December 31, 2014. See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information related to the Savannah River and First South acquisitions.

Net income was $6.7 million, or $0.98 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to net income $6.1 million, or $0.91 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2015. The primary reason for the increase in net income is that our net interest income improved by $1.2 million from $25.3 million in 2016 to $26.5 million for 2015. This improvement was a primarily result of an increase of $46.3 million in average earning assets in 2016 as compared to 2015. See below under “Net Interest Income” and “Market Risk and Interest Rate Sensitivity” for a further discussion about the effect average earning assets on net interest income. Net interest spread, the difference between the yield on earning assets and the rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities, was 3.16% in 2015 as compared to 3.13% in 2016. The provision for loan losses was $774 thousand in 2016 as compared to $1.1 million in 2015. Non-interest income was $9.0 million for 2016 and 2015. The improvement in net income as a result of higher earning assets and the reduced provision expense were partially offset by an increase in non-interest expense of $1.1 million in 2016 as compared to 2015. Increases in salary and benefit expense as well as debit card/ATM processing cost were the largest contributors to the overall increase in non-interest expense (see discussion “Non-interest Income and Non-interest Expense”).

Net income was $6.1 million, or $0.91 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to net income of $5.1 million, or $0.78 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2014. The primary reason for the increase in net income is that our net interest income improved by $1.6 million from $23.7 million in 2014 to $25.3 million for 2015. This improvement was a primarily result of an increase of $55.3 million in average earning assets in 2015 as compared to 2014. See below under “Net Interest Income” and “Market Risk and Interest Rate Sensitivity” for a further discussion about the effect average earning assets on net interest income. Net interest spread was 3.20% in 2014 as compared to 3.16% in 2015. The provision for loan losses was $881 thousand in 2014 as compared to $1.1million in 2015. Non-interest income was increased to $9.0 million for 2015 as compared to $8.2 million in 2014. This increase resulted from increased mortgage banking income of $246 thousand as well as an increase in the gain on sale of investments of $173 thousand and a reduction in the loss on early extinguishment of debt of $152 thousand. Non-interest expense increased $718 thousand in 2015 as compared to 2014. Increases in all categories of non-interest expense were primarily a result of the impact of the Savannah River acquisition that was completed on February 1, 2014, the opening of the Lady Street branch located in downtown Columbia, South Carolina in June of 2014 and the opening of a branch in Blythewood, South Carolina in April 2015, each being included for the full year in 2015. In 2014, there was $503 thousand in merger-related expenses included in non-interest expense. There were no merger-related expenses included in the results for 2015.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income is our primary source of revenue. Net interest income is the difference between income earned on assets and interest paid on deposits and borrowings used to support such assets. Net interest income is determined by the rates earned on our interest-earning assets and the rates paid on our interest-bearing liabilities, the relative amounts of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, and the degree of mismatch and the maturity and repricing characteristics of its interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.

Net interest income totaled $26.5 million in 2016, $25.3 million in 2015 and $23.7 million in 2014. The yield on earning assets was 3.62%, 3.72%, and 3.82% in 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities was 0.49%, 0.56%, and 0.62% in 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. The fully taxable equivalent net interest margin was 3.35% in 2016, 3.38% in 2015 and 3.40% in 2014. Our loan to deposit ratio on average during 2016 was 69.6%, as compared to 68.7% during 2015 and 69.1% during 2014. Loans typically provide a higher yield than other types of earning assets, and, thus, one of our goals continues to be growing the loan portfolio as a percentage of earning assets in order to improve the overall yield on earning assets and the net interest margin. At December 31, 2016, the loan (including held for sale) to deposit ratio was 72.1%.

The net interest margin decreased four basis points in 2016 as compared to 2015. The yield on earning assets decreased by 10 basis points while our cost of funds decreased by seven basis points in 2016 as compared to 2015. The decline in net interest margin in 2016 as compared to 2015 was partially a result of payoffs that occurred in the first quarter of 2015 related to purchase impaired loans as discussed below. The lower cost of funds was primarily a result of the cost of time deposits and other borrowings decreasing by four and fifty one basis points, respectively in 2016 as compared to 2015. We continued to shift the mix of funding to lower cost sources (non-interest bearing transaction accounts, interest-bearing transaction accounts, money-market accounts and savings deposits). During 2015, the average balance in these accounts represented 72.9% of total deposits whereas in 2016 they represented 75.6%. Our average borrowings, which are typically a higher cost funding source, decreased $4.5 million in 2016 as compared to 2015. Since early 2008, interest rates have been at historic lows. The shift in our funding mix as well as our efforts to shift earning assets to the loan portfolio have helped in offsetting some of the net interest margin compression resulting from the continued historically low interest rate environment.

The net interest margin decreased four basis points in 2015 as compared to 2014. The yield on earning assets decreased by ten basis points while our cost of funds decreased by six basis points in 2015 as compared to 2014. The net interest margin was positively impacted in 2015 as a result of two purchased impaired loan payoffs that occurred in the first quarter of 2015. These loans were acquired in the Savannah River acquisition and, as a result, the credit mark established at the acquisition date was recovered. These payoffs impacted the net interest margin by approximately 5 basis points in 2015. The lower cost of funds was primarily a result of the cost of time deposits decreasing by five basis points in 2015 as compared to 2014. We continued to shift the mix of funding to lower cost sources (non-interest bearing transaction accounts, interest-bearing transaction accounts, money-market accounts and savings deposits). During 2015, the average balance in these accounts represented 72.9% of total deposits whereas in 2014 they represented 71.8%. Our average borrowings, which are typically a higher cost funding source, decreased $6.0 million in 2015 as compared to 2014 while the cost of these funds on average decreased eight basis points in 2015 as compared to 2014.

Average Balances, Income Expenses and Rates. The following table depicts, for the periods indicated, certain information related to our average balance sheet and our average yields on assets and average costs of liabilities. Such yields are derived by dividing income or expense by the average balance of the corresponding assets or liabilities. Average balances have been derived from daily averages.

The following table presents the dollar amount of changes in interest income and interest expense attributable to changes in volume and the amount attributable to changes in rate. The combined effect related to volume and rate which cannot be separately identified, has been allocated proportionately, to the change due to volume and the change due to rate.

Market Risk and Interest Rate Sensitivity

Market risk reflects the risk of economic loss resulting from adverse changes in market prices and interest rates. The risk of loss can be measured in either diminished current market values or reduced current and potential net income. Our primary market risk is interest rate risk. We have established an Asset/Liability Management Committee (“ALCO”) to monitor and manage interest rate risk. The ALCO monitors and manages the pricing and maturity of its assets and liabilities in order to diminish the potential adverse impact that changes in interest rates could have on our net interest income. The ALCO has established policy guidelines and strategies with respect to interest rate risk exposure and liquidity.

A monitoring technique employed by us is the measurement of our interest sensitivity “gap,” which is the positive or negative dollar difference between assets and liabilities that are subject to interest rate repricing within a given period of time. Simulation modeling is performed to assess the impact varying interest rates and balance sheet mix assumptions will have on net interest income. We model the impact on net interest income for several different changes, to include a flattening, steepening and parallel shift in the yield curve. For each of these scenarios, we model the impact on net interest income in an increasing and decreasing rate environment of 100 and 200 basis points. We also periodically stress certain assumptions such as prepayment and interest rate betas to evaluate our overall sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Policies have been established in an effort to maintain the maximum anticipated negative impact of these modeled changes in net interest income at no more than 10% and 15%, respectively, in a 100 and 200 basis point change in interest rates over a twelve month period. Interest rate sensitivity can be managed by repricing assets or liabilities, selling securities available-for-sale, replacing an asset or liability at maturity or by adjusting the interest rate during the life of an asset or liability. Managing the amount of assets and liabilities repricing in the same time interval helps to hedge the risk and minimize the impact on net interest income of rising or falling interest rates. Neither the “gap” analysis or asset/liability modeling are precise indicators of our interest sensitivity position due to the many factors that affect net interest income including, the timing, magnitude and frequency of interest rate changes as well as changes in the volume and mix of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.

The following table illustrates our interest rate sensitivity at December 31, 2016.

Interest Sensitivity Analysis

Based on the many factors and assumptions used in simulating the effect of changes in interest rates, the following table estimates the hypothetical percentage change in net interest income at December 31, 2016 and 2015 over the subsequent 12 months. At December 31, 2016, we are asset sensitive. As a result, our modeling reflects modest improvement in our net interest income in a rising rate environment. In a declining rate environment, the model reflects a decline in net interest income. This primarily results from the current level of interest rates being paid on our interest bearing transaction accounts as well as money market accounts. The interest rates on these accounts are at a level where they cannot be repriced in proportion to the change in interest rates. The increase and decrease of 100 and 200 basis points, reflected in the table below assume a simultaneous and parallel change in interest rates along the entire yield curve.

Net Interest Income Sensitivity

We perform a valuation analysis projecting future cash flows from assets and liabilities to determine the Present Value of Equity (“PVE”) over a range of changes in market interest rates. The sensitivity of PVE to changes in interest rates is a measure of the sensitivity of earnings over a longer time horizon. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the PVE exposure in a plus 200 basis point increase in market interest rates was estimated to be 0.78% and (0.07)% respectively.

Provision and Allowance for Loan Losses

At December 31, 2016, the allowance for loan losses amounted to $5.2 million, or 0.95% of loans (excludes loans held for sale), as compared $4.6 million, or 0.95% of loans, at December 31, 2015. Loans that were acquired in the acquisition of Savannah River and First South are accounted for under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standard Codification (“ASC”) 310-30. These acquired loans are initially measured at fair value, which includes estimated future credit losses expected to be incurred over the life of the loans. The credit component on loans related to cash flows not expected to be collected is not subsequently accreted (non-accretable difference) into interest income. Any remaining portion representing the excess of a loan’s or pool’s cash flows expected to be collected over the fair value is accreted (accretable difference) into interest income. Subsequent to the acquisition date, increases in cash flows expected to be received in excess of the Company’s initial estimates are reclassified from non-accretable difference to accretable difference and are accreted into interest income on a level-yield basis over the remaining life of the loan. Decreases in cash flows expected to be collected are recognized as impairment through the provision for loan losses. During 2016 and 2015, there were no adjustments to our initial estimates or impairments recorded on purchased loans. At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the credit component on loans attributable to acquired loans in the Savannah River and First South transactions was $334 thousand and $1.0 million, respectively.

Our provision for loan loss was $774 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to $1.1 million and $880 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The provision is made based on our assessment of general loan loss risk and asset quality. The allowance for loan losses represents an amount which we believe will be adequate to absorb probable losses on existing loans that may become uncollectible. Our judgment as to the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses is based on a number of assumptions about future events, which we believe to be reasonable, but which may or may not prove to be accurate. Our determination of the allowance for loan losses is based on evaluations of the collectability of loans, including consideration of factors such as the balance of impaired loans, the quality, mix, and size of our overall loan portfolio, economic conditions that may affect the borrower’s ability to repay, the amount and quality of collateral securing the loans, our historical loan loss experience, and a review of specific problem loans. We also consider subjective issues such as changes in the lending policies and procedures, changes in the local/national economy, changes in volume or type of credits, changes in volume/severity of problem loans, quality of loan review and board of director oversight and concentrations of credit. Periodically, we adjust the amount of the allowance based on changing circumstances. We charge recognized losses to the allowance and add subsequent recoveries back to the allowance for loan losses. There can be no assurance that charge-offs of loans in future periods will not exceed the allowance for loan losses as estimated at any point in time or that provisions for loan losses will not be significant to a particular accounting period, especially considering the overall weakness in the commercial real estate market in our market areas.

We perform an analysis quarterly to assess the risk within the loan portfolio. The portfolio is segregated into similar risk components for which historical loss ratios are calculated and adjusted for identified changes in current portfolio characteristics. Historical loss ratios are calculated by product type and by regulatory credit risk classification (See Note 5 – Loans). The annualized weighted average loss ratios over the last 36 months for loans classified substandard, special mention and pass have been approximately 5.35%, 3.04% and 0.03%, respectively. The allowance consists of an allocated and unallocated allowance. The allocated portion is determined by types and ratings of loans within the portfolio. The unallocated portion of the allowance is established for losses that exist in the remainder of the portfolio and compensates for uncertainty in estimating the loan losses. As a result of the recent economic downturn that began in 2008, real estate values have been adversely impacted. With our loan portfolio consisting of a large percentage of real estate secured loans we, like most financial institutions, have experienced higher delinquencies and problem loans from pre-2008 historical levels. However, our percentage of non-performing assets to total assets has shown continued improvement in the last several years. Non-performing assets were $7.3 million (0.85% of total assets) at December 31, 2016, $7.3 million (0.85% of total assets) at December 31, 2015, and $9.5 million (1.17% of total assets) at December 31, 2014. We believe these ratios are favorable in comparison to current industry results nationally and specifically in our local markets. The allocated portion of the allowance is based on historical loss experience as well as certain qualitative factors as explained above. The qualitative factors have been established based on certain assumptions made as a result of the current economic conditions and are adjusted as conditions change to be directionally consistent with these changes. The unallocated portion of the allowance is composed of factors based on management’s evaluation of various conditions that are not directly measured in the estimation of probable losses through the experience formula or specific allowances. As noted below in the “Allocation of the Allowance for Loan Losses” table, the unallocated portion of the allowance as a percentage of the total allowance decreased as a percentage of the total allowance in 2016. The overall risk as measured in our three-year lookback, both quantitatively and qualitatively, does not encompass a full economic cycle. The U.S. economy has been in an extended period of recovery and slow economic growth. The period at which we will reach full recovery or revert back to a slowing economy is not determinable. Net charge-offs in the 2009 to 2011 period averaged 63 basis points annualized in our loan portfolio. Over the most recent three-year period they have averaged 17 basis points annualized. We believe the unallocated portion of our allowance represents potential risk associated throughout a full economic cycle. With an anemic national economic recovery, subpar inflation, geopolitical risks, and global economic slowdown, management does not believe it would be judicious to reduce substantially the overall level of the allowance at this time. The percentage of the unallocated portion of the allowance decreased from 44.5% at December 31, 2015 to 27.9% at December 31, 2016. In the fourth quarter of 2016 we began including the balances of acquired loans from the Savannah River and the First South acquisitions in our migration analysis. With the aging of these specific portfolios since acquisition and the substantial reduction in the credit marks assigned to the portfolios, management believed it appropriate to begin applying historical loss experience to these portfolios. In addition, due to the growth in our portfolio as well as the addition of the loan production office in Greenville South Carolina several qualitative factors were adjusted in 2016. In the third quarter of 2016 we increased the change in nature and volume, change in staff, and change in concentration qualitative factors by five, two and two basis points, respectively. Management does not feel that there have been significant changes in underwriting practices or the fundamental mix and nature of the portfolio. The increase in loan production, addition of the Greenville portfolio and lending staff could impose additional risk to the portfolio and therefore management increased these three qualitative factors in its overall evaluation of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. The addition of the acquired portfolios and adjustments to the qualitative factors were the primary contributors to the reduction in the percentage of the unallocated allowance. Management believes that as economic conditions reflect sustainable improvements, the unallocated portion of the allowance should continue to decrease as a percentage of the total reserve.

Our Company has a significant portion of its loan portfolio with real estate as the underlying collateral. At both December 31, 2016 and 2015, approximately 90.6% of the loan portfolio had real estate collateral (see Note 15 to financial statements for concentrations of credit). When loans, whether commercial or personal, are granted, they are based on the borrower’s ability to generate repayment cash flows from income sources sufficient to service the debt. Real estate is generally taken to reinforce the likelihood of the ultimate repayment and as a secondary source of repayment. We work closely with all our borrowers that experience cash flow or other economic problems, and we believe that we have the appropriate processes in place to monitor and identify problem credits. There can be no assurance that charge-offs of loans in future periods will not exceed the allowance for loan losses as estimated at any point in time or that provisions for loan losses will not be significant to a particular accounting period. The allowance is also subject to examination and testing for adequacy by regulatory agencies, which may consider such factors as the methodology used to determine adequacy and the size of the allowance relative to that of peer institutions. Such regulatory agencies could require us to adjust our allowance based on information available to them at the time of their examination.

At December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, we had non-accrual loans in the amount of $4.0 million (0.75% of total loans), $4.8 million (0.99% of total loans) and $6.6 million (1.48% of total loans), respectively. Nonaccrual loans at December 31, 2016 consisted of 41 loans. All of these loans are considered to be impaired, are substantially all real estate-related, and have been measured for impairment under the fair value of the collateral method. We consider a loan to be impaired when, based upon current information and events, it is believed that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Such fair values are obtained using independent appraisals, which we consider to be level 3 inputs. The aggregate amount of impaired loans was $5.8 million and $6.5 million for the years ending December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The non-accrual loans range in size from $1 thousand to $933 thousand. The largest of these loans is in the amount of $933 thousand and is secured by commercial non-owner occupied real estate located in Aiken, South Carolina.

In addition to the non-accrual loans that are considered to be impaired, we have five loans totaling $1.8 million that are classified as troubled debt restructurings but are accruing loans as of December 31, 2016. The largest relationship consists of one loan totaling $1.2 million with a mortgage on a commercial property located in the Midlands of South Carolina. There were $1.8 million, $1.9 million, and $1.8 million in loans delinquent 30 to 89 days at December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. There was one loan in the amount of $53 thousand delinquent greater than 90 days and still accruing at December 31, 2016. There were no loans 90 days delinquent and still accruing interest at December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Our management continuously monitors non-performing, classified and past due loans to identify deterioration regarding the condition of these loans. We have identified one relationship in the amount of $1.0 million which is current as to principal and interest at December 31, 2016 and not included in non-performing assets that could be a potential problem loans. Loans are identified as potential problems based on our review that their traditional sources of cash flow may have been impacted and that they may ultimately not be able to service the debt. These loans are continually monitored and are considered in our overall evaluation of the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses.

The following table summarizes the activity related to our allowance for loan losses.

Allowance for Loan Losses