FIRST COMMUNITY CORP /SC/ - Annual Report: 2022 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

Commission file number: 000-28344

First Community Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

803-951-2265

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
Yes o No x

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. o

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. o

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No x

As of June 30, 2022, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $139,330,033 based on the closing price of $19.17 on June 30, 2022, as reported on The NASDAQ Capital Market. 7,591,095 shares of the registrant’s common stock were issued and outstanding as of March 22, 2023.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2023 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10-14 of this Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report, including information included or incorporated by reference in this report, 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 the 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,” “approximately,” “is likely,” “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, 2022 as filed with the U.S. 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, except as required by applicable law.

Summary of Material Risks

An investment in our securities involves risks, including those summarized below. For a more complete discussion of the material risks facing our business, see Item 1A—Risk Factors.

Economic and Geographic-Related Risks

Credit and Interest Rate Risks

Capital and Liquidity Risks

Risks Related to Our Industry

Risks Related to Our Strategy

Risks Related to Our Human Capital

Operational Risks

Legal, Accounting, Regulatory and Compliance Risks

Risks Related to an Investment In our Common Stock

General Risks

PART I

Item 1. Business.

General

First Community Corporation, a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, was incorporated under the laws of South Carolina in November 1994 primarily to own and control all of the capital stock of First Community 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”).

Unless otherwise mentioned or unless the context requires otherwise, references herein to “First Community,” the “Company” “we,” “us,” “our” or similar references mean First Community Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries. References to the “Bank” means First Community Bank.

We engage in a commercial banking business from our main office in Lexington, South Carolina and our 22 full-service offices located in: the Midlands of South Carolina, which includes Lexington County (6 offices), Richland County (4 offices), Newberry County (2 offices) and Kershaw County (1 office); the Upstate of South Carolina, which includes Greenville County (2 offices), Anderson County (1 office) and Pickens County (1 office); the Piedmont Region of South Carolina, which includes York County, South Carolina (1 office) and the Central Savannah River Area, which includes Aiken County, South Carolina (1 office); and in Augusta, Georgia, which includes Richmond County (2 offices) and Columbia County (1 office). In addition, we conducted business from a mortgage loan production office in Richland County, South Carolina until January 24, 2020, after which we consolidated such operations with other existing Bank offices. At December 31, 2022, we had approximately $1.7 billion in assets, $980.9 million in loans, $1.4 billion in deposits, and $118.4 million in shareholders’ equity.

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.

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

Available Information

We provide our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on our website at www.firstcommunitysc.com/ under the About section, under the Investors link. These filings are made accessible as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been filed electronically with SEC. These filings are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. In addition, we make available under our Investor Relations section on our website the following, among other things: (i) Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which applies to our directors and all employees and (ii) the charters of the Audit and Compliance, Human Resources and Compensation, and Nominations and Corporate Governance Committees of our board of directors. These materials are available to the general public on our website free of charge. Printed copies of these materials are also available free of charge to shareholders who request them in writing. Please address your request to: Investor Relations, First Community Corporation, 5455 Sunset Boulevard, Lexington, South Carolina 29072. Statements of beneficial ownership of equity securities filed by directors, officers, and 10% or greater shareholders under Section 16 of the Exchange Act are also available through our website. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report. 

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, professionals and individuals. We have a total of 13 full-service offices located 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 branch offices. Richland County, in which we currently have four branches, 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 Banking Company in 2014, we added a branch in Aiken, South Carolina and a branch in Augusta, Georgia (Richmond County). In 2016, we opened a loan production office in Greenville County, which we converted into a full-service office in February 2019. With the acquisition of Cornerstone Bancorp in 2017, we added a branch in each of Greenville, Pickens, and Anderson Counties of South Carolina. We refer to this three-county area as the “Upstate” region of South Carolina. In 2018, we opened a de novo branch in downtown Augusta, Georgia (Richmond County). In 2019, we opened a de novo branch in Evans, Georgia, a suburb of Augusta in Columbia County, Georgia. We refer to the three-county area of Aiken County (South Carolina), Richmond County (Georgia) and Columbia County (Georgia) as the “CSRA” region. On March 14, 2022, we opened a loan production office in York County, South Carolina. We converted this loan production office into a full-service banking office on October 20, 2022. We refer to York County, South Carlina and the surrounding area as the “Piedmont Region”.

The following table shows data as to deposits, market share and population for our four 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 S&P Global Market Intelligence, 2023 median household incomes for each of the counties in the regions noted above were as follows:

The county estimates noted above compare to 2023 statewide median household income estimates of $64,242 and $70,349 for South Carolina and Georgia, respectively. 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, include the State of South Carolina, Prisma Health, BlueCross BlueShield of SC, the University of South Carolina, the United States Department of the Army (Fort Jackson Army Base), Richland School District 1, Richland School District 2, Lexington Medical Center, Southeastern Freight Lines, Lexington County School District One, and Medical Services of America. The largest employers in our CSRA market area, each of which employs in excess of 3,000 people, include the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence & Fort Gordon, Augusta University, NSA Augusta, Augusta University Hospitals, Richmond County School System, University Hospital, and the Department of Energy, Savannah River Site. The Upstate region major employers include, among others, Prisma Health, Greenville County Schools, BMW Manufacturing Corp., Michelin North America, Bon Secours St. Francis Health System, AnMed Health Medical Center, Clemson University, Duke Energy Corp., GE Power & Water, and the Greenville County Government. The Piedmont region major employers include, among others, Ross Stores, Inc. – Distribution, LPL Financial, Lash Group, Piedmont Medical Center, Comporium, Inc., and Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. We believe that this diversified economic base has reduced, and will likely continue to reduce, economic volatility in our market areas. Our markets have experienced 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, 2022, the maximum amount we could lend to one borrower is $23.5 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 Nyce and Plus networks of automated teller machines and MasterCard debit cards that may be used by our customers throughout South Carolina, Georgia 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 our market areas. As of June 30, 2022, there were 25 financial institutions operating approximately 160 offices in the Midlands market, 20 financial institutions operating 93 branches in the CSRA market, 37 financial institutions operating 219 branches in the Upstate market, and 15 financial institutions operating 46 branches in the Piedmont market. 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 and Georgia. 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.

Human Capital

At December 31, 2022, the company had 254 full-time, 7 part-time, and 8 seasonal/on-call employees.

We believe that our relationships with our employees are good and our employees are not represented by any collective bargaining group or agreement. Our company’s “Why”, which is “Impacting Lives for Success and Significance”, guides our approach to our relationships with employees. The foundations of these interactions are embedded in our cultural beliefs:

Everyone Matters - We value each of our employees for the unique contribution they make to the success of our company. While there are a variety of different positions in our company, each is an important and integral part of the work that we do. Every employee brings their own unique and diverse talents and experiences that enhance the culture of our bank and our work.

Spirit of Service - The energy and enthusiasm that our employees bring to their work creates a supportive work environment in which employees are available as a resource to one another. In addition to serving our fellow co-workers, we encourage our employees to serve our local communities. We offer company sponsored volunteer activities, as well as provide Volunteer PTO to allow employees to support causes that are close to their heart.

Honor and Integrity - Trust is at the foundation of all that we do. We have a Code of Conduct and Business Ethics that all employees and board members read and follow that sets clear expectations with regard to personal and professional behavior.

Strong Work Ethic - Our employees take pride in the quality of the work that they do. This commitment to excellence can be seen in the work that is completed and their interactions with their co-workers and customers. While we work hard, we also make time for some fun with employee events designed to offer the opportunity for relaxation and social interactions among co-workers.

Excellence with Humility - Our company is blessed with dedicated and talented employees, loyal customers, supportive communities and shareholders who invest in and believe in our vision. We are humbled by the success we have experienced and are grateful for all that we have accomplished. We approach our work with a sincere appreciation for the opportunity to serve all of our stakeholder groups and we recognize it is through our collective efforts that we have been successful.

Our ability to attract, develop and retain our strong employee base is integral to our ongoing success. We believe that a good “quality of life” at work is an important part of the overall employee experience and we are very intentional about nurturing a culture that allows employees to reach their potential and enjoy professional success while also enjoying the work that they do in a positive and supportive work environment grounded in our cultural beliefs.

While we believe that our corporate culture and work environment is a competitive advantage for our company, we also recognize that employees value and deserve competitive compensation packages. Our company offers competitive wages and benefits for our employees and we regularly benchmark our compensation to market. Our benefits package includes medical, dental, life, disability, vision and supplemental insurance options. We also offer retirement benefits with a 401(k) plan with matching and profit sharing. In addition, we offer a generous paid time off plan that includes paid holidays.

Our company encourages employees to continue on a lifelong trajectory of learning and we offer ongoing training to all employees through internal and external resources and encourage employees to continue with career development specific to their role to insure they stay current with the most up-to-date information and best practices. To develop our current and future leaders, our company created the First Community Bank Leadership Institute (FCBLI), an 18-month program that provides academic and experiential learning to teach and nurture leadership skills across our organization to support the bank now and in the future. The bank also supports the development of employees through external educational opportunities such as various bankers’ schools that offer multi-year development programs as well as short term training classes and industry conferences.

Information about the Executive Officers of First Community Corporation

Executive officers of First Community Corporation are elected by the board of directors annually and serve at the pleasure of the board of directors. The current executive officers, and persons chosen to become executive officers, and their ages, positions with us over the past five years, and terms of office as of March 22, 2023, are as follows:

None of the above officers are related and there are no arrangements or understandings between them and any other person pursuant to which any of them was elected as an officer, other than arrangements or understandings with the directors or officers of the Company acting solely in their capacities as such. 

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 generally are intended primarily for the protection of customers, depositors and other consumers, the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”), and the banking system as a whole; not for the protection of our other creditors and shareholders.

The following discussion is not intended to be a complete list of all the activities regulated by the banking laws or of the impact of those laws and regulations on our operations. 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.

Legislative and Regulatory Developments

We experienced heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny following the 2008 global financial crisis, and as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and the Economic Growth, Regulatory Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Regulatory Relief Act”). In addition, newer regulatory developments implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which enhanced and expanded certain provisions of the CARES Act, had an impact on our operations.

The CARES Act was a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill that was intended to provide relief in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were a number of regulatory actions intended to help mitigate the adverse economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on borrowers, including several mandates from the bank regulatory agencies, requiring financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although these programs generally have expired, governmental authorities may take additional actions in the future to limit the adverse impact of any resurgence of COVID-19 on borrowers and tenants.

The CARES Act, as extended by certain provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, also permitted banks to suspend requirements under GAAP for loan modifications to borrowers affected by COVID-19 that would otherwise had been characterized as troubled debt restructurings and suspended any determination related thereto if (i) the borrower was not more than 30 days past due as of December 31, 2019, (ii) the modifications were related to COVID-19, and (iii) the modification occurred between March 1, 2020 and the earlier of 60 days after the date of termination of the national emergency or January 1, 2022. Federal bank regulatory authorities also issued guidance to encourage banks to make loan modifications for borrowers affected by COVID-19.

Capital and Related Requirements.

Regulatory capital rules known as the Basel III rules or Basel III, impose minimum capital requirements for bank holding companies and banks. Basel III was released in the form of enforceable regulations by each of the applicable federal bank regulatory agencies. Basel III is applicable to all banking organizations that are subject to minimum capital requirements, including federal and state banks and savings and loan associations, as well as to bank and savings and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies.” A small bank holding company is generally a qualifying bank holding company or savings and loan holding company with less than $3.0 billion in consolidated assets. More stringent requirements are imposed on “advanced approaches” banking organizations—generally those organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures.

Based on the foregoing, as a small bank holding company, we are generally not subject to the capital requirements at the holding company level unless otherwise advised by the Federal Reserve; however, our Bank remains subject to the capital requirements. Accordingly, the Bank is required to maintain the following capital levels:

Basel III also established a “capital conservation buffer” above the regulatory minimum capital requirements, which must consist entirely of Common Equity Tier 1 capital, which was phased in over several years. The fully phased-in capital conservation buffer of 2.500%, which became effective on January 1, 2019, resulted in the following effective minimum capital ratios for the Bank beginning in 2019: (i) a Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Under Basel III, institutions are subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if their capital levels fall below the buffer amount. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions.

Under Basel III, Tier 1 capital includes two components: Common Equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The highest form of capital, Common Equity Tier 1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income, otherwise referred to as AOCI, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital is primarily comprised of noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, Tier 1 minority interests and grandfathered trust preferred securities. Tier 2 capital generally includes the allowance for loan losses up to 1.25% of risk-weighted assets, qualifying preferred stock, subordinated debt and qualifying Tier 2 minority interests, less any deductions in Tier 2 instruments of an unconsolidated financial institution. AOCI is presumptively included in Common Equity Tier 1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. When implemented, Basel III provided a one-time opportunity at the end of the first quarter of 2015 for covered banking organizations to opt out of a large part of this treatment of AOCI. We made this opt-out election and, as a result, retained our pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

As part of its response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the first quarter of 2020, U.S. federal regulatory authorities issued an interim final rule that provided banking organizations that adopted the credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL, during the 2020 calendar year with the option to delay for two years the estimated impact of CECL on regulatory capital relative to regulatory capital determined under the prior incurred loss methodology, followed by a three-year transition period to phase out the aggregate amount of the capital benefit provided during the initial two-year delay (i.e., a five-year transition in total). In connection with our adoption of CECL on January 1, 2023, we did not elect to utilize the five-year CECL transition.

In November 2019, the federal banking regulators published final rules implementing a simplified measure of capital adequacy for certain banking organizations that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. Under the final rules, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, depository institutions and depository institution holding companies that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets and meet other qualifying criteria, including a leverage ratio of greater than 9%, off-balance-sheet exposures of 25% or less of total consolidated assets, and trading assets plus trading liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets, are deemed “qualifying community banking organizations” and are eligible to opt into the “community bank leverage ratio framework.” A qualifying community banking organization that elects to use the community bank leverage ratio framework and that maintains a leverage ratio of greater than 9% is considered to have satisfied the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital requirements under the Basel III rules and, if applicable, is considered to have met the “well capitalized” ratio requirements for purposes of its primary federal regulator’s prompt corrective action rules, discussed below. We do not have any immediate plans to elect to use the community bank leverage ratio framework but may make such an election in the future.

Acquisition Activities.

The primary purpose of a bank holding company is to control and manage banks. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company or any acquisition by a bank holding company of another bank or bank holding company. In addition, the prior approval of the FDIC is required for a bank to merge with another bank or purchase the assets or assume the deposits of another bank. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, federal bank regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the public benefits expected to be received from the acquisition, the projected capital ratios and levels on a post-acquisition basis, and the acquiring institution’s record of addressing the credit needs of the communities it serves, including the needs of low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the bank, under the CRA.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. Among other initiatives, the Executive Order encouraged the federal banking agencies to review their current merger oversight practices under the BHCA and the Bank Merger Act and adopt a plan for revitalization of such practices. In December 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (in consultation with the Federal Reserve, the OCC, and FDIC announced that it was seeking additional public comments on whether and how the DOJ should revise the 1995 Bank Merger Competitive Review Guidelines. The comment period closed on February 15, 2022. In March 2022, the FDIC published a Request for Information seeking information and comments regarding the laws, practices, rules, regulations, guidance, and statements of policy that apply to merger transactions involving one or more insured depository institutions, including the merger between an insured depository institution and a noninsured institution. In a May 2022 speech, the acting head of the OCC announced that he had asked his staff to work with DOJ and other federal banking agencies to review the agency’s frameworks to analyze bank mergers. In May 2022, the CFPB announced the establishment of an Office of Competition and Innovation.

There are many steps that must be taken by the agencies before any final changes to the framework for evaluating bank mergers can be implemented and the prospects for such action continue to be uncertain at this time; however, the adoption of more expansive or prescriptive standards may have an impact on our acquisition activities.

Change in Control.

Two statutes, the Change in Bank Control Act and the Bank Holding Company 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 Change in Bank Control Act, a person or company is 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.

In addition, the Bank Holding Company Act prohibits any entity from acquiring 25% (5% if the acquirer is a bank holding company) or more of a bank holding company’s voting securities, or otherwise obtaining control or a controlling influence over the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company without regulatory approval. On January 30, 2020, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule (which became effective September 30, 2020) that clarified and codified the Federal Reserve’s standards for determining whether one company has control over another. The final rule established four categories of tiered presumptions of noncontrol that are based on the percentage of voting shares held by the investor (less than 5%, 5-9.9%, 10-14.9% and 15-24.9%) and the presence of other indicia of control. As the percentage of ownership increases, fewer indicia of control are permitted without falling outside of the presumption of noncontrol. These indicia of control include nonvoting equity ownership, director representation, management interlocks, business relationship and restrictive contractual covenants. Under the final rule, investors can hold up to 24.9% of the voting securities and up to 33% of the total equity of a company without necessarily having a controlling influence.

Transactions subject to the Bank Holding Company Act are exempt from Change in Control Act requirements. For state banks, state laws, including those of South Carolina, typically require approval by the state bank regulator as well.

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 shareholders, 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.

On December 22, 2020, the federal banking agencies issued an interagency statement extending the temporary relief from enforcement action against banks or asset managers, which become principal stockholders of banks, with respect to certain extensions of credit by banks that otherwise would violate Regulation O, provided the asset managers and banks satisfy certain conditions designed to ensure that there is a lack of control by the asset manager over the bank.. On December 22, 2022, the federal banking agencies issued a revised interagency statement extending the temporary relief from such enforcement, which will expire on the sooner of January 1, 2024, or the effective date of a final Federal Reserve rule having a revision to Regulation O that addresses the treatment of extensions of credit by a bank to fund complex-controlled portfolio companies that are insiders of a bank.

First Community Corporation

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 Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act and its regulations promulgated thereunder. 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.

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:

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:

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 summary, 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.

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 generally imposes certain capital requirements on a 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. If applicable, these requirements are essentially the same as those that apply to the Bank and are described above under “Capital and Related Requirements.” However, because the Company currently qualifies as a small bank holding company, these capital requirements do not currently apply to the Company. Subject to certain 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. As a bank holding company, the Company’s 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 Company’s ability 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 any sale to, or merger with, other financial institutions. 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.

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, 2022, 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:

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. The Bank must also maintain the Common Equity Tier 1 capital conservation buffer of 2.5%, in excess of its minimum regulatory risk-based capital ratios, to avoid becoming subject to restrictions on capital distributions, including dividends, as described above.

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 state 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 Bank is subject to certain requirements and reporting obligations under the CRA, which requires federal banking regulators to evaluate the record of each financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local community, including low- and moderate- income neighborhoods. The CRA further requires these criteria to be considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria could result in the imposition of additional requirements and limitations on the Bank. Additionally, financial institutions must publicly disclose the terms of various CRA-related agreements. In its most recent CRA examination, the Bank received a “satisfactory” rating.

In December 2019, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to (i) clarify which activities qualify for CRA credit; (ii) update where activities count for CRA credit; (iii) create a more transparent and objective method for measuring CRA performance; and (iv) provide for more transparent, consistent, and timely CRA-related data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting. However, the Federal Reserve has not joined the proposed rulemaking. In May 2020, the OCC issued its final CRA rule, which was later rescinded in December 2021. On the same day that the OCC announced its plans to rescind the CRA final rule, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve announced that they are working together to “strengthen and modernize the rules implementing the CRA.” On May 5, 2022, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve released a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the CRA and invited public comment on the proposed rules. The comment period closed on August 5, 2022. The proposed rules, among other things, seek to (i) expand access to credit, investment, and basic banking services in low- and moderate-income communities, (ii) adapt to changes in the banking industry, including internet and mobile banking, (iii) provide greater clarity, consistency, and transparency, (iv) tailor CRA evaluations and data collection to bank size and type, and (v) maintain a unified approach among the bank regulatory agencies. The effects on the Company and the Bank of any potential change to the CRA rules will depend on the final form of any federal rulemaking and cannot be predicted at this time. Management will continue to evaluate any changes to the CRA’s regulations and their impact to the Company and the Bank.

Fair Lending Requirements. We are subject to certain fair lending requirements and reporting obligations involving lending operations. A number of laws and regulations provide these fair lending requirements and reporting obligations, including, at the federal level, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, and Regulation B, as well as the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and regulations implementing FHA found at 24 C.F.R. Part 100. ECOA and Regulation B prohibit discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction based on a number of prohibited factors, including race or color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, the applicant’s receipt of income derived from public assistance programs, and the applicant’s exercise, in good faith, of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. ECOA and Regulation B include lending acts and practices that are specifically prohibited, permitted, or required, and these laws and regulations proscribe data collection requirements, legal action statute of limitations, and disclosure of the consumer’s ability to receive a copy of any appraisal(s) and valuation(s) prepared in connection with certain loans secured by dwellings. FHA prohibits discrimination in all aspects of residential real-estate related transactions based on prohibited factors, including race or color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and handicap.

In addition to prohibiting discrimination in credit transactions on the basis of prohibited factors, these laws and regulations can cause a lender to be liable for policies that result in a disparate treatment of or have a disparate impact on a protected class of persons. If a pattern or practice of lending discrimination is alleged by a regulator, then the matter may be referred by the agency to the DOJ for investigation. In December 2012, the DOJ and CFPB entered into a Memorandum of Understanding under which the agencies have agreed to share information, coordinate investigations, and have generally committed to strengthen their coordination efforts.

In addition to substantive penalties and corrective measures that may be required for a violation of certain fair lending laws, the federal banking agencies may take compliance with fair lending requirements into account when regulating and supervising other activities of the bank, including in acting on expansionary proposals.

Financial Subsidiaries. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, otherwise referred to as 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—both at the federal and state levels—designed to protect consumers. This includes Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”). UDAAP claims involve detecting and assessing risks to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products and services. 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 laws, such as the following federal laws:

The CFPB has broad authority to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products and services. The CFPB has the authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets for compliance with federal consumer laws. The authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, such as the Bank, for compliance with federal consumer laws remains largely with those institutions’ primary regulators. However, the CFPB may participate in examinations of these smaller institutions on a “sampling basis” and may refer potential enforcement actions against such institutions to their primary regulators. As such, the CFPB may participate in examinations of the Bank. In addition, states are permitted to adopt consumer protection laws and regulations that are stricter than the regulations promulgated by the CFPB.

The CFPB has issued a number of significant rules that impact nearly every aspect of the lifecycle of consumer financial products and services, including rules regarding residential mortgage loans. These rules implement Dodd-Frank Act amendments to ECOA, TILA and RESPA. Among other things, the rules adopted by the CFPB require banks to: (i) develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with a “reasonable ability-to-repay” test; (ii) implement new or revised disclosures, policies and procedures for originating and servicing mortgages, including, but not limited to, pre-loan counseling, early intervention with delinquent borrowers and specific loss mitigation procedures for loans secured by a borrower’s principal residence, and mortgage origination disclosures, which integrate existing requirements under TILA and RESPA; (iii) comply with additional restrictions on mortgage loan originator hiring and compensation; and (iv) comply with new disclosure requirements and standards for appraisals and certain financial products. In March 2022, the CFPB announced changes to its supervisory operations to scrutinize discriminatory conduct under the CFPB’s UDAAP powers to examine financial institution’s decision-making in advertising, pricing, and other areas to ensure that companies are testing for and eliminating illegal discrimination. In this supervisory notice, the CFPB expanded its UDAAP powers to create essentially a fair-lending style discrimination test outside of ECOA that applies to non-lending products. In October 2022, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2022-06 explaining that blanket policies of charging returned deposit item fees to consumers or all returned transactions irrespective of the circumstances or patterns of behavior on the account are likely unfair under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. The CFPB has also issued an advisory opinion prohibiting the collection of pay-to-pay fees (such as convenience fees), which are prohibited under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act .

Bank regulators take into account compliance with consumer protection laws when considering approval of a proposed expansionary proposals.

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; the USA Patriot Act; the Office of Foreign Asset Control. 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 program must comply with the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). 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, foreign customers, and other high risk 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 certain laws provide law enforcement authorities with increased access to financial information maintained by banks. Financial institutions must comply with requirements regarding risk-based procedures for conducing ongoing customer due diligence, which requires the institutions to take appropriate steps to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships and identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners of legal entity customers.

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 (which we refer to as the “USA PATRIOT Act”). 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.

The USA PATRIOT Act amended the Bank Secrecy Act and provides, in part, 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; (iv) filing suspicious activities reports if a bank believes a customer may be violating U.S. laws and regulations; and (v) 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.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the regulators can provide 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 applicable governmental authorities.

On January 1, 2021, Congress overrode former President Trump’s veto and thereby enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (“NDAA”). The NDAA provides for one of the most significant overhauls of the BSA and related anti-money laundering laws since the USA Patriot Act. Notably, changes include:

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 ensure 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 publishes lists of names of persons and organizations with which the Bank is prohibited from engaging in business. 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.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, OFAC took several sanctions related actions related to the Russian financial services sector pursuant to Executive Order 14024 beginning in February 2022 including: (i) a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the financial services sector of the Russian Federation that authorizes sanctions against persons determined to operate or to have operated in that sector; (ii) correspondent or payable-through account and payment processing prohibitions on certain Russian financial institutions; (iii) the blocking of certain Russian financial institutions; (iv) expanding sovereign debt prohibitions to apply to new issuances in the secondary market; (v) prohibitions related to new debt and equity for certain Russian entities; and (vi) a prohibition on transactions involving certain Russian government entities, including the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. In March 2022, FinCEN issued an alert advising increased vigilance for potential Russian Sanctions Evasion Attempts. The Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) continues to revise the list of high-risk jurisdictions. In October 2022, FATF removed Nicaragua and Pakistan from its lists of Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring and added the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, and Tanzania. The FATF also added Burma to the list of High-Risk Jurisdictions Subject to a Call for Action.

Privacy and Data Security. There are a number of state and federal laws and regulations that govern financial privacy and cybersecurity. At the federal level, this includes the privacy protection provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) and related regulations, including Regulation P, which govern the treatment of nonpublic personal information. Under these privacy protection provisions, we are limited in our ability to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies and notices to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party.

Consumers must be notified in the event of a data breach under applicable state laws. Multiple states and Congress are considering laws or regulations which could create new individual privacy rights and impose increased obligations on companies handling personal data. For example, on November 18, 2021, the federal financial regulatory agencies published a final rule that will impose upon banking organizations and their service providers new notification requirements for significant cybersecurity incidents. Specifically, the final rule requires banking organizations to notify their primary federal regulator as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after the discovery of a “computer-security incident” that rises to the level of a “notification incident” within the meaning attributed to those terms by the final rule. Banks’ service providers are required under the final rule to notify any affected bank to or on behalf of which the service provider provides services “as soon as possible” after determining that it has experienced an incident that materially disrupts or degrades, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to such bank for as much as four hours. The final rule took effect on April 1, 2022 and banks and their service providers must have complied with the requirements of the rule by May 1, 2022. Effective December 9, 2022, the FTC’s amendments to GLBA’s Safeguards Rule went into effect requiring financial institutions to: (i) appoint a qualified individual to oversee and implement their information security programs; (ii) implement additional criteria for information security risk assessments; (iii) implement safeguards identified by assessments, including access controls, data inventory, data disposal, change management, and monitoring, among other things; (iv) implement information system monitoring in the form of either “continuous monitoring” or “periodic penetration testing;” (v) implement additional controls including training for security personnel, periodic assessment of service providers, written incident response plans, and  periodic reports from the qualified individual to the board of directors.

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. On March 3, 2020, the FMOC decreased the federal funds target rate by 50 basis points to a target range of 1.00% to 1.25%; and on March 15, 2020, the FMOC decreased the federal funds target rate by 100 basis points to the target range of 0.00% to 0.25%. However, during 2022, market interest rates have increased significantly due to an increase in inflation. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) made the following increases to the target range of federal funds during the twelve months of 2022:

The target range of federal funds was 4.25% - 4.50% at December 31, 2022 compared to 0.00% - 0.25% at both December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Changes in market interest rates can have a significant impact on the level of income and expense recorded on a large portion of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, and on the market value of all interest-earning assets, other than those possessing a short term to maturity. Furthermore, changes in market interest rates can have a significant impact on the level of mortgage originations and related mortgage non-interest income.

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 to the ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum target Deposit Insurance Fund ratio from 1.15% of estimated insured deposits to 1.35% of estimated insured deposits. On September 30, 2018, the deposit insurance fund reached 1.36%, exceeding the statutorily required minimum reserve ratio of 1.35%. On reaching the minimum reserve ratio of 1.35%, FDIC regulations provided for two changes to deposit insurance assessments: (i) surcharges on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more (large institutions) ceased; and (ii) small banks received assessment credits for the portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from between 1.15% and 1.35%, to be applied when the reserve ratio is at or above 1.38%. All remaining small bank credits were refunded on the September 30, 2020 assessment invoice effectively ending the application of small bank credits. Assessment rates are expected to decrease if the reserve ratio increases such that it exceeds 2%.

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. In addition to the potential restrictions on discretionary bonus compensation under the Basel III rules, the federal bank regulatory agencies have issued guidance on incentive compensation policies (the “Incentive Compensation Guidance”) intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of financial institutions do not undermine the safety and soundness of such institutions by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The Incentive Compensation Guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an institution, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a financial institution’s incentive compensation arrangements should comply with the following principles: (i) provide employees incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward; (ii) be compatible with effective 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 scope and content of federal bank regulatory agencies’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future. In 2016, federal agencies proposed regulations which could significantly change the regulation of incentive compensation programs at financial institutions. The proposal would create four tiers of institutions based on asset size. Institutions in the top two tiers would be subject to rules much more detailed and proscriptive than are currently in effect. If interpreted aggressively by the regulators, the proposed rules could be used to prevent, as a practical matter, larger institutions from engaging in certain lines of business where substantial commission and bonus pool arrangements are the norm. In the 2016 proposal, the top two tiers included institutions with more than $50 billion of assets, which would not currently apply to us. We cannot predict what final rules may be adopted, nor how they may be implemented and, therefore, it cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect our ability to hire, retain and motivate our key employees..

In addition, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”), which was signed into law in December 2017, contains certain provisions affecting performance-based compensation. Specifically, the pre-existing exception to the $1.0 million deduction limitation applicable to performance-based compensation was repealed. The deduction limitation is now applied to all compensation exceeding $1.0 million, for our covered employees, regardless of how it is classified, which could have an adverse effect on our income tax expense and net income.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addressed many investor protection, corporate governance and executive compensation matters that affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd-Frank Act (i) grants stockholders of U.S. publicly traded companies an advisory vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, (ii) enhances independence requirements for compensation committee members, (iii) requires the SEC to adopt rules directing national securities exchanges to establish listing standards requiring all listed companies to adopt incentive-based compensation clawback policies for executive officers, and (iv) provides the SEC with authority to adopt proxy access rules that would allow stockholders of publicly traded companies to nominate candidates for election as a director and have those nominees included in a company’s proxy materials. The SEC has completed the bulk (although not all) of the rulemaking necessary to implement these provisions. However, on October 14, 2021, the SEC signaled a renewed interest in this rulemaking initiative by re-opening the comment period on a proposed rule issued originally in 2015 regarding clawbacks of incentive-based executive compensation. On October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted final rules implementing the incentive-based compensation recovery (clawback) provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rules direct the stock exchanges to establish listing standards requiring listed companies to develop and implement a policy providing for the recovery of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation received by current or former executive officers and to satisfy related disclosure obligations. We are currently awaiting the final rules from The Nasdaq Stock Market, which are not expected to take effect until mid-2023 at the earliest.

Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate. Concentration risk exists when FDIC-insured institutions deploy too many assets to any one industry or segment. A concentration in commercial real estate is one example of regulatory concern. The interagency Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices guidance (“CRE Guidance”) provides supervisory criteria, including the following numerical indicators, to assist bank examiners in identifying banks with potentially significant commercial real estate loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny: (i) total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans, including loans secured by apartment buildings, investor commercial real estate, and construction and land loans, exceeding 300% or more of an institution’s total risk-based capital and the outstanding balance of the commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more in the preceding three years or (ii) construction and land development loans exceeding 100% of total risk-based capital. The CRE Guidance does not limit banks’ levels of commercial real estate lending activities, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentrations. On December 18, 2015, the federal banking agencies issued a statement to reinforce prudent risk-management practices related to commercial real estate lending, having observed substantial growth in many commercial real estate asset and lending markets, increased competitive pressures, rising commercial real estate concentrations in banks, and an easing of commercial real estate underwriting standards. The federal bank agencies reminded FDIC-insured institutions to maintain underwriting discipline and exercise prudent risk-management practices to identify, measure, monitor and manage the risks arising from commercial real estate lending. In addition, FDIC-insured institutions must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentration risk. Based on the Bank’s loan portfolio as of December 31, 2022, its non-owner occupied commercial loans and its construction and land development loans were approximately 272% and 56% of total risk-based capital, respectively. Management will continue to monitor the level of the concentration in commercial real estate loans within the bank’s loan portfolio.

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 our operating environment 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 our financial condition or results of operations. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or the Bank could have a material effect on our business.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

There are risks, many beyond our control, which could cause our results to differ significantly from management’s expectations. Some of these risk factors are described below. Any factor described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could, by itself or together with one or more other factors, adversely affect our business, results of operations and/or financial condition. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently consider to not be material also may materially and adversely affect us. In assessing these risks, you should also refer to other information disclosed in our SEC filings, including the financial statements and notes thereto. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ substantially from those discussed or implied in these forward-looking statements.

Economic and Geographic-Related Risks

Our business may be adversely affected by economic conditions generally.

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 and whose success we rely on to drive our growth, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the primary markets where we operate and in the U.S. as a whole. Unlike larger banks that are more geographically diversified, we are a regional bank that provides banking and financial services to customers primarily in South Carolina and Georgia. The economic conditions in these local markets may be different from, and in some instances worse than, the economic conditions in the U.S. as a whole.

Some elements of the business environment that affect our financial performance include short-term and long-term interest rates, the prevailing yield curve, inflation and price levels, monetary and trade policy, unemployment and the strength of the domestic economy and the local economy in the markets in which we operate. Unfavorable market conditions can result in a deterioration in the credit quality of our borrowers and the demand for our products and services, an increase in the number of loan delinquencies, defaults and charge-offs, foreclosures, additional provisions for loan losses, adverse asset values of the collateral securing our loans and an overall material adverse effect on the quality of our loan portfolio. The majority of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate. A decline in real estate values can negatively impact our ability to recover our investment should the borrower become delinquent. Loans secured by stock or other collateral may be adversely impacted by a downturn in the economy and other factors that could reduce the recoverability of our investment. Unsecured loans are dependent on the solvency of the borrower, which can deteriorate, leaving us with a risk of loss. 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; epidemics and pandemics (such as COVID-19); or a combination of these or other factors.

As economic conditions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic have improved, the Federal Reserve has shifted its focus to limiting inflationary and other potentially adverse effects of the extensive pandemic-related government stimulus, which signals the potential for a continued period of economic uncertainty even though the pandemic has subsided. In addition, there are continuing concerns related to, among other things, the level of U.S. government debt and fiscal actions that may be taken to address that debt, a potential resurgence of economic and political tensions with China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, all of which may have a destabilizing effect on financial markets and economic activity. Economic pressure on consumers and overall economic uncertainty may result in changes in consumer and business spending, borrowing and saving habits. These economic conditions and/or other negative developments in the domestic or international credit markets or economies 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 values and sales volumes and high unemployment or underemployment may also result in higher than expected loan delinquencies, increases in our levels of nonperforming and classified assets 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.

In addition, recently, concerns have arisen with respect to the financial condition of a number of banking organizations in the United States, in particular those with exposure to certain types of depositors and large portfolios of investment securities. On March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver of Silicon Valley Bank. On March 11, 2023, Signature Bank was similarly closed and placed into receivership and concurrently the Federal Reserve Board announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to assist eligible banking organizations with potential liquidity needs. While the Company’s business, balance sheet and depositor profile differs substantially from banking institutions that are the focus of the greatest scrutiny, the operating environment and public trading prices of financial services sector securities can be highly correlated, in particular in times of stress, which may adversely affect the trading price of the Company’s common stock and potentially its results of operations.

Credit and Interest Rate Risk

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, 2022, approximately 89.0% of our loan portfolio (excluding loans held for sale) is composed of construction (9.3%), commercial mortgage (71.8%) and commercial (7.9%) loans. 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. If we suffer loan losses that exceed our allowance for loans losses, our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. 

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, 2022, we had approximately $788.9 million in loans outstanding to borrowers whereby the collateral securing the loan was commercial real estate, representing approximately 80.4% of our total loans outstanding as of that date. Approximately $267.2 million or 27.2% of our total loans and 33.9% of our commercial real estate loans are secured by 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 12.2%, or $85.6 million, since December 31, 2021. The banking regulators give 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.

Imposition of limits by the bank regulators on commercial and multi-family real estate lending activities could curtail our growth and adversely affect our earnings.

In 2006, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued joint guidance entitled “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices” (the “CRE Guidance”). Although the CRE Guidance did not establish specific lending limits, it provides that a bank’s commercial real estate lending exposure could receive increased supervisory scrutiny where (i) total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans, including loans secured by apartment buildings, investor commercial real estate, and construction and land loans, represent 300% or more of an institution’s total risk-based capital, and the outstanding balance of the commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more during the preceding 36 months, or (ii) construction and land development loans exceed 100% of total risk-based capital. Our total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans represented 272% of the Bank’s total risk-based capital at December 31, 2022, and our construction and land development loans represented 56% of the Bank’s total risk-based capital at December 31, 2022.

In December 2015, the regulatory agencies released a new statement on prudent risk management for commercial real estate lending (the “2015 Statement”). In the 2015 Statement, the regulatory agencies, among other things, indicated their intent to continue “to pay special attention” to commercial real estate lending activities and concentrations going forward. If the FDIC, our primary federal regulator, were to impose restrictions on the amount of commercial real estate loans we can hold in our portfolio, for reasons noted above or otherwise, our earnings would be adversely affected.

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, 2022, commercial business loans comprised 7.9% 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. If these borrowers do not have sufficient cash flows or resources to pay these loans as they come due or the value of the underlying collateral is insufficient to fully secure these loans, we may suffer losses on these loans that exceed our allowance for loan losses.

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.

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, 2022, approximately $21.9 million of our loans, or 13.9% of the Bank’s regulatory capital (Tier 1 Capital plus allowance for loan and lease losses), had loan-to-value ratios that exceeded regulatory supervisory guidelines, of which two loans totaling approximately $481 thousand had loan-to-value ratios of 100% or more. In addition, supervisory limits on commercial loan-to-value exceptions are set at 30% of the Bank’s tier 1 capital plus allowance for loan and lease losses. At December 31, 2022, $16.6 million of our commercial loans, or 10.6% of the 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, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

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 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.

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.

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 investment securities, which include 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 a significant change in interest rates could potentially 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.

Capital and Liquidity Risks

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 $570.6 million in 2022, as compared to $456.8 million in 2021. This represents 37.0% and 32.2% of the average earning assets for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. At December 31, 2021, the portfolio was 36.2% of earning assets compared to 38.2% of earning assets at December 31, 2021. 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.

On June 1, 2022, we reclassified $224.5 million in investments to held-to-maturity (HTM) from available-for-sale (AFS). These securities were transferred at fair value at the time of the transfer, which became the new cost basis for the securities held to maturity. The pretax unrealized net holding loss on the available for sale securities on the date of transfer totaled approximately $16.7 million, and continued to be reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive loss. This net unrealized loss is being amortized to interest income over the remaining life of the securities as a yield adjustment. There were no gains or losses recognized as a result of this transfer. The remaining pretax unrealized net holding loss on these investments was $15.7 million ($12.4 million net of tax) at December 31, 2022. Our HTM investments totaled $228.7 million and represented approximately 40.5% of our total investments at December 31, 2022. Our AFS investments totaled $331.9 million or approximately 58.8% of our total investments with an modified duration of 3.15 at December 31, 2022. Investments at cost totaled $4.2 million or approximately 0.7% of our total investments at December 31, 2022.

As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, 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.

The Bank is subject to strict capital requirements, which could be amended to be more stringent, in the future.

The Bank is subject to regulatory requirements specifying minimum amounts and types of capital that we must maintain and an additional capital conservation buffer. From time to time, the regulators change these regulatory capital adequacy guidelines. If we fail to meet these capital guidelines and other regulatory requirements, we or our subsidiaries may be restricted in the types of activities we may conduct and we may be prohibited from taking certain capital actions, such as paying dividends, repurchasing or redeeming capital securities, and paying certain bonuses.

In particular, the capital requirements applicable under the Basel III require the Bank to satisfy additional, more stringent, capital adequacy standards than it had in the past. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements could result in certain mandatory and possible additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have an adverse material effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, these requirements could have a negative impact on our ability to lend, grow deposit balances, make acquisitions, make capital distributions in the form of dividends or share repurchases, or pay certain bonuses needed to attract and retain key personnel. Higher capital levels could also lower our return on equity.

Risks Related to Our Industry

Inflationary pressures and rising prices may affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Inflation has continued rising in 2022 at levels not seen for over 40 years. Inflationary pressures are currently expected to remain elevated throughout 2023. Inflation could lead to increased costs to our customers, making it more difficult for them to repay their loans or other obligations increasing our credit risk. Sustained higher interest rates by the Federal Reserve may be needed to tame persistent inflationary price pressures, which could push down asset prices and weaken economic activity. A deterioration in economic conditions in the United States and our markets could result in an increase in loan delinquencies and non-performing assets, decreases in loan collateral values and a decrease in demand for our products and services, all of which, in turn, would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The phase-out of LIBOR could negatively impact our net interest income and require significant operational work.

The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) regulates the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), the reference rate previously used for many of our transactions, including our lending and borrowing and our purchase and sale of securities, as well as the derivatives that we use to manage risk related to such transactions. The FCA announced in July 2017 that the sustainability of LIBOR could not be guaranteed. Accordingly, although the FCA confirmed the extension of overnight and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month LIBOR through June 30, 2023 in order to accord financial institutions greater time with which to manage the transition from LIBOR, the FCA is no longer persuading, or compelling, banks to submit to LIBOR. The federal banking agencies, including the OCC, previously determined that banks should have ceased entering into any new contract that uses LIBOR as a reference rate by December 31, 2021. In addition, banks have been encouraged to identify contracts that extend beyond June 30, 2023 and implement plans to identify and address insufficient contingency provisions in those contracts. The discontinuance of LIBOR has resulted in significant uncertainty regarding the transition to suitable alternative reference rates and could adversely impact our business, operations, and financial results.

The discontinuation of LIBOR, changes in LIBOR, or changes in market perceptions of the acceptability of LIBOR as a benchmark could result in changes to our risk exposures (for example, if the anticipated discontinuation of LIBOR adversely affects the availability or cost of floating-rate funding and, therefore, our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates) or otherwise result in losses on a product or having to pay more or receive less on securities that we own or have issued. In addition, such uncertainty could result in pricing volatility and increased capital requirements, loss of market share in certain products, adverse tax or accounting impacts, and compliance, legal and operational costs and risks associated with client disclosures, discretionary actions taken or negotiation of fallback provisions, systems disruption, business continuity, and model disruption. The implementation of LIBOR reform proposals may result in increased compliance costs and operational costs, including costs related to continued participation in LIBOR and the transition to a replacement reference rate or rates. We cannot reasonably estimate the expected cost.

As of December 31, 2022, we had $15.5 million in LIBOR-based loans, $48.1 million in securities, and $15.0 million in junior subordinated debt indexed to LIBOR. Uncertainty as to the nature of alternative reference rates and as to potential changes or other reforms to LIBOR may adversely affect LIBOR rates and the value of LIBOR-based loans, if such loans do not mature or pre-pay before the transition. For new loan originations and renewals, we have ceased relying on LIBOR and have moved to alternative indices.

Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could adversely affect our financial condition.

Our deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain deposit insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, we are required to pay quarterly deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. Although we cannot predict what the insurance assessment rates will be in the future, either deterioration in our risk-based capital ratios or adjustments to the base assessment rates could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

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

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, such as FinTech companies, 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. 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 business, 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.

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. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological changes could have a material adverse impact on our business, 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, 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.

Risks Related to Our Strategy

We may be adversely affected by risks associated with future mergers and acquisitions, including execution risk, which could disrupt our business and dilute shareholder value.

From time to time, we may seek to acquire other financial institutions or parts of those institutions. We may also expand into new markets, like we did in York County, South Carolina in 2022, or lines of business or offer new products or services. These activities would involve a number of risks, including:

If we do not successfully manage these risks, our merger and acquisition activities could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations, including short-term and long-term liquidity, and our ability to successfully implement our strategic plan.

We may be exposed to difficulties in combining the operations of acquired businesses into our own operations, which may prevent us from achieving the expected benefits from our acquisition activities.

We may not be able to fully achieve the strategic objectives and operating efficiencies that we anticipate in our acquisition activities. Inherent uncertainties exist in integrating the operations of an acquired business. In addition, the markets and industries in which we and our potential acquisition targets operate are highly competitive. We may lose customers or the customers of acquired entities as a result of an acquisition. We also may lose key personnel from the acquired entity as a result of an acquisition. We may not discover all known and unknown factors when examining a company for acquisition during the due diligence period. These factors could produce unintended and unexpected consequences for us. Undiscovered factors as a result of acquisitions, pursued by non-related third party entities, could bring civil, criminal, and financial liabilities against us, our management, and the management of those entities acquired. These factors could contribute to us not achieving the expected benefits from acquisitions within desired time frames.

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.

Risks Related to Our Human Capital

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 materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Operational Risks

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, plans 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.

We are at risk of increased losses from fraud.

Criminals committing fraud increasingly are using more sophisticated techniques and in some cases are part of larger criminal rings, which allow them to be more effective. The fraudulent activity has taken many forms, ranging from check fraud, mechanical devices attached to ATM machines, social engineering and phishing attacks to obtain personal information or impersonation of our clients through the use of falsified or stolen credentials. Additionally, an individual or business entity may properly identify themselves, particularly when banking online, yet seek to establish a business relationship for the purpose of perpetrating fraud. Further, in addition to fraud committed against us, we may suffer losses as a result of fraudulent activity committed against third parties. Increased deployment of technologies, such as chip card technology, defray and reduce aspects of fraud; however, criminals are turning to other sources to steal personally identifiable information, such as unaffiliated healthcare providers and government entities, in order to impersonate the consumer to commit fraud. Many of these data compromises are widely reported in the media. As a result of the increased sophistication of fraud activity, we have increased our spending on systems and controls to detect and prevent fraud. This will result in continued ongoing investments in the future.

Nevertheless, these investments may prove insufficient and fraudulent activity could result in losses to us or our customers; loss of business and/or customers; damage to our reputation; the incurrence of additional expenses (including the cost of notification to consumers, credit monitoring and forensics, and fees and fines imposed by the card networks); disruption to our business; our inability to grow our online services or other businesses; additional regulatory scrutiny or penalties; or our exposure to civil litigation and possible financial liability any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our use of third party vendors and our other ongoing third party business relationships are subject to increasing regulatory requirements and attention.

We regularly use third party vendors as part of our business. We also have substantial ongoing business relationships with other third parties. These types of third party relationships are subject to increasingly demanding regulatory requirements and attention by our federal bank regulators. Recent regulation requires us to enhance our due diligence, ongoing monitoring and control over our third party vendors and other ongoing third party business relationships. We expect that our regulators will hold us responsible for deficiencies in our oversight and control of our third party relationships and in the performance of the parties with which we have these relationships. As a result, if our regulators conclude that we have not exercised adequate oversight and control over our third party vendors or other ongoing third party business relationships or that such third parties have not performed appropriately, we could be subject to enforcement actions, including civil money penalties or other administrative or judicial penalties or fines as well as requirements for customer remediation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Negative public opinion surrounding the Bank 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 the Bank 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, mergers 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, could impair the confidence of our investors, counterparties and business partners and can affect our ability to effect transactions 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, Accounting, Regulatory and Compliance 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. The Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, the regulating authority that insures customer deposits; and by our state regulator, the S.C. Board. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”), the 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. The 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.

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.

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 DOJ, 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, 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. Such 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.

New accounting standards will likely require us to increase our allowance for loan losses and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The measure of our allowance for loan losses is dependent on the adoption and interpretation of accounting standards. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) has issued a new credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL model, which became applicable to us on January 1, 2023 and for interim periods within that year. Under the CECL model, we are required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and periodically thereafter. This differs significantly from the “incurred loss” model currently required under GAAP, which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred. Accordingly, the adoption of the CECL model will materially affect how we determine our allowance for loan losses and could require us to significantly increase our allowance. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We adopted CECL on January 1, 2023, and currently estimate the allowance for credit losses will increase by approximately zero to $50 thousand upon adoption. In addition, we expect to recognize a liability for the unfunded commitments of approximately $350 thousand to $450 thousand upon adoption. The impact to retained earnings is expected to be a reduction of approximately $275 thousand to $395 thousand, net of tax. The adoption of CECL will not have a significant impact to our regulatory capital. We will finalize the adoption during the first quarter of 2023.

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.

We face risks related to the adoption of future legislation and potential changes in federal regulatory agency leadership, policies, and priorities.

With the new Congress taking office in 2023, Republicans gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, while Democrats retained control of the U.S. Senate. However slim the majorities, though, the net result was a split Congress, which in the past leads to less sweeping policy changes. Congressional committees with jurisdiction over the banking sector have pursued oversight and legislative initiatives in a variety of areas, including addressing climate-related risks, promoting diversity and equality within the banking industry and addressing other Environmental, Social, and Governance matters, improving competition in the banking sector and enhancing oversight of bank mergers and acquisitions, establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets and markets, and oversight of the COVID-19 pandemic response and economic recovery. The prospects for the enactment of major banking reform legislation remains unclear at this time.

Moreover, the turnover of the presidential administration resulted in certain changes in the leadership and senior staffs of the federal banking agencies, the CFPB, CFTC, SEC, and the Treasury Department, with certain significant leadership positions yet to be filled, including the Comptroller of the Currency. These changes have impacted the rulemaking, supervision, examination and enforcement priorities and policies of the agencies and likely will continue to do so over the next several years. The potential impact of any changes in agency personnel, policies and priorities on the financial services sector, including the Company and the Bank, cannot be predicted at this time. Regulations and laws may be modified at any time, and new legislation may be enacted that will affect us. Any future changes in federal and state laws and regulations, as well as the interpretation and implementation of such laws and regulations, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including those listed above or other ways that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We are party to various claims and 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, we, our directors and our management are or may be the subject of various claims and legal actions by customers, employees, shareholders and others. Whether such 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. In light of the potential cost, reputational damage and uncertainty involved in litigation, we have in the past and may in the future settle matters even when we believe we have a meritorious defense. Certain claims may seek injunctive relief, which could disrupt the ordinary conduct of our business and operations or increase our cost of doing business. Our insurance or indemnities may not cover all claims that may be asserted against us. Any judgments or settlements in any pending litigation or future claims, litigation or investigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

From time to time we are, or may become, involved in suits, legal proceedings, information-gatherings, investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory agencies that may lead to adverse consequences.

Many aspects of the banking business involve a substantial risk of legal liability. From time to time, we are, or may become, the subject of information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings, and other forms of regulatory inquiry, including by bank regulatory agencies, self-regulatory agencies, the SEC and law enforcement authorities. The results of such proceedings could lead to significant civil or criminal penalties, including monetary penalties, damages, adverse judgements, settlements, fines, injunctions, restrictions on the way we conduct our business or reputational harm.

We could be adversely affected by changes in tax laws and regulations or the interpretations of such laws and regulations.

We are subject to the income tax laws of the U.S., and its states and municipalities in which we do business. These tax laws are complex and may be subject to different interpretations. We must make judgments and interpretations about the application of these inherently complex tax laws when determining our provision for income taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities, and our valuation allowance. Changes to the tax laws, administrative rulings or court decisions could increase our provision for income taxes and reduce our net income.

In addition, our ability to continue to record our deferred tax assets is dependent on our ability to realize their value through future projected earnings. Future changes in tax laws or regulations could adversely affect our ability to record our deferred tax assets. Loss of part or all of our deferred tax assets would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to realize deferred tax assets may be reduced, which may adversely impact our results of operations.

Deferred tax assets are reported as assets on our balance sheet and represent the decrease in taxes expected to be paid in the future because of net operating losses (“NOLs”) and tax credit carryforwards and because of future reversals of temporary differences in the bases of assets and liabilities as measured by enacted tax laws and their bases as reported in the financial statements. As of December 31, 2022, we had net deferred tax assets of $11.7 million. Realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of sufficient future taxable income during the periods in which existing deferred tax assets are expected to become deductible for federal income tax purposes. Based on projections of future taxable income in periods in which deferred tax assets are expected to become deductible, management determined that the realization of our net deferred tax asset was more likely than not. As a result, we did not recognize a valuation allowance on our net deferred tax asset as of December 31, 2022. If it becomes more likely than not that some portion or the entire deferred tax asset will not be realized, a valuation allowance must be recognized. Our deferred tax asset may be further reduced in the future if estimates of future income or our tax planning strategies do not support the amount of the deferred tax assets. Charges to establish a valuation allowance with respect to our deferred tax asset 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 our ability 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 us, 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.

Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws, South Carolina law, and state and federal banking regulations, could delay or prevent a takeover by a third party.

Our articles of incorporation and bylaws could delay, defer, or prevent a third party takeover, despite possible benefit to the shareholders, or otherwise adversely affect the price of our common stock. Our governing documents:

In addition, the South Carolina business combinations statute provides that a 10% or greater shareholder of a resident domestic corporation cannot engage in a “business combination” (as defined in the statute) with such corporation for a period of two years following the date on which the 10% shareholder became such, unless the business combination or the acquisition of shares is approved by a majority of the disinterested members of such corporation’s board of directors before the 10% shareholder’s share acquisition date. This statute further provides that at no time (even after the two-year period subsequent to such share acquisition date) may the 10% shareholder engage in a business combination with the relevant corporation unless certain approvals of the board of directors or disinterested shareholders are obtained or unless the consideration given in the combination meets certain minimum standards set forth in the statute. The law is very broad in its scope and is designed to inhibit unfriendly acquisitions but it does not apply to corporations whose articles of incorporation contain a provision electing not to be covered by the law. Our articles of incorporation do not contain such a provision. An amendment of our articles of incorporation to that effect would, however, permit a business combination with an interested shareholder even though such status was obtained prior to the amendment.

Finally, the Change in Bank Control Act and the Bank Holding Company Act generally require filings and approvals prior to certain transactions that would result in a party acquiring control of the Company or the Bank.

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.  

General Risk Factors

Increasing scrutiny and evolving expectations from customers, regulators, investors, and other stakeholders with respect to our environmental, social and governance practices may impose additional costs on us or expose us to new or additional risks.

Companies are facing increasing scrutiny from customers, regulators, investors, and other stakeholders related to their environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) practices and disclosure. Investor advocacy groups, investment funds and influential investors are also increasingly focused on these practices, especially as they relate to the environment, health and safety, diversity, labor conditions and human rights. Increased ESG related compliance costs could result in increases to our overall operational costs. Failure to adapt to or comply with regulatory requirements or investor or stakeholder expectations and standards could negatively impact our reputation, ability to do business with certain partners, and our stock price. New government regulations could also result in new or more stringent forms of ESG oversight and expanding mandatory and voluntary reporting, diligence, and disclosure. Additionally, concerns over the long-term impacts of climate change have led and will continue to lead to governmental efforts around the world to mitigate those impacts. Consumers and businesses also may change their behavior on their own as a result of these concerns. We and our customers will need to respond to new laws and regulations as well as consumer and business preferences resulting from climate change concerns. We and our customers may face cost increases, asset value reductions, operating process changes, among other impacts. The impact on our customers will likely vary depending on their specific attributes, including reliance on or role in carbon intensive activities. In addition, we could face reductions in creditworthiness on the part of some customers or in the value of assets securing loans. Our efforts to take these risks into account in making lending and other decisions may not be effective in protecting us from the negative impact of new laws and regulations or changes in consumer or business behavior.

Climate change could have a material adverse impact on us and our customers.

We are exposed to risks of physical impacts of climate change and risks arising from the process of transitioning to a less carbon-dependent economy. Climate change-related physical risks include increased severity and frequency of adverse weather events, such as extreme storms and flooding, and longer-term shifts in climate patterns, such as rising temperatures and sea levels and changes in precipitation amount and distribution. Such physical risks may have adverse impacts on us, both directly on our business operations and as a result of impacts on our borrowers and counterparties, such as declines in the value of loans, investments, real estate and other assets, disruptions in business operations and economic activity, including supply chains, and market volatility.

Transition risks include changes in regulations, market preferences and technologies toward a less carbon-dependent economy. The possible adverse impacts of transition risks include asset devaluations, increased operational and compliance costs, and an inability to meet regulatory or market expectations. For example, we may become subject to new or heightened regulatory requirements and stakeholder expectations regarding climate change, including those relating operational resiliency, disclosure and financial reporting.

The risks associated with climate change are rapidly changing and evolving, making them difficult to assess due to limited data and other uncertainties. We could experience increased expenses resulting from strategic planning, litigation, and technology and market changes, and reputational harm as a result of negative public sentiment, regulatory scrutiny, and reduced investor and stakeholder confidence due to our response to climate change and our climate change strategy, which, in turn, could have a material negative impact on 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.

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.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties.

Our principal place of business as well as the Bank’s is located at 5455 Sunset Boulevard, Lexington, South Carolina 29072. In addition, we currently operate 22 full-service offices located in the South Carolina counties of Lexington County (6 offices), Richland County (4 offices), Newberry County (2 offices), Kershaw County (1 office), Aiken County (1 office), Greenville County (2 offices), Anderson County (1 office), Pickens County (1 office), York County (1 office), and in the Georgia counties of Richmond County (2 offices) and Columbia County (1 office). All of these properties are owned by the Bank except for the Downtown Augusta, Georgia (Richmond County), Greenville, South Carolina, and York County, South Carolina full-service branch offices, which are 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.

Not applicable.

PART II

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

As of February 28, 2023, there were approximately 1,838 shareholders of record of our common stock. Our common stock trades on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the trading symbol of “FCCO.”

Quarterly Common Stock Price Ranges and Dividends

The following table sets forth the high and low sales price information as reported by NASDAQ for the periods indicated, 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.

Dividend Policy

We currently intend to continue to pay quarterly cash dividends on our common stock, subject to approval by our board of directors, although we may elect not to pay dividends or to change the amount of such dividends. The payment of dividends is a decision of our board of directors based upon then-existing circumstances, including our rate of growth, profitability, financial condition, existing and anticipated capital requirements, the amount of funds legally available for the payment of cash dividends, regulatory constraints and such other factors as the board determines relevant. The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement on the payment of cash dividends by bank holding companies, which expresses the Federal Reserve’s view that a bank holding company generally should pay cash dividends only to the extent that the holding company’s net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the holding company’s capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve has also indicated that a bank holding company should not maintain a level of cash dividends that places undue pressure on the capital of its bank subsidiaries, or that can be funded only through additional borrowings or other arrangements that undermine the bank holding company’s ability to act as a source of strength.

The Company’s ability to pay dividends is generally limited by the ability of the Bank to pay 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. In addition, the Bank must maintain a capital conservation buffer, above its regulatory minimum capital requirements, consisting entirely of Common Equity Tier 1 capital, in order to avoid restrictions with respect to its payment of dividends to the Company. 

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

Pursuant to our Amended and Restated 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 quarterly to the director’s account equal to (i) the otherwise payable amount divided by (ii) the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the last trading day of such calendar quarter. In general, a director’s vested account balance will be distributed in a lump sum of our common stock on the 30th day following the participants separation from service. During the year ended December 31, 2022, we credited an aggregate of 7,723 deferred stock units to accounts for directors who elected to defer monthly fees or annual retainer fees for 2022. These deferred stock units include dividend equivalents in the form of additional stock units. The deferred stock units were issued 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.

Repurchases of Equity Securities

On April 12, 2021, we announced that our Board of Directors approved the repurchase of up to 375,000 shares of our common stock (the “2021 Repurchase Plan”). No repurchases were made under the 2021 Repurchase Plan prior to its expiration at the market close on March 31, 2022. On April 20, 2022, we announced that our Board of Directors approved the repurchase of up to 375,000 shares of our common stock (the “2022 Repurchase Plan”), which represented approximately 5% of our 7,577,912 shares outstanding as of December 31, 2022. No repurchases have been made under the 2022 Repurchase Plan. The 2022 Repurchase Plan expires at the market close on December 31, 2023.

Item 6. [Reserved].  

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

The following discussion and analysis 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Overview

We are headquartered in Lexington, South Carolina and serve as the bank holding company for the Bank. 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, professionals and individuals. We operate from our main office in Lexington, South Carolina, and our 22 full-service offices located in the South Carolina counties of Lexington County (6 offices), Richland County (4 offices), Newberry County (2 offices), Kershaw County (1 office), Aiken County (1 office), Greenville County (2 offices), Anderson County (1 office), Pickens County (1 office), and York County (1 office); and in the Georgia counties of Richmond County (2 offices) and Columbia County (1 office). On March 14, 2022, we opened a loan production office in Rock Hill, South Carolina, which is located in York County. We converted this loan production office into a full-service banking office on October 20, 2022. We refer to York County, South Carlina and the surrounding area as the Piedmont Region.

The following discussion describes our results of operations for 2022, as compared to 2021 and 2020, and also analyzes our financial condition as of December 31, 2022, as compared to December 31, 2021. 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 and borrowings.

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 2022, 2021 and 2020 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, our deposits and our 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.

Critical Accounting Estimates

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 inherently involve a greater reliance on the use of estimates, assumptions and judgments and, as such, have a greater possibility of producing results that could be materially different than originally reported, which could have a material impact on the carrying values of our assets and liabilities and our results of operations. We consider these accounting policies and estimates to be critical accounting policies. We have identified the determination of the allowance for loan losses and income taxes and deferred tax assets, to be the accounting areas that require the most subjective or complex judgments and, as such, could be most subject to revision as new or additional information becomes available or circumstances change, including overall changes in the economic climate and/or market interest rates. Therefore, management has reviewed and approved these critical accounting policies and estimates and has discussed these policies with our Audit and Compliance Committee.

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. 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 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 credit worthiness of borrowers, collectability of loans, including consideration of factors such as the balance of impaired loans, the quality, mix, and size of our overall loan portfolio, the knowledge and depth of lending personnel, economic conditions (local and national) 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 qualitative factors 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. During the first quarter of 2020, we added a new qualitative factor related to the economic uncertainties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 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.

For the financial information included in this Annual Report of Form 10-K, we account for our allowance for loan losses under the incurred loss model. 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 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements). The annualized weighted average loss ratios over the last 36 months for loans classified as substandard, special mention and pass have been approximately 0.00%, 0.07% and 0.00%, 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. 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.

The allowance represents management’s best estimate, [and we believe our estimate has been reasonably accurate in determining allowance for loan loss adequacy], but significant downturns in circumstances relating to loan quality and economic conditions could result in a requirement for additional allowance. Likewise, an upturn in loan quality and improved economic conditions may allow a reduction in the required allowance. In either instance, unanticipated changes could have a significant impact on results of operations. In addition, regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review our allowance for loan losses. Such agencies may require us to recognize additions to the allowances based on their judgments about information available to them at the time of their examination.   

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, as amended, to replace the incurred loss model with an expected loss model, which is referred to as the current expected credit loss (CECL) model. The CECL model is applicable to the measurement of credit losses on financial assets measured at amortized cost, including loan receivables and held-to-maturity debt securities. It also applies to off-balance sheet credit exposures not accounted for as insurance (loan commitments, standby letters of credit, financial guarantees, and similar instruments) and net investments in leases recognized by a lessor. For debt securities with other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI), the guidance will be applied prospectively. Existing purchased credit impaired (PCI) assets will be grandfathered and classified as purchased credit deteriorated (PCD) assets at the date of adoption. The assets will be grossed up for the allowance of expected credit losses for all PCD assets at the date of adoption and will continue to recognize the noncredit discount in interest income based on the yield of such assets as of the adoption date. Subsequent changes in expected credit losses will be recorded through the allowance. Adoption is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2022. Early adoption was permitted. The Company adopted CECL on January 1, 2023, and currently estimates the allowance for credit losses will increase by approximately zero to $50 thousand. In addition, the Company expects to recognize a liability for the unfunded commitments of approximately $350 thousand to $450 thousand upon adoption. The impact to retained earnings is expected to be a reduction of approximately $275 thousand to $395 thousand, net of tax. The adoption of CECL will not have a significant impact to the Bank’s regulatory capital. The Company will finalize the adoption during the first quarter of 2023.

Income Taxes, Deferred Tax Assets, and Deferred Tax Liabilities

We are subject to the income tax laws of the U.S., its states, and the municipalities in which we operate. These tax laws are complex and subject to different interpretations by the taxpayer and the relevant government taxing authorities.

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, write-downs on premises held-for-sale, 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.

In establishing our provision for income taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities, and our valuation allowance, we must make judgments and interpretations about the application of these inherently complex tax laws. We must also make estimates about when in the future certain items will affect taxable income in the various tax jurisdictions. Disputes over interpretations of the tax laws may be subject to review/adjudication by the court systems of the various tax jurisdictions or may be settled with the taxing authority upon examination or audit. Although we believe that the judgments and estimates used are reasonable, and we believe our estimates have been reasonably accurate, actual results could differ, and we may be exposed to losses or gains that could be material. To the extent we prevail in matters for which reserves have been established, or are required to pay amounts in excess of our reserves, our effective income tax rate in a given financial statement period could be materially affected. An unfavorable tax settlement would result in an increase in our effective income tax rate in the period of resolution. A favorable tax settlement would result in a reduction in our effective income tax rate in the period of resolution.

Financial Highlights

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, excluding gains (losses) on sales of securities and other assets, write-downs on premises held-for-sale, non-recurring bank owned life insurance (BOLI) income, gains on insurance proceeds, and collection of summary judgments on loans charged off at a bank we acquired. The efficiency ratio is a measure of the relationship between operating expenses and net revenue. “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 our results as reported under GAAP.

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

Results of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2022 and 2021

Our net income for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 was $14.6 million, or $1.92 diluted earnings per common share, as compared to $15.5 million, or $2.05 diluted earnings per common share, for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021. The $852 thousand decline in net income between the two periods is primarily due to a $2.3 million decline in non-interest income and a $2.1 million increase in non-interest expense partially offset by a $2.7 million increase in net interest income, a $487 thousand reduction in provision for loan losses, and a $384 thousand reduction in income tax expense.

Year Ended December 31, 2021 and 2020

Our net income for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 was $15.5 million, or $2.05 diluted earnings per common share, as compared to $10.1 million, or $1.35 diluted earnings per common share, for the twelve months ended December 31, 2020. The $5.4 million increase in net income between the two periods is primarily due to a $5.3 million increase in net interest income, a $135 thousand increase in non-interest income, and a $3.3 million reduction in provision for loan losses partially offset by a $1.7 million increase in non-interest expense and $1.7 million increase in income tax expense.

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 our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.

Year Ended December 31, 2022 and 2021

Net interest income increased $2.7 million, or 5.9%, to $47.9 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 from $45.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021. Our net interest margin declined by eight basis points to 3.11% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 from 3.19% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021. Our net interest margin, on a taxable equivalent basis, was 3.14% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 compared to 3.23% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021. Average earning assets increased $122.2 million, or 8.6%, to $1.5 billion for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 compared to $1.4 billion in the same period of 2021.

Average loans increased $31.4 million, or 3.5%, to $920.4 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 from $889.0 million for the same period in 2021. Average PPP loans declined $36.5 million and average Non-PPP loans increased $67.9 million to $336 thousand and $920.0 million, respectively, for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022. Average loans represented 59.7% of average earning assets during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 compared to 62.6% of average earning assets during the same period in 2021. Our loan (including loans held-for-sale) to deposit ratio on average during 2022 was 64.9%, as compared to 68.8% during 2021. These declines were due to our growth in deposits of $124.9 million exceeding our loan (including loans held-for-sale) growth of $31.4 million, net of a $36.5 million decline in PPP loans. However, the loan to deposit ratio (including loans held-for-sale) increased to 70.9% at December 31, 2022 as compared to 64.0% at December 31, 2021. Our growth in loans of $111.8 million from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022 exceeded our growth in deposits of $24.1 million during the same period.

The growth in our average deposits and securities sold under agreements to repurchase compared to the growth in our average loans, net of the $36.5 million decline in PPP loans resulted in the excess funds being deployed in our securities portfolio. The yield on loans declined 20 basis points to 4.26% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 from 4.46% during the same period in 2021 due to reduction in higher yielding PPP loans. The yield on Non-PPP loans was 4.26% during both the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021. Average securities for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 increased $113.7 million, or 24.9%, to $570.6 million from $456.8 million during the same period in 2021. Other short-term investments declined $22.9 million to $50.5 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 from $73.4 million during the same period in 2021 due to the deployment of lower yielding other short-term investments into higher yielding securities and loans. The yield on our securities portfolio increased to 1.97% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 from 1.69% for the same period in 2021. The yield on our other short-term investments increased to 1.25% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 from 0.18% for the same period in 2021 due to the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) increasing the target range of federal funds during the twelve months of 2022 a total of 425 basis points. The target range of federal funds was 4.25% - 4.50% at December 31, 2022 compared to compared to 0.00% - 0.25% at December 31, 2021.

The yield on earning assets for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 and 2021 were 3.32% and 3.35%, respectively.

The cost of interest-bearing liabilities was 30 basis points during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 compared to 24 basis points during the same period in 2021. The cost of deposits, including demand deposits, was 13 basis points during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 compared to 13 basis points during the same period in 2021. The cost of funds, including demand deposits, was 21 basis points during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 compared to 16 basis points during the same period in 2021. We continue to focus on growing our pure deposits (demand deposits, interest-bearing transaction accounts, savings deposits, money market accounts, IRAs, and customer cash management repurchase agreements) as these accounts tend to be low-cost deposits and assist us in controlling our overall cost of funds. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2022, these pure deposits averaged 92.2% of total deposits as compared to 90.6% during the same period of 2021.

Year Ended December 31, 2021 and 2020

Net interest income increased $5.3 million, or 13.1%, to $45.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 from $40.0 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2020. The yield on earning assets was 3.35%, and 3.65% in 2021 and 2020, respectively. The rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities was 0.24%, and 0.46% in 2021 and 2020, respectively. The fully taxable equivalent net interest margin was 3.23% in 2021 and 3.37% in 2020.

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. Our average loan portfolio (including loans held-for-sale) as a percentage of average earning assets was 62.6% in 2021 and 69.7% in 2020. Loans held-for-investment as a percentage of earning assets declined to 58.2% at December 31, 2021 from 65.1% at December 31, 2020. Our loan (including loans held-for-sale) to deposit ratio on average during 2021 was 68.8%, as compared to 76.8% during 2020. The loan to deposit ratio declined to 64.0% at December 31, 2021 as compared to 74.8% at December 31, 2020. This decline was due to our deposit growth of $171.9 million exceeding our loan (including loans held-for-sale) decline of $18.4 million and loan (excluding loans held-for-sale) growth of $19.5 million from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2021.

Our net interest margin declined by 15 basis points to 3.19% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 from 3.34% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2020. Our net interest margin, on a taxable equivalent basis, was 3.23% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to 3.37% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2020. Average earning assets increased $220.3 million, or 18.4%, to $1.4 billion for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to $1.2 billion in the same period of 2020. The increase in net interest income was due to a higher level of average earning assets partially offset by lower net interest margin. The increase in average earning assets was due to increases in loans, securities, and other short-term investments primarily due to Non-PPP loan growth, PPP loans, organic deposit growth, and excess liquidity from PPP loan proceeds and other stimulus funds related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The decline in net interest margin was primarily due to the Federal Reserve reducing the target range of the federal funds rate twice totaling 150 basis points during the first quarter of 2020 and the excess liquidity generated from PPP loan proceeds and other stimulus funds related to the COVID-19 pandemic being deployed in lower yielding securities and other short-term investments. Lower market rates, the competitive loan pricing environment, and the COVID-19 pandemic put downward pressure on our net interest margin during 2020 and 2021.

The net interest margin was positively affected by PPP loans and a $140 thousand interest recovery on a non-accrual loan that was successfully resolved during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021. We earned $3.3 million in PPP loan interest income, which includes $3.0 million in accretion of PPP deferred fees net of deferred costs, on an average balance of $36.8 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to $1.1 million in PPP loan interest income, which includes $738 thousand in accretion of PPP deferred loan fees net of deferred costs, on an average balance of $32.3 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2020. Excluding PPP loans, our net margin declined by 31 basis points to 3.03% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 from 3.34% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2020. Excluding PPP loans, our net interest margin, on a taxable equivalent basis, was 3.07% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to 3.37% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2020.

Average loans increased $53.9 million, or 6.5%, to $889.0 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 from $835.1 million for the same period in 2020. Average PPP loans increased $4.5 million to $36.8 million and average Non-PPP loans increased $49.4 million to $852.1 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021. Average loans represented 62.6% of average earning assets during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to 69.7% of average earning assets during the same period in 2020. The decline in average loans as a percentage of average earning assets was primarily due to increases in deposits of $205.3 million and securities sold under agreements to repurchase of $12.7 million. The growth in our deposits and securities sold under agreements to repurchase was higher than the growth in our loans, which resulted in the excess funds being deployed in our securities portfolio and other short-term investments and to reduce the amount of our FHLB advances. The yield on loans increased two basis points to 4.46% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 from 4.44% during the same period in 2020. Excluding PPP loans, the yield on Non-PPP loans declined 22 basis points to 4.26% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 from 4.48% during the same period in 2020. The yield on loans during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 also included $140 thousand in interest recoveries on a non-accrual relationship that was successfully resolved during the third quarter of 2021. The yield on PPP loans was 9.07% during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to 3.32% during the same period in 2020. PPP loans declined to $1.5 million at December 31, 2021 from $42.2 million at December 31, 2020 due to PPP loans forgiven through the SBA PPP forgiveness process. When PPP loans are forgiven any remaining deferred fees net of deferred costs are recognized in interest income through accelerated accretion of the deferred fees net of deferred costs. Interest income on PPP loans increased $2.3 million to $3.3 million during the twelve months of 2021 from $1.1 million during the same period in 2020. The $3.3 million in interest income on PPP loans during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 includes $3.0 million in accretion of deferred fees net of deferred costs.

Average securities and average other short-term investments for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 increased $155.9 million and $10.5 million, respectively, from the prior year period. The yield on our securities portfolio declined to 1.69% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 from 2.15% for the same period in 2020; and the yield on our other short-term investments declined to 0.18% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 from 0.44% for the same period in 2020. These declines were primarily related to the Federal Reserve reducing the target range of the federal funds rate as described above. The yield on earning assets for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 was 3.35% and 3.65%, respectively. The cost of interest-bearing liabilities was at 24 basis points during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to 46 basis points during the same period in 2020.

The cost of deposits, including demand deposits, was 13 basis points during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to 28 basis points during the same period in 2020. The cost of funds, including demand deposits, was 16 basis points during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to 33 basis points during the same period in 2020. We continue to focus on growing our pure deposits (demand deposits, interest-bearing transaction accounts, savings deposits, money market accounts, and IRAs) as these accounts tend to be low-cost deposits and assist us in controlling our overall cost of funds. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2021, these deposits averaged 90.1% of total deposits as compared to 87.4% during the same period of 2020. This increase was due to PPP loan proceeds, other stimulus funds related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and organic deposit growth.

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 (the “ALCO”) to monitor and manage interest rate risk. The ALCO monitors and manages the pricing and maturity of our 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.

We employ a monitoring technique to measure 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 loan prepayment rates, deposit decay rates 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 12-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, 2022.

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, 2022 and 2021 over the subsequent 12 months. At December 31, 2022, we are liability sensitive and at December 31, 2021, we are asset sensitive. The primary driver for the change is decreased interest bearing cash balances coupled with growth in the loan portfolio and short-term borrowings. As a result, our modeling at December 31, 2022, reflects a decrease in net interest income in a rising interest rate environment during the first twelve months subsequent to interest rate changes. The negative impact of rising rates reverses and net interest income is favorably impacted over a 24-month period. In a declining interest rate environment, the model reflects increases in net interest income in the down 100 basis point and down 200 basis point scenarios. At December 31, 2021, we are asset sensitive. As a result, our modeling reflects an increase in net interest income in a rising interest rate environment and a reduction in net interest income in a declining interest rate environment. In a declining rate environment, the decline in net interest income is primarily due to the 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, respectively, reflected in the table below assume a simultaneous and parallel change in interest rates along the entire yield curve.

Net Interest Income Sensitivity

During the second 12-month period after 100 basis point and 200 basis point simultaneous and parallel increases in interest rates along the entire yield curve, our net interest income is projected to increase 3.44% and 6.13%, respectively, at December 31, 2022, and 7.82% and 15.00%, respectively, at December 31, 2021. During the second 12-month period after 100 basis point and 200 basis point simultaneous and parallel reduction in interest rates along the entire yield curve, our net interest income is projected to decline 4.92% and 12.86%, respectively, at December 31, 2022, and to decline 10.17% and 15.60%, respectively, at December 31, 2021.

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, 2022 and 2021, the PVE exposure in a plus 200 basis point increase in market interest rates was estimated to increase 3.13% and 9.73%, respectively. The PVE exposure in a down 100 basis point decrease was estimated to decline 3.83% at December 31, 2022 compared to 9.86% at December 31, 2021. The PVE exposure in a down 200 basis point decrease was estimated to decline 10.00% at December 31, 2022 compared to 21.79% at December 31, 2021.

Provision and Allowance for Loan Losses

Year Ended December 31, 2022 and 2021

We account for our allowance for loan losses under the incurred loss model. At December 31, 2022, the allowance for loan losses was $11.3 million, or 1.16% of total loans (excluding loans held-for-sale), compared to $11.2 million, or 1.29% of total loans (excluding loans held-for-sale) at December 31, 2021. Excluding PPP loans and loans held-for-sale, the allowance for loan losses was 1.16% of total loans at December 31, 2022 compared to 1.30% of total loans at December 31, 2021. The decline in the allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans compared to December 31, 2021 is primarily related to a reduction in the loss emergence period assumption in our COVID-19 qualitative factor, which was added to our allowance for loan losses methodology during 2020 and is discussed below. The loss emergence assumption on our COVID-19 qualitative factor was reduced to zero months at December 31, 2022 from 21 months at December 31, 2021. This reduction was partially offset by loan growth of $117.2 million; $309 thousand in net recoveries; an increase in our economic conditions qualitative factor by six basis points due to higher inflation, supply chain bottlenecks, labor shortages in certain industries, and the war in Ukraine; an increase in our change in staff qualitative factor by one basis point due to the addition of a new team and new market in York County, South Carolina in March 2022; and an increase in our change in total of past due, rated, and non-accrual loans qualitative factor by two basis points due to a $4.1 million loan being moved to non-accrual status in June 2022. This loan has a loan-to-value of 76.3% based on an appraisal received in May 2022.

During 2020, we added a qualitative factor for the COVID-19 pandemic to our allowance for loan losses methodology. This qualitative factor was based on the dollar amount of our deferrals and a one-year loss emergence period based on the highest period of annual historical loss rate since the Bank’s inception. As the pandemic worsened, we added our exposure to certain industry segments most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (hotels, restaurants, assisted living, and retail) to the COVID-19 qualitative factor and we extended the loss emergence period to two years based on the highest two periods of annual historical loss rates since the Bank’s inception. The loss emergence period assumption in the COVID-19 qualitative factor was reduced to zero months at December 31, 2022 from 21 months at December 31, 2021. At December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the COVID-19 qualitative factor represented zero dollars and $1.9 million, respectively, of our allowance for loan losses.

Loans that we acquired in our acquisition of Cornerstone Bancorp, otherwise referred to herein as Cornerstone, in 2017 as well as in our acquisition of Savannah River Financial Corp., otherwise referred to herein as Savannah River, in 2014 are accounted for under FASB ASC 310-30. These acquired loans were 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. At December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the remaining credit component on loans attributable to acquired loans in the Cornerstone and Savannah River transactions was $81 thousand and $130 thousand, respectively.

Our provision for loan losses was a credit of $152 thousand for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 compared to an expense of $335 thousand during the same period in 2021. The reduction in provision for loan losses is primarily related to a decrease in our COVID-19 qualitative factor in our allowance for loan losses methodology and net recoveries during the twelve months of 2022, partially offset by increases in our economic conditions, change in staff, and changes in past due, rated, and non-accrual loan qualitative factors and loan growth as discussed above.

The allowance for loan losses represents an amount that 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 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, the knowledge and depth of lending personnel, economic conditions (local and national) 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 qualitative factors such as changes in the lending policies and procedures, changes in the local or national economies, 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. 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.

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 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements). The annualized weighted average loss ratios over the last 36 months for loans classified as substandard, special mention and pass have been approximately 0.00%, 0.07% and 0.00%, 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. 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. The overall risk as measured in our three-year lookback, both quantitatively and qualitatively, does not encompass a full economic cycle. 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, our net charge-offs have experienced a modest net recovery. We currently believe the unallocated portion of our allowance represents potential risk associated throughout a full economic cycle.

We have a significant portion of our loan portfolio with real estate as the underlying collateral. At December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, approximately 90.8% and 90.9%, respectively, of the loan portfolio had real estate collateral. 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.

The non-performing asset ratio was 0.35% of total assets with the nominal level of $5.8 million in non-performing assets at December 31, 2022 compared to 0.09% and $1.4 million at December 31, 2021. Non-accrual loans increased to $4.9 million at December 31, 2022 from $250 thousand at December 31, 2021. The increases in both non-performing assets and non-accrual loans from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022 were due to one $4.1 million loan that was moved to non-accrual status in June 2022. This loan had a loan-to-value of 76.3% at the time it was moved to non-accrual based on an appraisal received in May 2022. The balance of this loan is $4.0 million at December 31, 2022. Furthermore, we had one customer relationship with two loans totaling $508 thousand, which was placed on non-accrual during September 2022. This relationship had a loan-to-value of 42.5% at the time it was moved to non-accrual. The balance of this relationship increased to $550 thousand at December 31, 2022 due to a loan advance to pay real estate taxes. We had $2 thousand in accruing loans past due 90 days or more at December 31, 2022 compared to zero at December 31, 2021. Loans past due 30 days or more represented 0.06% of the loan portfolio at December 31, 2022 compared to 0.03% at December 31, 2021. The ratio of classified loans plus OREO and repossessed assets declined to 4.47% of total bank regulatory risk-based capital at December 31, 2022 from 6.27% at December 31, 2021. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2022, we experienced net loan recoveries of $361 thousand and net overdraft charge-offs of $52 thousand.

There were 12 loans totaling $4.9 million (0.50% of total loans) included on non-performing status (non-accrual loans and loans past due 90 days and still accruing) at December 31, 2022. Ten of these loans totaling $4.9 million were on non-accrual status. The largest loan included on non-accrual status is in the amount of $4.0 million and is secured by a first mortgage lien and had a loan-to-value of 76.3% at the time it was moved to non-accrual based on an appraisal received in May 2022. The average balance of the remaining nine loans on non-accrual status is approximately $104 thousand with a range between $1 and $406 thousand. Five of these loans are secured by first mortgage liens, three loans are secured by second mortgage liens, and one is secured by equipment. Furthermore, we had $88 thousand in accruing trouble debt restructurings, or TDRs, at December 31, 2022 compared to $1.4 million at December 31, 2021. This reduction was due to the payoff of one loan. We had two loans totaling $2 thousand that were accruing loans past due 90 days or more at December 31, 2022. We consider a loan impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due, including both principal and interest, according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Nonaccrual loans and accruing TDRs are considered impaired. At December 31, 2022, we had 11 impaired loans totaling $5.0 million compared to ten impaired loans totaling $1.7 million at December 31, 2021. These loans were measured for impairment under the fair value of collateral method or present value of expected cash flows method. For collateral dependent loans, the fair value of collateral method is used and the fair value is determined by an independent appraisal less estimated selling costs. There was no specific allowance for loan and lease losses on our impaired loans at December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021. At December 31, 2022, we had ten loans totaling $565 thousand that were delinquent 30 days to 89 days representing 0.06% of total loans compared to $235 thousand or 0.03% of total loans at December 31, 2021.

Year Ended December 31, 2021 and 2020

At December 31, 2021, the allowance for loan losses was $11.2 million, or 1.29% of total loans (excluding loans held-for-sale), compared to $10.4 million, or 1.23% of total loans (excluding loans held-for-sale) at December 31, 2020. Excluding PPP loans and loans held-for-sale, the allowance for loan losses was 1.30% of total loans at December 31, 2021 compared to 1.30% of total loans at December 31, 2020. The increase in the allowance for loan losses compared to December 31, 2020 is primarily related to loan growth of $19.5 million; $455 thousand in net recoveries; an increase in our economic conditions qualitative factor by four basis points during 2021 due to higher inflation, supply chain bottlenecks, and labor shortages in certain industries; and a one basis point increase in our change in legal or regulatory requirements qualitative factor. These increases were partially offset by a reduction in the loss emergence period assumption on our COVID-19 qualitative factor, which was added to our allowance for loan losses methodology during 2020, to 21 months at December 31, 2021 from 24 months at December 31, 2020. At June 30, 2021, we reduced the loss emergence period in the COVID-19 qualitative factor to 18 months from 24 months due to a reduction in the number of COVID-19 related cases, hospitalizations, and deaths within our markets. However, we increased the loss emergence period to 21 months at December 31, 2021 due to the prevalence of the highly transmittable COVID-19 Omicron variant.

Loans that we acquired in our acquisition of Cornerstone Bancorp, otherwise referred to herein as Cornerstone, in 2017 as well as in our acquisition of Savannah River Financial Corp., otherwise referred to herein as Savannah River, in 2014 are accounted for under FASB ASC 310-30. These acquired loans were 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. At December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the remaining credit component on loans attributable to acquired loans in the Cornerstone and Savannah River transactions was $130 thousand and $264 thousand, respectively.

Our provision for loan losses was $335 thousand for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 compared to $3.7 million during the same period in 2020. The decline in the provision for loan losses is primarily related to an increase during the twelve months of 2020 in the qualitative factors in our allowance for loan losses methodology related to the deteriorating economic conditions and economic uncertainties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As discussed above, during the twelve months of 2020, we added a qualitative factor for the COVID-19 pandemic to our allowance for loan losses methodology. This new qualitative factor was based on the dollar amount of our deferrals and a one-year loss emergence period based on the highest period of annual historical loss rate since the Bank’s inception. As the pandemic worsened, we added our exposure to certain industry segments most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (hotels, restaurants, assisted living, and retail) to the COVID-19 qualitative factor and we extended the loss emergence period to two years based on the highest two periods of annual historical loss rates since the Bank’s inception. At December 31, 2021, the COVID-19 qualitative factor represented $1.9 million of our allowance for loan losses.

We also recognized $455 thousand in net recoveries during the twelve months ended December 31, 2021. These items were partially offset by $19.5 million in loan growth; a four basis points increase (two basis points at June 30, 2021 and two basis points at September 30, 2021) in our qualitative factor related to economic conditions due to an increase in inflation, supply chain bottlenecks, and labor shortages in our markets; and a one basis point increase in our change in legal or regulatory requirements qualitative factor at December 31, 2021 due to the resignation of the Chair of the FDIC on December 31, 2021, which may lead to regulatory changes that negatively affect banks.

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 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, the knowledge and depth of lending personnel, economic conditions (local and national) 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 qualitative factors such as changes in the lending policies and procedures, changes in the local or national economies, 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. 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.

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 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements). The annualized weighted average loss ratios over the last 36 months for loans classified as substandard, special mention and pass have been approximately 0.18%, 0.03% and 0.00%, 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. 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. The overall risk as measured in our three-year lookback, both quantitatively and qualitatively, does not encompass a full economic cycle. 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, our net charge-offs have experienced a modest net recovery. We currently believe the unallocated portion of our allowance represents potential risk associated throughout a full economic cycle.

We have a significant portion of our loan portfolio with real estate as the underlying collateral. At December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, approximately 90.9% and 87.5%, respectively, of the loan portfolio had real estate collateral. The increase in the percent of our loan portfolio with real estate as the underlying collateral is due to a $46.1 million increase in loans with real estate as the underlying collateral and a $40.8 million decline in PPP loans, which declined to $1.5 million at December 31, 2021 from $42.2 at December 31, 2020. 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.

The non-performing asset ratio was 0.09% of total assets with the nominal level of $1.4 million in non-performing assets at December 31, 2021 compared to 0.50% and $7.0 million at December 31, 2020. The decline in the non-performing asset ratio was related to the successful resolution of several non-accrual and accruing loans past due of 90 days or more. Non-accrual loans declined $4.3 million to $250 thousand at December 31, 2021 from $4.6 million at December 31, 2020. Accruing loans past due 90 days or more declined to none at December 31, 2021 from $1.3 million at December 31, 2020. Loans past due 30 days or more represented 0.03% of the loan portfolio at December 31, 2021 compared to 0.23% at December 31, 2020.  The ratio of classified loans plus OREO and repossessed assets declined to 6.27% of total bank regulatory risk-based capital at December 31, 2021 from 6.89% at December 31, 2020.

There were seven loans totaling $250 thousand (0.03% of total loans) included on non-performing status (non-accrual loans and loans past due 90 days and still accruing) at December 31, 2021. All seven of these loans were on non-accrual status. The largest loan included on non-accrual status is in the amount of $103 thousand. The average balance of the remaining six loans on non-accrual status is approximately $25 thousand with a range between $3 and $87 thousand, and the majority of these loans are secured by first mortgage liens. Furthermore, we had $1.4 million in accruing trouble debt restructurings, or TDRs, at December 31, 2021 compared to $1.6 million at December 31, 2020. We consider a loan impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due, including both principal and interest, according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Nonaccrual loans and accruing TDRs are considered impaired. At December 31, 2021, we had 10 impaired loans totaling $1.7 million compared to 23 impaired loans totaling $6.1 million at December 31, 2020. These loans were measured for impairment under the fair value of collateral method or present value of expected cash flows method. For collateral dependent loans, the fair value of collateral method is used and the fair value is determined by an independent appraisal less estimated selling costs. At December 31, 2021, we had loans totaling $235 thousand that were delinquent 30 days to 89 days representing 0.03% of total loans compared to $665 thousand or 0.08% of total loans at December 31, 2020.

Beginning in March 2020, we proactively offered payment deferrals for up to 90 days to our loan customers regardless of the impact of the pandemic on their business or personal finances.  As a result of payments being resumed at the conclusion of their payment deferral period, loans in which payments were being deferred decreased from the peak of $206.9 million to $175.0 million at June 30, 2020, to $27.3 million at September 30, 2020, to $16.1 million at December 31, 2020, to $8.7 million at March 31, 2021, to $4.5 million at June 30, 2021, to $4.1 million at September 30, 2021, and to zero at December 31, 2021. We had no loans on which payments have been deferred at December 31, 2021 compared to $16.1 million at December 31, 2020. The $16.1 million in deferrals at December 31, 2020 consisted of seven loans on which only principal was being deferred. Our management continuously monitors non-performing, classified and past due loans to identify deterioration regarding the condition of these loans and we will continue to monitor our loan portfolio for potential risks.

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

Allowance for Loan Losses