FIRST NORTHERN COMMUNITY BANCORP - Annual Report: 2019 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

 

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

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2019

OR

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

For the transition period from _________ to __________.

Commission File Number 000-30707 

First Northern Community Bancorp

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

707-678-3041

(Registrant’s telephone number including area code)

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

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

 

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.

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically, if any, 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 such files).

  

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

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. ☐

 

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

 

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant on June 30, 2019 (based upon the last reported sales price of such stock on the OTC Markets on June 30, 2019) was $129,413,065.

 

The number of shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 1, 2020 was 12,342,160.  

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Items 10, 11, 12 (as to security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management), 13 and 14 of Part III incorporate by reference information from the registrant’s proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the solicitation of proxies for the registrant’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report includes forward-looking statements, which include forecasts of our financial results and condition, expectations for our operations and business, and our assumptions for those forecasts and expectations. Do not rely unduly on forward-looking statements. Actual results might differ significantly compared to our forecasts and expectations. See Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors,” and the other risks described in this report for factors to be considered when reading any forward-looking statements in this filing.

This report includes forward-looking statements, which are subject to the “safe harbor” created by section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We may make forward-looking statements in our Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, press releases, news articles and when we are speaking on behalf of the Company. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Often, they include the words “believe,” “expect,” “target,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “seek,” “estimate,” “potential,” “project,” or words of similar meaning, or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “might,” or “may.” These forward-looking statements are intended to provide investors with additional information with which they may assess our future potential. All of these forward-looking statements are based on assumptions about an uncertain future and are based on information available to us at the date of these statements. We do not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect facts, circumstances, assumptions or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements are made.

 

In this document, for example, we make forward-looking statements, which discuss our expectations about:

●

Our Our business objectives, strategies and initiatives, our organizational structure, the growth of our business and our competitive position and prospects, and the effect of competition on our business and strategies

 

 

There are numerous risks and uncertainties that could and will cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in our forward-looking statements. Many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations or prospects. Such risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to those listed in this “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements,” Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors,” Part II and Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this report and in our other reports to the SEC.

 

Readers of this document should not rely unduly on forward-looking information and should consider all uncertainties and risks disclosed throughout this document and in our other reports to the SEC, including, but not limited to, those discussed below. Any factor described in this report could by itself, or together with one or more other factors, adversely affect our business, future prospects, results of operations or financial condition.  We do not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect facts, circumstances, assumptions or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements are made.

 

ITEM 1 - BUSINESS

General

First Northern Community Bancorp (the “Company”) is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”). Its legal headquarters and principal administrative offices are located at 195 N. First Street, Dixon, CA 95620 and its telephone number is (707) 678-3041. The Company provides a full range of community banking services to individual and corporate customers throughout the California Counties of Solano, Yolo, Placer and Sacramento as well as portions of El Dorado and Contra Costa Counties through its wholly owned subsidiary bank, First Northern Bank of Dixon (“First Northern” or the “Bank”). The Company’s operating policy since inception has emphasized the banking needs of individuals and small- to medium-sized businesses. In addition, the Bank owns 100% of the capital stock of Yolano Realty Corporation, a subsidiary created for the purpose of managing selected other real estate owned properties.

The Bank was established in 1910 under a California state charter as Northern Solano Bank, and opened for business on February 1st of that year. On January 2, 1912, the First National Bank of Dixon was established under a federal charter, and until 1955, the two entities operated side by side under the same roof and with the same management. In an effort to increase efficiency of operation, reduce operating expense, and improve lending capacity, the two banks were consolidated on April 8, 1955, with the First National Bank of Dixon as the surviving entity. On January 1, 1980, the Bank's federal charter was relinquished in favor of a California state charter, and the Bank's name was changed to First Northern Bank of Dixon.

In April of 2000, the shareholders of First Northern approved a corporate reorganization, which provided for the creation of the bank holding company. This reorganization, effected May 19, 2000, enabled the Company to better compete and grow in its competitive and rapidly changing marketplace.

The Bank has eleven full service branches located in the cities of Auburn, Davis, Dixon, Fairfield, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento, Vacaville, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland. The Bank has one satellite banking office inside a retirement community in the city of Davis and residential mortgage loan offices in Davis and Sonoma. The Bank engages financial advisors, through Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., who offer non-FDIC insured investment and brokerage services throughout the region from offices strategically located in West Sacramento, Davis and Auburn. The Bank also has a commercial loan office in the Contra Costa County city of Walnut Creek that serves the East Bay Area's small- to medium-sized business lending needs. The Bank’s operations center is located in Dixon and provides back-office support including information services, central operations, and the central loan department.  In 2019, the Bank opened an additional administrative office in Sacramento.

The Bank is in the commercial banking business and generates most of its revenue by providing a wide range of products and services to small- and medium-sized businesses and individuals including accepting demand, interest bearing transaction, savings, and time deposits, and making commercial, consumer, and real estate related loans. It also issues cashier's checks, rents safe deposit boxes, and provides other customary banking services.

First Northern offers a broad range of alternative investment products, fiduciary and other financial services through Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.  First Northern also offers equipment leasing, credit cards, merchant card processing, payroll services, and limited international banking services through third parties.

The Bank’s principal source of revenue comes from interest income. Interest income is primarily derived from interest and fees on loans and leases, interest on investments, and due from banks interest bearing accounts. For the year ended December 31, 2019, these sources comprised approximately 80%, 14%, and 5%, respectively, of the Company’s interest income.

The Bank is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and all deposit accounts are insured by the FDIC to the maximum amount permitted by law, currently $250,000 per depositor. Most of the Bank's deposits are attracted from the market of northern and central Solano County and southern and central Yolo County. The Bank’s deposits are not received from a single depositor or group of affiliated depositors, the loss of any one which would have a materially adverse impact on the business of the Bank. A material portion of the Bank’s deposits are not concentrated within a single industry group of related industries.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company had consolidated assets of approximately $1.29 billion, liabilities of approximately $1.16 billion and stockholder’s equity of approximately $132.9 million. The Company and its subsidiaries employed 214 full-time-equivalent employees as of December 31, 2019.  The Company and the Bank consider their relationship with their employees to be good and have not experienced any interruptions of operations due to labor disagreements.

Available Information

The Company makes available free of charge on its website, www.thatsmybank.com, its Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC.  These filings are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.  The information found on the Company’s website shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this report into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts.

The Effect of Government Policy on Banking

The earnings and growth of the Bank are affected not only by local market area factors and general economic conditions, but also by government monetary and fiscal policies.  For example, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”) influences the supply of money through its open market operations in U.S. Government securities, adjustments to the discount rates applicable to borrowings by depository institutions and others and establishment of reserve requirements against both member and non-member financial institutions’ deposits.  Such actions significantly affect the overall growth and distribution of loans, investments, and deposits and also affect interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits.  The nature and impact of future changes in such policies on the business and earnings of the Company cannot be predicted.  Additionally, state and federal tax policies can impact banking organizations.

Because of the extensive regulation of commercial banking activities in the United States, the business of the Company is particularly susceptible to being affected by the enactment of federal and state legislation which may have the effect of increasing or decreasing the cost of doing business, modifying permissible activities or enhancing the competitive position of other financial institutions.  Any change in applicable laws, regulations, or policies may have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, or results of operations, or prospects of the Company.

In May 2018, the President signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “EGRRCPA”) which amended various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act as well as other federal banking statutes, and generally authorized the FRB to tailor regulation to better reflect the character of the different banking firms that the FRB supervises.  In August 2018, the FRB began implementing the EGRRCPA with several interim final rules which, among other things, revised the FRB’s Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement (the “policy statement”) to raise the consolidated assets threshold from $1 billion to $3 billion, allowing the Company to qualify under the policy statement.  This policy statement applies only to bank holding companies with pro forma consolidated assets of less than $3 billion that (i) are not engaged in significant nonbanking activities either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary; (ii) do not conduct significant off-balance sheet activities (including securitization and asset management or administration) either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary; and (iii) do not have a material amount of debt or equity securities outstanding (other than trust preferred securities) that are registered with the SEC.  This policy statement permits qualifying bank holding companies, such as the Company, to operate with higher levels of debt, facilitating the ability of community banks to issue debt and raise capital.  Qualifying bank holding companies, such as the Company, also are permitted to be examined by a Federal banking agency every 18 months (as opposed to every 12 months) and are eligible to use shorter call report forms.  Whether and to what extent the EGRRCPA or new legislation will result in additional regulatory initiatives and policies, or modifications of existing regulations and policies, which may impact our business, cannot be predicted at this time.

Supervision and Regulation of Bank Holding Companies

The Company is a bank holding company subject to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”).  The Company reports to, registers with, and is subject to supervision and examination by, the FRB.  The FRB also has the authority to examine the Company’s subsidiaries.  The costs of any examination by the FRB are payable by the Company.

The FRB has significant supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authority over the Company and its affiliates.  The FRB requires the Company to maintain certain levels of capital.  See “Capital Standards” below for more information.  The FRB also has the authority to take enforcement action against any bank holding company that commits any unsafe or unsound practice, or violates certain laws, regulations, or conditions imposed in writing by the FRB.  See “Prompt Corrective Action and Other Enforcement Mechanisms” below for more information.  Such enforcement powers include the power to assess civil money penalties against any bank holding company violating any provision of the BHCA or any regulation or order of the FRB under the BHCA. Knowing violations of the BHCA or regulations or orders of the FRB can also result in criminal penalties for the company and any individuals participating in such conduct.  Under long-standing FRB policy and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies are required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks, and to commit resources to support their subsidiary banks.  This support may be required at times when a bank holding company may not have the resources to provide such support, or may not be inclined to provide such support under the then-existing circumstances.

Under the BHCA, a company generally must obtain the prior approval of the FRB before it exercises a controlling influence over a bank, or acquires, directly or indirectly, more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all of the assets of any bank or bank holding company.  Thus, the Company is required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB before it acquires, merges, or consolidates with any bank or bank holding company.  Any company seeking to acquire, merge, or consolidate with the Company also would be required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB.

The Company is generally prohibited under the BHCA from acquiring ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank or bank holding company and from engaging directly or indirectly in activities other than banking, managing banks, or providing services to affiliates of the holding company.  However, a bank holding company, with the approval of the FRB, may engage, or acquire the voting shares of companies engaged, in activities that the FRB has determined to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.  A bank holding company must demonstrate that the benefits to the public of the proposed activity will outweigh the possible adverse effects associated with such activity.

 

The FRB generally prohibits a bank holding company from declaring or paying a cash dividend which would impose undue pressure on the capital of subsidiary banks or would be funded only through borrowing or other arrangements that might adversely affect a bank holding company’s financial position.  The FRB’s policy is that a bank holding company should not continue its existing rate of cash dividends on its common stock unless its net income is sufficient to fully fund each dividend and its prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with its capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition.  The Company is also subject to restrictions relating to the payment of dividends under California corporate law.  See “Restrictions on Dividends and Other Distributions” below for additional restrictions on the ability of the Company and the Bank to pay dividends.

Supervision and Regulation of the Bank

The Bank is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the Financial Institutions Division of the California Department of Business Oversight (“DBO”) and the FDIC.  The regulations of these agencies affect most aspects of the Bank’s business and prescribe permissible types of loans and investments, the amount of required reserves, requirements for branch offices, the permissible scope of the Bank’s activities and various other requirements.  While the Bank is not a member of the FRB, it is directly subject to certain regulations of the FRB dealing with such matters as check clearing activities, establishment of banking reserves, Truth-in-Lending (“Regulation Z”), and Equal Credit Opportunity (“Regulation B”).  The Bank is also subject to regulations of (although not direct supervision and examination by) the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which was created by the Dodd-Frank Act. Among the CFPB’s responsibilities are implementing and enforcing federal consumer financial protection laws, reviewing the business practices of financial services providers for legal compliance, monitoring the marketplace for transparency on behalf of consumers and receiving complaints and questions from consumers about consumer financial products and services. The Dodd-Frank Act added prohibitions on unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices to the scope of consumer protection regulations overseen and enforced by the CFPB.

The banking industry is also subject to significantly increased regulatory controls and processes regarding the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws.  In recent years, a number of banks and bank holding companies announced the imposition of regulatory sanctions, including regulatory agreements and cease and desist orders and, in some cases, fines and penalties, by the bank regulators due to failures to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering legislation.  In a number of these cases, the fines and penalties have been significant.  Failure to comply with these additional requirements may also adversely affect the Bank's ability to obtain regulatory approvals for future initiatives requiring regulatory approval, including acquisitions.

Under California law, the Bank is subject to various restrictions on, and requirements regarding, its operations and administration including the maintenance of branch offices and automated teller machines, capital and reserve requirements, deposits and borrowings, and investment and lending activities.

California law permits a state chartered bank to invest in the stock and securities of other corporations, subject to a state chartered bank receiving either general authorization or, depending on the amount of the proposed investment, specific authorization from the DBO.  Federal banking laws, however, impose limitations on the activities and equity investments of state chartered, federally insured banks.  The FDIC rules on investments prohibit a state bank from acquiring an equity investment of a type, or in an amount, not permissible for a national bank.  FDIC rules also prohibit a state bank from engaging as a principal in any activity that is not permissible for a national bank, unless the bank is adequately capitalized and the FDIC approves the activity after determining that such activity does not pose a significant risk to the deposit insurance fund.  The FDIC rules on activities generally permit subsidiaries of banks, without prior specific FDIC authorization, to engage in those activities that have been approved by the FRB for bank holding companies because such activities are so closely related to banking to be a proper incident thereto.  Other activities generally require specific FDIC prior approval, and the FDIC may impose additional restrictions on such activities on a case-by-case basis in approving applications to engage in otherwise impermissible activities.

The USA Patriot Act

Title III of the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“USA Patriot Act”) includes numerous provisions for fighting international money laundering and blocking terrorism access to the U.S. financial system.  The USA Patriot Act requires certain additional due diligence and record keeping practices, including, but not limited to, new customers, correspondent and private banking accounts.

 

Part of the USA Patriot Act is the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (“IMLAFATA”).  Among its provisions, IMLAFATA requires each financial institution to: (i) establish an anti-money laundering program; (ii) establish appropriate anti-money laundering policies, procedures, and controls; (iii) appoint a Bank Secrecy Act officer responsible for day-to-day compliance; and (iv) conduct independent audits.  In addition, IMLAFATA contains a provision encouraging cooperation among financial institutions, regulatory authorities, and law enforcement authorities with respect to individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities.  IMLAFATA expands the circumstances under which funds in a bank account may be forfeited and requires covered financial institutions to respond under certain circumstances to requests for information from federal banking agencies within 120 hours.  IMLAFATA also amends the BHCA and the Bank Merger Act to require the federal banking agencies to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution’s anti-money laundering activities when reviewing an application under these Acts.

Pursuant to IMLAFATA, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other government agencies, has adopted and proposed measures applicable to banks, bank holding companies, and/or other financial institutions.  These measures include enhanced record keeping and reporting requirements for certain financial transactions that are of primary money laundering concern, due diligence requirements concerning the beneficial ownership of certain types of accounts, and restrictions or prohibitions on certain types of accounts with foreign financial institutions.

Privacy Restrictions

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), which became law in 1999, in addition to the previous described changes in permissible non-banking activities permitted to banks, bank holding companies and financial holding companies, also requires financial institutions in the U.S. to implement policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of nonpublic personal information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties.  In general, the statute requires explanations to consumers on policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of such nonpublic personal information, and, except as otherwise required by law, prohibits disclosing such information except as provided in the banks’ policies and procedures and applicable law. These regulations also allow consumers to opt-out of the sharing of certain information between affiliates, and impose other requirements.

Certain state laws and regulations designed to protect the privacy and security of customer information also apply to us and our other subsidiaries., including laws requiring notification to affected individuals and regulators of data security breaches. For additional information, see “Information security breaches or other technological difficulties could adversely affect the Company” in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this report.

The Company believes that it complies with all provisions of GLBA and all implementing regulations, and that the Bank has developed appropriate policies and procedures to meet its responsibilities in connection with the privacy provisions of GLBA.

California and other state legislatures have adopted privacy laws, including laws prohibiting sharing of customer information without the customer’s prior permission.  These laws may make it more difficult for the Company to share information with its marketing partners, reduce the effectiveness of marketing programs, and increase the cost of marketing programs.

In June 2018, the State of California enacted The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”).  This new law became effective on January 1, 2020, and provides consumers with expansive rights and controls over their personal information which is obtained by or shared with “covered businesses”, which includes the Bank and most other banking institutions subject to California law. The CCPA gives consumers the right to request disclosure of information collected about them and whether that information has been sold or shared with others, the right to request deletion of personal information subject to certain exceptions, the right to opt out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information and the right not to be discriminated against because of choices regarding the consumer’s personal information. The CCPA provides for certain monetary penalties and for its enforcement by the California Attorney General or consumers whose rights under the law are not observed. It also provides for damages as well as injunctive or declaratory relief if there has been unauthorized access, theft or disclosure of personal information due to failure to implement reasonable security procedures. The CCPA contains several exemptions, including a provision to the effect that the CCPA does not apply where the information is collected, processed, sold or disclosed pursuant to the GLBA if the GLBA is in conflict with the CCPA. The impact of the CCPA on the business of the Bank is yet to be determined, but it could result in increased operating expenses as well as additional exposure to the risk of litigation by or on behalf of consumers.

Capital Standards

The FRB and the federal banking agencies have in place risk-based capital standards applicable to U.S. bank holding companies and banks.  In July 2013, the FRB and the other U.S. federal banking agencies adopted final rules making significant changes to the U.S. regulatory capital framework for U.S. banking organizations and to conform this framework to the guidelines published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision ("Basel Committee") known as the Basel III Global Regulatory Framework for Capital and Liquidity.  The Basel Committee is a committee of banking supervisory authorities from major countries in the global financial system which formulates broad supervisory standards and guidelines relating to financial institutions for implementation on a country-by-country basis.   These rules adopted by the FRB and the other federal banking agencies ("the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules") replaced the federal banking agencies’ general risk-based capital rules, advanced approaches rule, market risk rule, and leverage rules, in accordance with certain transition provisions.

Banks, such as First Northern, became subject to the new rules on January 1, 2015.  The new rules implement higher minimum capital requirements, include a new common equity Tier 1 capital requirement, and establish criteria that instruments must meet in order to be considered common equity Tier 1 capital, additional Tier 1 capital, or Tier 2 capital.  The final rules provide for increased minimum capital ratios as follows: (a) a common equity Tier1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (b) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6%; (c) a total capital ratio of 8%; and (d) a Tier 1 leverage ratio to average consolidated assets of 4%.  Under these rules, in order to avoid certain limitations on capital distributions, including dividend payments and certain discretionary bonus payments to executive officers, a banking organization must hold a capital conservation buffer composed of common equity Tier 1 capital above its minimum risk-based capital requirements (equal to 2.5% of total risk-weighted assets).  The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress.  First Northern believes that it was in compliance with these requirements at December 31, 2019.

Pursuant to the EGRRCPA, the FRB adopted a final rule, effective August 31, 2018, amending the Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement (the “policy statement”) to increase the consolidated assets threshold to qualify to utilize the provisions of the policy statement from $1 billion to $3 billion. Bank holding companies, such as the Company, are subject to capital adequacy requirements of the FRB; however, bank holding companies which are subject to the policy statement are not subject to compliance with the regulatory capital requirements until they hold $3 billion or more in consolidated total assets. As a consequence, as of December 31, 2018, the Company was not required to comply with the FRB’s regulatory capital requirements until such time that its consolidated total assets equal $3 billion or more or if the FRB determines that the Company is no longer deemed to be a small bank holding company. However, if the Company had been subject to these regulatory capital requirements, it would have exceeded all regulatory requirements.

In November 2019, the bank regulatory agencies jointly adopted a final rule, that became effective January 1, 2020, that provides for a simple measure of capital adequacy for certain community banking organizations, consistent with the EGRRCPA.  Under the final rule, depository institutions and depository institution holding companies that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, such as the Company and the Bank, and that meet other qualifying criteria, including a leverage ratio (equal to tier 1 capital divided by average total consolidated assets) of greater than 9 percent, will be eligible to opt into the community bank leverage ratio framework. These qualifying community banking organizations that elect to use the community bank leverage ratio framework and that maintain a leverage ratio of greater than 9 percent will be considered to have satisfied the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital requirements in the agencies’ capital rules and, if applicable, will be considered to have met the well-capitalized ratio requirements for purposes of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ("FDIA").  At the present time, the Company does not intend to elect to use the community bank leverage framework.

The following table presents the capital ratios for the Bank as of December 31, 2019 (calculated in accordance with the Basel III capital rules):

The federal banking agencies must take into consideration concentrations of credit risk and risks from non-traditional activities, as well as an institution’s ability to manage those risks, when determining the adequacy of an institution’s capital.  This evaluation will be made as a part of the institution’s regular safety and soundness examination.  The federal banking agencies must also consider interest rate risk (when the interest rate sensitivity of an institution’s assets does not match the sensitivity of its liabilities or its off-balance-sheet position) in evaluating a Bank’s capital adequacy.

In January 2014, the Basel Committee issued an updated version of its leverage ratio and disclosure guidance.  The Basel Committee guidance continues to set a minimum Basel III leverage ratio of 3%.  The Basel III leverage ratio was subject to further calibration until 2017, with final implementation expected in 2018.  The Basel Committee collected data during this observation period to assess whether a minimum leverage ratio of 3% is appropriate over a full credit cycle and for various types of business models and to assess the impact of using common equity tier 1 capital or total regulatory capital as the numerator.  The Basel Committee, in December 2017, adopted further revisions to the Basel III capital standards which refined the definition of the leverage ratio “exposure measures” (the Basel III term for non risk-weighted assets).  Beginning January 1, 2022, the updates to the leverage ratio will be implemented.

Prompt Corrective Action and Other Enforcement Mechanisms

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) requires each federal banking agency to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions, including but not limited to those that fall below one or more prescribed minimum capital ratios.  The law required each federal banking agency to promulgate regulations defining the following five categories in which an insured depository institution will be placed, based on the level of its capital ratios: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, under-capitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized.

Under the prompt corrective action provisions of FDICIA, an insured depository institution generally will be classified in one of five capital categories ranging from "well-capitalized" to "critically under-capitalized."

 

An institution that, based upon its capital levels, is classified as “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized” or “under-capitalized” may be treated as though it were in the next lower capital category if the appropriate federal banking agency, after notice and opportunity for hearing, determines that an unsafe or unsound condition or an unsafe or unsound practice warrants such treatment.  At each successive lower capital category, an insured depository institution is subject to increased restrictions on its operations.  Management believes that at December 31, 2019, the Company and the Bank exceeded the required ratios for classification as “well capitalized."  Institutions that are “under-capitalized” or lower are subject to certain mandatory supervisory corrective actions.  Failure to meet regulatory capital guidelines can result in a bank being required to raise additional capital.  An “under-capitalized” bank must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must generally guarantee compliance with the plan.

In addition to measures taken under the prompt corrective action provisions, commercial banking organizations may be subject to potential enforcement actions by the federal regulators for unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their businesses or for violations of any law, rule, regulation or any condition imposed in writing by the agency or any written agreement with the agency.  Enforcement actions may include the imposition of a conservator or receiver, the issuance of a cease-and-desist order that can be judicially enforced, the termination of insurance of deposits (in the case of a depository institution), the imposition of civil money penalties, the issuance of directives to increase capital, the issuance of formal and informal agreements, the issuance of removal and prohibition orders against institution-affiliated parties and the enforcement of such actions through injunctions or restraining orders based upon a judicial determination that the agency would be harmed if such equitable relief was not granted.  Additionally, a holding company’s inability to serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary banking organizations could serve as an additional basis for a regulatory action against the holding company.

Safety and Soundness Standards

FDICIA also implemented certain specific restrictions on transactions and required federal banking regulators to adopt overall safety and soundness standards for depository institutions related to internal control, loan underwriting and documentation and asset growth.  Among other things, FDICIA limits the interest rates paid on deposits by undercapitalized institutions, restricts the use of brokered deposits, limits the aggregate extensions of credit by a depository institution to an executive officer, director, principal shareholder, or related interest, and reduces deposit insurance coverage for deposits offered by undercapitalized institutions for deposits by certain employee benefits accounts.

The federal banking agencies may require an institution to submit to an acceptable compliance plan as well as have the flexibility to pursue other more appropriate or effective courses of action given the specific circumstances and severity of an institution’s non-compliance with one or more standards.

Restrictions on Dividends and Other Distributions

The power of the board of directors of an insured depository institution to declare a cash dividend or other distribution with respect to capital is subject to statutory and regulatory restrictions which limit the amount available for such distribution depending upon the earnings, financial condition and liquidity needs of the institution, as well as general business conditions.  FDICIA prohibits insured depository institutions from paying management fees to any controlling persons or, with certain limited exceptions, making capital distributions, including dividends, if, after such transaction, the institution would be undercapitalized.

The federal banking agencies also have authority to prohibit a depository institution from engaging in business practices, which are considered to be unsafe or unsound, possibly including payment of dividends or other payments under certain circumstances even if such payments are not expressly prohibited by statute.

In addition to the restrictions imposed under federal law, banks chartered under California law generally may only pay cash dividends to the extent such payments do not exceed the lesser of retained earnings of the bank’s net income for its last three fiscal years (less any distributions to shareholders during such period).  In the event a bank desires to pay cash dividends in excess of such amount, the bank may pay a cash dividend with the prior approval of the DBO in an amount not exceeding the greatest of the bank’s retained earnings, the bank’s net income for its last fiscal year, or the bank’s net income for its current fiscal year.

 

Premiums for Deposit Insurance

 

The Bank is a member of the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) maintained by the FDIC.  Through the DIF, the FDIC insures the deposits of the Bank up to prescribed limits for each depositor.  To maintain the DIF, member institutions are assessed an insurance premium based on their deposits and their institutional risk category.  The FDIC determines an institution’s risk category by combining its supervisory ratings with its financial ratios and other risk measures.  The FDIC also has the authority to impose special assessments at any time it estimates that DIF reserves could fall to a level that would adversely affect public confidence.  In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a comprehensive, long-range “restoration” plan for the DIF to better ensure the adequacy of the ratio of the fund’s reserves to insured deposits.  Deposit insurance assessments and assessment rates are subject to change by the FDIC and can be impacted by the overall economy and the stability of the banking industry as a whole.  There can be no assurance that the FDIC will not impose special assessments or increase annual assessments in the future.  The ultimate effect on our business of legislative, regulatory and economic developments on the DIF cannot be predicted with certainty.

Community Reinvestment Act and Fair Lending

The Bank is subject to certain fair lending requirements and reporting obligations involving its home mortgage lending operations and is also subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”).  The CRA generally requires the federal banking agencies to evaluate the record of a financial institution in meeting the credit needs of the Bank’s local communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.  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 such laws and CRA into account when reviewing other activities by the Bank, particularly applications involving business expansion such as acquisitions or de novo branching.

On January 9, 2020, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published a notice of proposed rule-making intended to modernize and strengthen the CRA regulations to better achieve their underlying statutory purpose by clarifying which activities qualify for CRA credit, updating where activities count for CRA credit, creating a more transparent and objective method for measuring CRA performance, and providing for more transparent, consistent, and timely CRA-related data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting. This rule, if enacted, is likely to have a significant impact on the CRA implementation framework; however, the final form of this rule and its impact on the financial services industry in general, and on the Bank in particular, cannot be predicted at this time.

Certain CFPB Rules

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has adopted an Ability-to-Repay rule that all newly originated residential mortgages must meet. The Ability-to-Repay rule establishes guidelines that the lender must follow when reviewing an applicant’s income, obligations, assets, liabilities, and credit history and requires that the lender make a reasonable and good faith determination of an applicant’s ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Lenders will be presumed to have met the Ability-to-Repay rule by originating loans that meet the criteria for “Qualified Mortgages”, which are set forth in detail in the rule. The mortgage loans originated by the Bank with the intent to sell them to Freddie Mac meet the Qualified Mortgage criteria.

The CFPB has also adopted a rule on simplified and improved mortgage loan disclosures, otherwise known as Know Before You Owe.  The rule provides that mortgage borrowers receive a loan estimate three business days after application and a closing disclosure three days before closing.  These forms replace disclosure forms previously provided to borrowers under other provisions of federal law.  The rule provides for limitations on application fees and increases in closing costs.

  

Any new regulatory requirements promulgated by the CFPB could have an adverse impact on our residential mortgage lending business as the industry adapts to the additional regulations.  Our business strategy, product offerings and profitability may change as the market adjusts to any additional regulations and as these requirements are interpreted by the regulators and courts.

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2020-2021 state budget includes a new California Consumer Financial Protection Law which, if adopted, would reorganize the existing DBO as the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. The new agency would be charged with protecting financial consumers from predatory business practices and would extend state supervision to important financial services providers not currently subject to state supervision. If this proposal becomes law in California, it could subject the California banking industry, including the Bank, to additional regulation and oversight by the new agency.

 

Conservatorship and Receivership of Insured Depository Institutions

 

If any insured depository institution becomes insolvent and the FDIC is appointed its conservator or receiver, the FDIC may, under federal law, disaffirm or repudiate any contract to which such institution is a party, if the FDIC determines that performance of the contract would be burdensome, and that disaffirmance or repudiation of the contract would promote the orderly administration of the institution’s affairs.  Such disaffirmance or repudiation would result in a claim by its holder against the receivership or conservatorship.  The amount paid upon such claim would depend upon, among other factors, the amount of receivership assets available for the payment of such claim and its priority relative to the priority of others.  In addition, the FDIC as conservator or receiver may enforce most contracts entered into by the institution notwithstanding any provision providing for termination, default, acceleration, or exercise of rights upon or solely by reason of insolvency of the institution, appointment of a conservator or receiver for the institution, or exercise of rights or powers by a conservator or receiver for the institution.  The FDIC as conservator or receiver also may transfer any asset or liability of the institution without obtaining any approval or consent of the institution’s shareholders or creditors.

 

The Dodd-Frank Act

 

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, has resulted in sweeping changes to the U.S. financial system and financial institutions, including us.  Many of the law’s provisions have been implemented by rules and regulations of the federal banking agencies.  The law contains many provisions which have particular relevance to our business, including provisions that have resulted in adjustments to our FDIC deposit insurance premiums and that resulted in increased capital and liquidity requirements, increased supervision, increased regulatory and compliance risks and costs and other operational costs and expenses, reduced fee-based revenues and restrictions on some aspects of our operations, and increased interest expense on our demand deposits.  In May 2018, the President signed into law the EGRRCPA, which amended various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act as well as other federal banking statutes.  See “The Effect of Government Policy on Banking” above for additional information.

The environment in which financial institutions continue to operate since the U.S. financial crisis, including legislative and regulatory changes affecting capital, liquidity, supervision, permissible activities, corporate governance and compensation, and changes in fiscal policy may have long-term effects on the business model and profitability of financial institutions that cannot now be foreseen.

 

Overdraft and Interchange Fees

The FRB's Regulation E imposes restrictions on banks’ abilities to charge overdraft services and fees. The rule prohibits financial institutions from charging fees for paying overdrafts on ATM and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those types of transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act, through a provision known as the Durbin Amendment, required the FRB to establish standards for interchange fees that are “reasonable and proportional” to the cost of processing the debit card transaction and imposes other requirements on card networks. Under the rule, the maximum permissible interchange fee that a bank may receive is the sum of $0.21 per transaction and five basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction, with an additional upward adjustment of no more than $0.01 per transaction if a bank develops and implements policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve fraud-prevention standards set by regulation.  This regulation has resulted in decreased revenues and increased compliance costs for the banking industry and the Bank, and there can be no assurance that alternative sources of revenues can be implemented to offset the impact of these developments.

Sarbanes – Oxley Act

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley”) implemented a broad range of corporate governance and accounting measures to increase corporate responsibility, to provide for enhanced penalties for accounting and auditing improprieties at publicly traded companies, and to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of disclosures under federal securities laws. Among other things, Sarbanes-Oxley and its implementing regulations established new membership requirements and additional responsibilities for our audit committee, imposed restrictions on the relationship between us and our outside auditors (including restrictions on the types of non-audit services our auditors may provide to us), imposed additional responsibilities for our external financial statements on our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, expanded the disclosure requirements for our corporate insiders and contained new evaluation, auditing and reporting requirements relating to disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting.

 

Possible Future Legislation and Regulatory Initiatives

The economic and political environment of the past several years has led to a number of proposed legislative, governmental and regulatory initiatives, at both the federal and state levels, certain of which are described above, that may significantly impact our industry. These and other initiatives could significantly change the competitive and operating environment in which we and our subsidiaries operate. We cannot predict whether these or any other proposals will be enacted or the ultimate impact of any such initiatives on our operations, competitive situation, financial condition or results of operations.

Competition

In the past, an independent bank’s principal competitors for deposits and loans have been other banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions.  Many of these competitors are large financial institutions that have substantial capital, technology and marketing resources, which are well in excess of ours, although these larger institutions may be required to hold more regulatory capital and as a result, achieve lower returns on equity.  For agricultural loans, the Bank also competes with constituent entities with the Federal Farm Credit System.  To a lesser extent, competition is also provided by thrift and loans, mortgage brokerage companies and insurance companies.  Other institutions, such as brokerage houses, mutual fund companies, credit card companies, and even retail establishments have offered new investment vehicles, which also compete with banks for deposit business.  Additionally, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and payment systems.  We also experience competition, especially for deposits, from internet-based banking institutions and other financial companies, which do not always have a presence in our market footprint and have grown rapidly in recent years.

 

Current federal law has made it easier for out-of-state banks to enter and compete in California.  Competition in our principal markets may further intensify as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act which, among other things, permits out-of-state de novo branching by national banks, state banks and foreign banks from other states.  While the impact of these changes cannot be predicted with certainty, it is clear that the business of banking in California will remain highly competitive.

Competition in our industry is likely to further intensify as a result of continued consolidation of financial services companies, including consolidations of significance in our market area.  In order to compete with major financial institutions and other competitors in its primary service areas, the Bank relies upon the experience of its executive and senior officers in serving business clients, and upon its specialized services, local promotional activities and the personal contacts made by its officers, directors and employees.

 

For customers whose loan demand exceeds the Bank’s legal lending limit, the Bank may arrange for such loans on a participation basis with correspondent banks.  In the past, the seasonal swings, discussed below in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Liquidity”, have had some impact on the Bank’s liquidity.  The management of investment maturities, sale of loan participations, federal fund borrowings, qualification for funds under the Federal Reserve Bank’s seasonal credit program, and the ability to sell mortgages in the secondary market is intended to allow the Bank to satisfactorily manage its liquidity.

 

ITEM 1A – RISK FACTORS

In addition to factors mentioned elsewhere in this Report, the factors contained below, among others, could cause our financial condition and results of operations to be materially and adversely affected.  If this were to happen, the value of our common stock could decline, perhaps significantly, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Economic Conditions in the U.S. are Likely to Soften or Become Recessionary with Resultant Adverse Consequences for the U.S. Financial Services Industry and for the Bank

 

Following the financial crisis of 2008, adverse financial and economic developments impacted U.S. and global economies and financial markets and presented challenges for the banking and financial services industry and for us. These developments included a general recession both globally and in the U.S. accompanied by substantial volatility in the financial markets.

 

In response, various significant economic and monetary stimulus measures were implemented by the U.S. government.  The FRB also pursued a highly accommodative monetary policy aimed at keeping interest rates at historically low levels although the FRB has more recently modified certain aspects of this policy by gradually increasing short-term interest rates and reducing its balance sheet.  The U.S. economy has experienced a period of significant expansion in recent years; however, this expansion is not likely to continue indefinitely and, at some point, economic conditions in the U.S. are likely to soften or become recessionary. We, and other financial services companies, are impacted to a significant degree by current economic conditions. The U.S. government continues to face significant fiscal and budgetary challenges which, if not resolved, could result in renewed adverse U.S. economic conditions. These challenges may be intensified over time if federal budget deficits were to increase and Congress and the Administration cannot effectively work to address them.

The overall level of the federal government's debt, the extensive political disagreements regarding the government's statutory debt limit and the continuing substantial federal budget deficits led to a downgrade from “AAA” to “AA+” of the long-term sovereign credit rating of United States debt by one credit rating agency, although other credit rating agencies did not take such action. This risk, and other risks associated with the divided control of the federal government, could be exacerbated over time.

If substantial federal budget deficits were to continue in the years ahead, further downgrades by the credit rating agencies with respect to the obligations of the U.S. federal government could occur. Any such further downgrades could increase over time the U.S. federal government’s cost of borrowing, which may worsen its fiscal challenges, as well as generate upward pressure on interest rates generally in the U.S. which could, in turn, have adverse consequences for borrowers and the level of business activity. It is also possible that the federal government’s fiscal and budgetary challenges could be intensified over time as a result of the federal tax legislation signed into law in December of 2017 if the reductions in tax rates along with greater government spending result in increased federal budget deficits.  The long-term impact of this situation cannot be predicted.

The Bank is Subject to Lending Risks of Loss and Repayment Associated with Commercial Banking Activities which could Adversely Affect the Bank's Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The Bank’s business strategy is to focus on commercial business loans (which includes agricultural loans), construction loans, and commercial and multi-family real estate loans.  The principal factors affecting the Bank’s risk of loss in connection with commercial business loans include the borrower’s ability to manage its business affairs and cash flows, general economic conditions, and, with respect to agricultural loans, weather and climate conditions.  For a number of years in the past decade, California has experienced severe drought conditions.  There can be no assurance that the drought will not return with consequent difficulties for the California economy and the Bank's commercial loan customers, particularly in the agricultural sector.  Loans secured by commercial real estate are generally larger and involve a greater degree of credit and transaction risk than residential mortgage (one to four family) loans.  Because payments on loans secured by commercial and multi-family real estate properties are often dependent on successful operation or management of the underlying properties, repayment of such loans may be dependent on factors other than the prevailing conditions in the real estate market or the economy.  Real estate construction financing is generally considered to involve a higher degree of credit risk than long-term financing on improved, owner-occupied real estate.  Risk of loss on a construction loan is dependent largely upon the accuracy of the initial estimate of the property’s value at completion of construction or development compared to the estimated cost (including interest) of construction.  If the estimate of value proves to be inaccurate, the Bank may be confronted with a project which, when completed, has a value which is insufficient to assure full repayment of the construction loan.

Although the Bank manages lending risks through its underwriting and credit administration policies, no assurance can be given that such risks will not materialize, in which event, the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and business prospects could be materially adversely affected.

Increases in the Allowance for Loan Losses Would Adversely Affect the Bank’s Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The Bank’s allowance for estimated losses on loans was approximately $12.4 million, or 1.58% of total loans, at December 31, 2019, compared to $12.8 million, or 1.65% of total loans, at December 31, 2018, and 1,311.7% of total non-performing loans net of guaranteed portions at December 31, 2019, compared to 250.4% of total non-performing loans, net of guaranteed portions at December 31, 2018.  Material future additions to the allowance for estimated losses on loans may be necessary if material adverse changes in economic conditions occur and the performance of the Bank’s loan portfolio deteriorates.  In addition, an allowance for losses on other real estate owned may also be required in order to reflect changes in the markets for real estate in which the Bank’s other real estate owned is located and other factors which may result in adjustments which are necessary to ensure that the Bank’s foreclosed assets are carried at the lower of cost or fair value, less estimated costs to dispose of the properties.  Moreover, the FDIC and the DBO, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review the Bank’s allowance for estimated losses on loans and the carrying value of its assets.  Increases in the provisions for estimated losses on loans and foreclosed assets would adversely affect the Bank’s financial condition and results of operations.  See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Summary of Loan Loss Experience” below.

 

The Bank’s Dependence on Real Estate Lending Increases Our Risk of Losses

At December 31, 2019, approximately 82% of the Bank’s loans in principal amount (excluding loans held-for-sale) were secured by real estate.  The value of the Bank’s real estate collateral has been, and could in the future continue to be, adversely affected by the economic recession and resulting adverse impact on the real estate market in Northern California.

The Bank’s primary lending focus has historically been commercial (including agricultural), construction, and real estate mortgage.  At December 31, 2019, real estate mortgage (excluding loans held-for-sale) and construction loans (residential and other) comprised approximately 79% and 3%, respectively, of the total loans in the Bank’s portfolio.  At December 31, 2019, all of the Bank’s real estate mortgage and construction loans and approximately 1% of its commercial loans were secured fully or in part by deeds of trust on underlying real estate.  The Company’s dependence on real estate increases the risk of loss in both the Bank’s loan portfolio and its holdings of other real estate owned if economic conditions in Northern California deteriorate in the future.  Deterioration of the real estate market in Northern California would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The CFPB has adopted various regulations which have impacted, and will continue to impact, our residential mortgage lending business.  For additional information, see “Business – Certain CFPB Rules” in Item 1 of this Report on Form 10-K.

 

See “Economic Conditions in the U.S. are Likely to Soften or Become Recessionary with Resultant Adverse Consequences for the U.S. Financial Services Industry and for the Bank” above, and “Adverse California Economic Conditions Could Adversely Affect the Bank’s Business” below.

Adverse Economic Factors Affecting Certain Industries the Bank Serves Could Adversely Affect Our Business

The Bank is subject to certain industry specific economic factors.  For example, a portion of the Bank’s total loan portfolio is related to residential and commercial real estate, especially in California.  Increases in residential mortgage loan interest rates could have an adverse effect on the Bank’s operations by depressing new mortgage loan originations, which in turn could negatively impact the Bank’s title and escrow deposit levels.  Additionally, a downturn in the residential real estate and housing industries in California could have an adverse effect on the Bank’s operations and the quality of its real estate and construction loan portfolio.  Although the Bank does not engage in subprime or negative amortization lending, we are not immune to volatility in the real estate market. Real estate valuations are influenced by demand, and demand is driven by economic factors such as employment rates and interest rates.  These factors could adversely impact the quality of the Bank’s residential construction, residential mortgage and construction related commercial portfolios in various ways, including by decreasing the value of the collateral for our loans.  These factors could also negatively affect the economy in general and thereby the Bank’s overall loan portfolio.

 

The Bank provides financing to, and receives deposits from, businesses in a number of other industries that may be particularly vulnerable to industry-specific economic factors, including the home building, commercial real estate, retail, agricultural, industrial, and commercial industries.  Following the financial crisis of 2008, the home building industry in California was especially adversely impacted by the deterioration in residential real estate markets, which lead the Bank to take additional provisions and charge-offs against credit losses in this portfolio.  Continued increases in fuel prices and energy costs and the return of the drought in California could adversely affect businesses in several of these industries.  Industry specific risks are beyond the Bank’s control and could adversely affect the Bank’s portfolio of loans, potentially resulting in an increase in non-performing loans or charge-offs and a slowing of growth or reduction in our loan portfolio.  Recent wildfires across California and in our market area have resulted in significant damage and destruction of property and equipment. The fire damage caused has resulted in adverse economic impacts to those affected markets and beyond and on the Bank's customers.  In addition, the major electric utility company in our region has adopted programs of electrical power shut-offs, often for multiple days, in wide areas of Northern California during periods of high winds and high fire danger.  Recent shut-offs of power by this utility have adversely impacted the business of some of our customers and also have resulted in some of our branches being temporarily closed.  It can be expected that these events will continue to occur from time to time in the areas served by the Bank, and that the consequences of these natural disasters, including programs of public utility public safety power outages when weather conditions and fire danger warrant, may adversely affect the Bank’s business and that of its customers. It is also possible that climate change may be increasing the severity or frequency of adverse weather conditions, thus increasing the impact of these types of natural disasters on our business and that of our customers.  The long-term impact of these developments on the markets we serve cannot be predicted at this time.

The Effects of Changes or Increases in, or Supervisory Enforcement of, Banking or Other Laws and Regulations or Governmental Fiscal or Monetary Policies Could Adversely Affect Us

We are subject to significant federal and state banking regulation and supervision, which is primarily for the benefit and protection of our customers and the Deposit Insurance Fund and not for the benefit of investors in our securities.  In the past, our business has been materially affected by these regulations. This will continue and likely intensify in the future. Laws, regulations or policies, including accounting standards and interpretations, currently affecting us may change at any time. Regulatory authorities may also change their interpretation of and intensify their examination of compliance with these statutes and regulations. Therefore, our business may be adversely affected by changes in laws, regulations, policies or interpretations or regulatory approaches to compliance and enforcement, as well as by supervisory action or criminal proceedings taken as a result of noncompliance, which could result in the imposition of significant civil money penalties or fines. Changes in laws and regulations may also increase our expenses by imposing additional supervision, fees, taxes or restrictions on our operations. Compliance with laws and regulations, especially new laws and regulations, increases our operating expenses and may divert management attention from our business operations.

 

Proposals to reform the housing finance market in the U.S. could also significantly affect our business. These proposals, among other things, include reducing or eliminating over time the role of the GSEs in guaranteeing mortgages and providing funding for mortgage loans, as well as the implementation of reforms relating to borrowers, lenders, and investors in the mortgage market, including reducing the maximum size of a loan that the GSEs can guarantee, phasing in a minimum down payment requirement for borrowers, improving underwriting standards, and increasing accountability and transparency in the securitization process.

While the specific nature of these reforms and their impact on the financial services industry in general, and on the Bank in particular, is uncertain at this time, such reforms, if enacted, are likely to have a substantial impact on the mortgage market and could potentially reduce our income from mortgage originations by increasing mortgage costs or lowering originations. The GSE reforms could also reduce real estate prices, which could reduce the value of collateral securing outstanding mortgage loans. This reduction of collateral value could negatively impact the value or perceived collectability of these mortgage loans and may increase our allowance for loan losses. Such reforms may also include changes to the Federal Home Loan Bank System, which could adversely affect a significant source of term funding for lending activities by the banking industry, including the Bank. These reforms may also result in higher interest rates on residential mortgage loans, thereby reducing demand, which could have an adverse impact on our residential mortgage lending business.

In July 2013, the FRB and the other U.S. federal banking agencies adopted final rules making significant changes to the U.S. regulatory capital framework for U.S. banking organizations and to conform this framework to the Basel III Global Regulatory Framework for Capital and Liquidity.  For additional information, see “Business-Capital Standards” in Item 1 of this Form 10-K. 

We maintain systems and procedures designed to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, some legal/regulatory frameworks provide for the imposition of criminal or civil penalties (which can be substantial) for noncompliance. In some cases, liability may attach even if the noncompliance was inadvertent or unintentional and even if compliance systems and procedures were in place at the time. There may be other negative consequences from a finding of noncompliance, including restrictions on certain activities and damage to our reputation.

Additionally, our business is affected significantly by the fiscal and monetary policies of the U.S. federal government and its agencies. We are particularly affected by the policies of the FRB, which regulates the supply of money and credit in the U.S. Under the Dodd-Frank Act and a long-standing policy of the FRB, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial and managerial strength for its subsidiary banks. As a result of that policy, we may be required to commit financial and other resources to our subsidiary bank in circumstances where we might not otherwise do so. Among the instruments of monetary policy available to the FRB are (a) conducting open market operations in U.S. Government securities, (b) changing the discount rates on borrowings by depository institutions and the federal funds rate, and (c) imposing or changing reserve requirements against certain borrowings by banks and their affiliates. These methods are used in varying degrees and combinations to directly affect the availability of bank loans and deposits, as well as the interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits. The policies of the FRB can be expected to have a material effect on our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition.

Refer to “Business – Supervision and Regulation of Bank Holding Companies" and "Business – Supervision and Regulation of the Bank” in Item 1 of this Form 10-K for discussion of certain existing and proposed laws and regulations that may affect our business.

Adverse California Economic Conditions Could Adversely Affect the Bank’s Business

The Bank’s operations and a substantial majority of the Bank’s assets and deposits are generated and concentrated primarily in Northern California, particularly the counties of Placer, Sacramento, Solano and Yolo, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. At December 31, 2019, the majority of the Bank’s loan portfolio in principal amount (excluding loans held-for-sale) consisted of real estate-related loans, all of which were secured by collateral located in Northern California. As a result, a downturn in the economic conditions in Northern California may cause the Bank to incur losses associated with high default rates and decreased collateral values in its loan portfolio. Economic conditions in California are subject to various uncertainties including deterioration in the California real estate market and housing industry.

 

At times, in past years, economic conditions in California, and especially the regional markets we serve, have been subject to various challenges, including significant deterioration in the residential real estate sector and the California state government’s budgetary and fiscal difficulties.  While California home prices and the California economy in general have experienced a recovery in recent years, there can be no assurance that the recovery will continue.  Recent growth in home prices in some California markets may be unsustainable relative to market fundamentals, and home price declines may occur.

In addition, although the State of California has historically experienced budget shortfalls or deficits, more recently, California’s budgetary situation has improved considerably (with a budget surplus being forecast for the coming year by the nonpartisan legislative analyst.  However, there can be no assurance that the state’s fiscal and budgetary challenges will not recur.

Also, municipalities and other governmental units within California have experienced budgetary difficulties, and several California municipalities have filed for protection under the Bankruptcy Code. As a result, concerns also have arisen regarding the outlook for the State of California’s governmental obligations, as well as those of California municipalities and other governmental units.

If the budgetary and fiscal difficulties of the California state government and California municipalities and other governmental units were to recur or economic conditions in California decline, we expect that our level of problem assets could increase and our prospects for growth could be impaired.

For a number of years in the past decade, California has experienced severe drought, wildfires or other natural disasters. It can be expected that these events will continue to occur from time to time in the areas served by the Bank, and that the consequences of these natural disasters, including programs of public utility public safety power outages when weather conditions and fire danger warrant, may adversely affect the Bank’s business and that of its customers. It is also possible that climate change may be increasing the severity or frequency of adverse weather conditions, thus increasing the impact of these types of natural disasters on our business and that of our customers.

 

The Bank is Subject to Interest Rate Risk

The income of the Bank depends to a great extent on “interest rate differentials” and the resulting net interest margins (i.e., the difference between the interest rates earned on the Bank’s interest-earning assets such as loans and investment securities, and the interest rates paid on the Bank’s interest-bearing liabilities such as deposits and borrowings).  These rates are highly sensitive to many factors, which are beyond the Bank’s control, including, but not limited to, general economic conditions and the policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies, in particular, the FRB.  We cannot predict with any certainty the nature and impact of such policies.  Changes in the relationship between short-term and long-term market interest rates or between different interest rate indices can also impact our interest rate differential, possibly resulting in a decrease in our interest income relative to interest expense.  In addition, changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, influence the origination of loans, the purchase of investments and the generation of deposits and affect the rates received on loans and investment securities and paid on deposits, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

 

Our Ability to Pay Dividends is Subject to Legal Restrictions

As a bank holding company, our cash flow typically comes from dividends of the Bank.  Various statutory and regulatory provisions restrict the amount of dividends the Bank can pay to the Company without regulatory approval.  The ability of the Company to pay cash dividends in the future also depends on the Company’s profitability, growth, and capital needs.  In addition, California law restricts the ability of the Company to pay dividends.  For a number of years, the Company has paid stock dividends, but not cash dividends, to its shareholders.  No assurance can be given that the Company will pay any dividends in the future or, if paid, such dividends will not be discontinued.  See “Business - Restrictions on Dividends and Other Distributions” above.

Competition Adversely Affects our Profitability

In California generally, and in the Bank’s primary market area specifically, major banks dominate the commercial banking industry.  By virtue of their larger capital bases, such institutions have substantially greater lending limits than those of the Bank.  Competition is likely to further intensify as a result of the recent and increasing level of consolidation of financial services companies, particularly in our market area resulting from various economic and market conditions.  In obtaining deposits and making loans, the Bank competes with these larger commercial banks and other financial institutions, such as savings and loan associations, credit unions and member institutions of the Farm Credit System, which offer many services that traditionally were offered only by banks.  Using the financial holding company structure, insurance companies, and securities firms may compete more directly with banks and bank holding companies.  In addition, the Bank competes with other institutions such as mutual fund companies, brokerage firms, and even retail stores seeking to penetrate the financial services market.  Current federal law has also made it easier for out-of-state banks to enter and compete in the states in which we operate. Competition in our principal markets may further intensify as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act which, among other things, permits out-of-state de novo branching by national banks, state banks and foreign banks from other states. We also experience competition, especially for deposits, from internet-based banking institutions and other financial companies, which do not always have a physical presence in our market footprint and have grown rapidly in recent years.  Also, technology and other changes increasingly allow parties to complete financial transactions electronically, and in many cases, without banks.  For example, consumers can pay bills and transfer funds over the internet and by telephone without banks.  Non-bank financial service providers may have lower overhead costs and are subject to fewer regulatory constraints.  If consumers do not use banks to complete their financial transactions, we could potentially lose fee income, deposits and income generated from those deposits.  During periods of declining interest rates, competitors with lower costs of capital may solicit the Bank’s customers to refinance their loans.  Furthermore, during periods of economic slowdown or recession, the Bank’s borrowers may face financial difficulties and be more receptive to offers from the Bank’s competitors to refinance their loans.  No assurance can be given that the Bank will be able to compete with these lenders.  See “Business - Competition” above.

 

Government Regulation and Legislation Could Adversely Affect the Company

The Company and the Bank are subject to extensive state and federal regulation, supervision, and legislation, which govern almost all aspects of the operations of the Company and the Bank.  The business of the Bank is particularly susceptible to being affected by the enactment of federal and state legislation, which may have the effect of increasing the cost of doing business, modifying permissible activities, or enhancing the competitive position of other financial institutions.  Such laws are subject to change from time to time and are primarily intended for the protection of consumers, depositors and the Deposit Insurance Fund and not for the benefit of shareholders of the Company.  Regulatory authorities may also change their interpretation of these laws and regulations.  The Company cannot predict what effect any presently contemplated or future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on the business and prospects of the Company, but it could be material and adverse.  See “Business – Supervision and Regulation of the Bank” and "The effects of changes or increases in, or supervisory enforcement of, banking or other laws and regulations or governmental fiscal or monetary policies could adversely affect us" above.

We maintain systems and procedures designed to comply with applicable laws and regulations.  However, some legal/regulatory frameworks provide for the imposition of criminal or civil penalties (which can be substantial) for non-compliance.  In some cases, liability may attach even if the non-compliance was inadvertent or unintentional and even if compliance systems and procedures were in place at the time.  There may be other negative consequences from a finding of non-compliance, including restrictions on certain activities and damage to the Company’s reputation.

 

Our Controls and Procedures May Fail or be Circumvented Which Could Have a Material Adverse Effect on the Company's Financial Condition or Results of Operations

 

The Company maintains controls and procedures to mitigate against risks such as processing system failures and errors, and customer or employee fraud, and maintains insurance coverage for certain of these risks.  Any system of controls and procedures, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met.  Events could occur which are not prevented or detected by the Company’s internal controls or are not insured against or are in excess of the Company’s insurance limits.  Any failure or circumvention of the Company’s controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

Changes in Deposit Insurance Premiums Could Adversely Affect Our Business

 

As discussed above in Part I under the caption “Business – Premiums for Deposit Insurance,” the FDIC adopted a comprehensive, long-range “restoration” plan for the Deposit Insurance Fund to ensure that the ratio of the fund’s reserves to insured deposits reaches 1.35% by 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.  The FDIC could further increase deposit premiums or impose special assessments in the future.  Any further increases in the deposit insurance assessments the Bank pays would further increase our costs.

 

Negative Public Opinion Could Damage Our Reputation and Adversely Affect Our Earnings

 

Reputational risk, or the risk to our earnings and capital from negative public opinion, is inherent in our business.  Negative public opinion can result from the actual or perceived manner in which we conduct our business activities, management of actual or potential conflicts of interest and ethical issues, lending practices, governmental enforcement actions, corporate governance deficiencies, use  of social media, cyber-security breaches and our protection of confidential client information, or from actions taken by regulators or community organizations in response to such actions.  Negative public opinion can adversely affect our ability to keep and attract customers and employees and can expose us to claims and litigation and regulatory action and increased liquidity risk.  

We May Not Be Able to Hire or Retain Additional Qualified Personnel and Recruiting and Compensation Costs May Increase as a Result of Turnover, Both of Which May Increase Costs and Reduce Profitability and May Adversely Impact Our Ability to Implement Our Business Strategy

 

Our success depends upon the ability to attract and retain highly motivated, well-qualified personnel. We face significant competition in the recruitment and retention of qualified employees.  Executive compensation in the financial services sector has been controversial and the subject of regulation.  The FDIC has proposed rules which would increase deposit premiums for institutions with compensation practices deemed to increase risk to the institution. Over time, this guidance and the proposed rules, upon their adoption, could have the effect of making it more difficult for banks to attract and retain skilled personnel.

 

We May Be Adversely Affected by Unpredictable Catastrophic Events or Terrorist Attacks and Our Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans May Not Adequately Protect Us from Serious Disaster

The occurrence of catastrophic events such as wildfires (including programs of public utility public safety power outages when weather conditions and fire danger warrant), earthquakes, flooding or other large-scale catastrophes and terrorist attacks could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations if a catastrophe rendered both our production data center in Sacramento and our recovery data center in Las Vegas unusable. Although we enhanced our disaster recovery capabilities in 2017 through the completion of the new, out of region backup center in Las Vegas, there can be no assurance that our current disaster recovery plans and capabilities will protect us from serious disaster.

Changes in Accounting Standards Could Materially Impact Our Financial Statements

The Company’s consolidated financial statements are presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, called GAAP.  The financial information contained within our consolidated financial statements is, to a significant extent, financial information that is based on approximate measures of the financial effects of transactions and events that have already occurred.  A variety of factors could affect the ultimate value that is obtained either when earning income, recognizing an expense, recovering an asset or relieving a liability.  Along with other factors, we use historical loss factors to determine the inherent loss that may be present in our loan portfolio.  Actual losses could differ significantly from the historical loss factors that we use.  Other estimates that we use are fair value of our securities and expected useful lives of our depreciable assets.  We have not entered into derivative contracts for our customers or for ourselves, which relate to interest rate, credit, equity, commodity, energy, or weather-related indices.  From time to time, the FASB and SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements or new interpretations of existing standards emerge as standard industry practice. These changes can be difficult to predict and operationally complex to implement and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively, resulting in our restating prior period financial statements.

In June 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (“ASU 2016-13”).  On October 16, 2019, the FASB voted to delay the adoption of ASU 2016-13 until January 1, 2023 for small reporting companies with less than $250 million in public float as defined in the SEC's rules.  The Company qualifies for this delay in adoption.  ASU 2016-13 will substantially change the accounting for credit losses on loans and other financial assets held by banks, financial institutions and other organizations. The standard replaces existing incurred loss impairment guidance and establishes a single allowance framework for financial assets carried at amortized cost. Upon adoption of ASU 2016-13, companies must recognize credit losses on these assets equal to management’s estimate of credit losses over the full remaining expected life. Companies must consider all relevant information when estimating expected credit losses, including details about past events, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts. The adoption of ASU 2016-13 could result in an increase in our allowance for loan losses as a result of changing from an “incurred loss” model, which encompasses allowances for current known and inherent losses within the portfolio, to an “expected loss” model, which encompasses allowances for losses expected to be incurred over the life of the portfolio. Furthermore, ASU 2016-13 will necessitate that we establish an allowance for expected credit losses for certain debt securities and other financial assets. While we are currently unable to reasonably estimate the impact of adopting ASU 2016-13, we expect that the impact of adoption will be significantly influenced by the composition, characteristics and quality of our loan and securities portfolios as well as the prevailing economic conditions and forecasts as of the adoption date.

There is a Limited Public Market for the Company’s Common Stock Which May Make It Difficult for Shareholders to Dispose of Their Shares

The Company’s common stock is not listed on any exchange.  However, trades may be reported on the OTC Markets under the symbol “FNRN.”  The Company is aware that D.A Davidson, Raymond James, Wedbush Morgan Securities, and Monroe Securities all currently make a market in the Company’s common stock.  Management is aware that there are also private transactions in the Company’s common stock.  However, the limited trading market for the Company’s common stock may make it difficult for shareholders to dispose of their shares.  Also, the price of the Company’s common stock may be affected by general market price movements as well as developments specifically related to the financial services sector, including interest rate movements, quarterly variations, or changes in financial estimates by securities analysts and a significant reduction in the price of the stock of another participant in the financial services industry.

Advances and Changes in Technology, and the Company’s Ability to Adapt Its Technology, May Strain Our Available Resources and Could Adversely Impact Our Ability to Compete and the Company’s Business and Operations

Advances and changes in technology can significantly impact the business and operations of the Company. The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological change which regularly involves the introduction of new products and services based on new or enhanced technologies. Examples include cloud computing, artificial intelligence and machine learning, biometric authentication and data protection enhancements, as well as increased online and mobile device interaction with customers and increased demand for providing computer access to Bank accounts and the systems to perform banking transactions electronically.  The Company’s merchant processing services require the use of advanced computer hardware and software technology and rapidly changing customer and regulatory requirements.  The Company’s ability to compete effectively depends on its ability to continue to adapt its technology on a timely and cost-effective basis to meet these requirements. Our continued success and the maintenance of our competitive position depends, in part, upon our ability to meet the needs of our customers through the application of new technologies. If we fail to maintain or enhance our competitive position with regard to technology, whether because we fail to anticipate customer needs and expectations or because our technological initiatives fail to perform as desired or are not timely implemented, we may lose market share or incur additional expense.  Our ability to execute our core operations and to implement technology and other important initiatives may be adversely affected if our resources are insufficient or if we are unable to allocate available resources effectively.

In addition, the Company’s business and operations are susceptible to negative impacts from computer system failures, communication and power disruption, and unethical individuals with the technological ability to cause disruptions or failures of the Company’s data processing systems.

Information Security Breaches or Other Technological Difficulties Could Adversely Affect the Company

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage, transmission and reporting of personal, confidential and other sensitive information in our computer systems, networks and business applications. Although we take protective measures, our computer systems, as well as the systems of our third-party providers, may be vulnerable to breaches or attacks, unauthorized access, misuse, computer viruses or other malicious code, operational errors, including clerical or record-keeping errors or those resulting from faulty or disabled computer or telecommunications systems, and other events that could have significant negative consequences to us. Such events could result in interruptions or malfunctions in our or our customers’ operations, interception, misuse or mishandling of personal or confidential information, or processing of unauthorized transactions or loss of funds. These events could result in litigation, regulatory enforcement actions, and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered by our insurance, or result in regulatory consequences or reputational harm, any of which could harm our competitive position, operating results and financial condition. We maintain cyber insurance, but this insurance may not cover all costs associated with cyber incidents or the consequences of personal or confidential information being compromised.  These types of incidents can remain undetected for extended periods of time, thereby increasing the associated risks. We may also be required to expend significant resources to modify our protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or exposures arising from cybersecurity risks.

We depend on the continued efficacy of our technical systems, operational infrastructure, relationships with third parties and our employees in our day-to-day and ongoing operations. Our increasing dependence upon automated systems to record and process transactions may further increase the risk that technical system flaws or employee tampering or manipulation of those systems will result in losses that are difficult to detect. With regard to the physical infrastructure that supports our operations, we have taken measures to implement backup systems and other safeguards, but our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by any disruption to that infrastructure. Failures in our internal control or operational systems, security breaches or service interruptions could impair our ability to operate our business and result in potential liability to customers, reputational damage and regulatory intervention, any of which could harm our operating results and financial condition.

We may also be subject to disruptions of our operating systems arising from other events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, such as outages related to electrical, internet or telecommunications, natural disasters (such as major seismic events), or unexpected difficulties with the implementation of our technology enhancement and replacement projects, which may give rise to disruption of service to customers and to financial loss or liability. Our business recovery plan may not work as intended or may not prevent significant interruptions of our operations.

In recent years, it has been reported that several of the larger U.S. banking institutions have been the target of various denial-of-service or other cyberattacks (including attempts to inject malicious code and viruses into computer systems) that have, for limited periods, resulted in the disruption of various operations of the targeted banks. These cyber-attacks originate from a variety of sophisticated sources who may be involved with organized crime, linked to terrorist organizations or hostile countries and have extensive resources to disrupt the operations of the Bank or the financial system more generally. The potential for denial-of-service and other attacks requires substantial resources to defend and may affect customer satisfaction and behavior. To date we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyberattacks or other information security breaches, but there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses or information security breaches in the future. A successful cyber-attack could result in a material disruption of the Bank’s operations, exposure of confidential information and financial loss to the Bank, its clients, customers and counterparties and could lead to significant exposure to litigation and regulatory fines, penalties and other sanctions as well as reputational damage. While we have a variety of cyber-security measures in place, the consequences to our business, if we were to become a target of such attacks, cannot be predicted with any certainty.

In addition, there have been increasing efforts on the part of third parties to breach data security at financial institutions or with respect to financial transactions, including through the use of social engineering schemes such as “phishing.” The ability of our customers to bank remotely, including online and though mobile devices, requires secure transmission of confidential information and increases the risk of data security breaches which would expose us to financial claims by customers or others and which could adversely affect our reputation and could lead to a material loss.

We, and other banking institutions, are also at risk of increased losses from fraudulent conduct of criminals using increasingly sophisticated techniques which, in some cases, are part of larger criminal organizations which allow them to be more effective. This criminal activity is taking many forms, including information theft, debit/credit card fraud, check fraud, mechanical devices affixed to ATM’s, social engineering, phishing attacks to obtain personal information, or impersonation of customers through falsified or stolen credentials, business email compromise, and other criminal endeavors. We, and other banking institutions are also at risk of fraudulent or criminal activities by employees, contractors, vendors and others with whom we do business. There is also the risk of errors by our employees and others responsible for the systems and controls on which we depend and any resulting failures of these systems and controls could significantly harm the Company, including customer remediation costs, regulatory fines and penalties, litigation or enforcement actions, or limitations on our business activities.

Even if cyber-attacks and similar tactics are not directed specifically at the Bank, such attacks on other large financial institutions could disrupt the overall functioning of the financial system and undermine consumer confidence in banks generally, to the detriment of other financial institutions, including the Bank.  A data security breach at a large U.S. retailer resulted in the compromise of data related to credit and debit cards of large numbers of customers requiring many banks, including the Bank, to reissue credit and debit cards for affected customers and reimburse these customers for losses sustained.

Environmental Hazards Could Have a Material Adverse Effect on the Company’s Business, Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The Company, in its ordinary course of business, acquires real property securing loans that are in default, and there is a risk that hazardous substances or waste, contaminants or pollutants could exist on such properties.  The Company may be required to remove or remediate such substances from the affected properties at its expense, and the cost of such removal or remediation may substantially exceed the value of the affected properties or the loans secured by such properties.  Furthermore, the Company may not have adequate remedies against the prior owners or other responsible parties to recover its costs.  Finally, the Company may find it difficult or impossible to sell the affected properties either prior to or following any such removal.  In addition, the Company may be considered liable for environmental liabilities in connection with its borrowers’ properties, if, among other things, it participates in the management of its borrowers’ operations.  The occurrence of such an event could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company may not be successful in raising additional capital needed in the future

 

If additional capital is needed in the future as a result of losses, our business strategy or regulatory requirements, there is no assurance that our efforts to raise such additional capital will be successful or that shares sold in the future will be sold at prices or on terms equal to or better than the current market price.  The inability to raise additional capital when needed or at prices and terms acceptable to us could adversely affect our ability to implement our business strategies.

 

In the Future, the Company May Be Required to Recognize Impairment With Respect to Investment Securities, Which May Adversely Affect our Results of Operations

 

The Company’s securities portfolio currently includes securities with unrecognized losses.  The Company may continue to observe declines in the fair market value of these securities.  Management evaluates the securities portfolio for any other-than-temporary impairment each reporting period, as required by generally accepted accounting principles.  There can be no assurance, however, that future evaluations of the securities portfolio will not require us to recognize impairment charges with respect to these and other holdings, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

 

The Changes in the U.S. Tax Laws, the Majority of Which Were Effective January 1, 2018, Will Impact Our Business and Results of Operations in a Variety of Ways, Some of Which Are Positive, and Others Which May Be Negative

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), signed into law on December 22, 2017, enacted sweeping changes to the U.S. federal tax laws generally effective January 1, 2018.  These changes can be expected to impact our business and results of operations in a variety of ways, some of which are expected to be positive and others which may be negative.  The TCJA reduced the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, which resulted in a net reduction in our annual income tax expense and which should also benefit many of our corporate and other small business borrowers.  However, our ability to utilize tax credits, such as those arising from low-income housing and alternative energy investments, may be constrained by the lower tax rate.

We are continuing to monitor the full impact of these changes in the tax law on our tax positions, which may not be fully known until interpretive guidance is issued by the IRS.

ITEM 1B – UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

ITEM 2 – PROPERTIES

The Company and the Bank are engaged in the banking business through 17 offices in six counties in Northern California operating out of three offices in Solano County, six in Yolo County, four in Sacramento County, two in Placer County, one in Sonoma County and one in Contra Costa County.  In addition, the Company owns three vacant lots, two in northern Solano County and one in eastern Sacramento County, for possible future bank sites.  

The Bank owns three branch office locations and two administrative facilities and leases 13 facilities.  Most of the leases contain multiple renewal options and provisions for rental increases, principally for changes in the cost of living index, property taxes and maintenance.

See Item 1 “Business - General” in this report for more information regarding our properties.

ITEM 3 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Neither the Company nor the Bank is a party to any material pending legal proceeding, nor is any of its property the subject of any material pending legal proceeding, except ordinary routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of the Bank’s business and incidental to its business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s or the Bank’s business, financial position or results of operations.

 

ITEM 4 – MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

 

 

ITEM 5 - MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

The Company’s common stock is not listed on any exchange.  However, trades may be reported on the OTC Markets under the symbol “FNRN.”  The Company is aware that D.A. Davidson, Raymond James, Wedbush Morgan Securities, and Monroe Securities, all currently make a market in the Company’s common stock.  Management is aware that there are also private transactions in the Company’s common stock, and the data set forth below may not reflect all such transactions.

The following table summarizes the range of reported high and low bid quotations of the Company’s Common Stock for each quarter during the last two fiscal years and is based on information provided by D.A. Davidson.  The quotations reflect the price that would be received by the seller without retail mark-up, mark-down or commissions and may not have represented actual transactions:

*  Price adjusted for stock dividends in the indicated periods for the 5% stock dividends payable March 25, 2020 and March 29, 2019, as described below.

As of March 1, 2020, there were approximately 1,366 holders of record of the Company’s common stock, no par value.

In the prior two fiscal years and to date, the Company has declared the following stock dividends:

The Company does not expect to pay a cash dividend in the foreseeable future.  Our ability to declare and pay dividends is affected by certain regulatory restrictions.  See “Business – Restrictions on Dividends and Other Distributions” above.  The Company made no repurchases of common stock in the 12 months ended December 31, 2019.

For information regarding securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans, see Part III, Item 12 of this Report on Form 10-K.

ITEM 6 - SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The selected consolidated financial data below have been derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements.  The selected consolidated financial data set forth below as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 have been derived from the Company’s historical consolidated financial statements not included in this Report.  The financial information for 2019, 2018, and 2017 should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” which is in Part II (Item 7) of this Report and with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, which are included in Part II (Item 8) of this Report.

(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

 

(1)  All years have been restated to give retroactive effect for stock dividends issued and stock splits.

ITEM 7 – MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATION

Introduction

This overview highlights selected information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and may not contain all of the information that is important to you.  For a more complete understanding of trends, events, commitments, uncertainties, liquidity, capital resources, and critical accounting estimates, you should carefully read this entire Annual Report on Form 10-K. For a discussion of changes in results of operations comparing the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017 for the Company and its subsidiary, see Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, filed with the SEC on March 8, 2019.

Our subsidiary, First Northern Bank of Dixon, is a California state-chartered bank that derives most of its revenues from lending and deposit taking in the Sacramento Valley region of Northern California.  Interest rates, business conditions and customer confidence all affect our ability to generate revenues.  In addition, the regulatory environment and competition can challenge our ability to generate those revenues.

Financial highlights for 2019 include:

The Company reported net income of $14.7 million for 2019, a 17.3% increase compared to net income of $12.6 million for 2018. Net income per common share for 2019 was $1.15, an increase of 16.2% compared to net income per common share of $0.99 for 2018.  Net income per common share on a fully diluted basis was $1.14 for 2019, an increase of 17.5% compared to net income per common share on a fully diluted basis of $0.97 for 2018.

Net interest income totaled $47.1 million for 2019, an increase of 6.3% from $44.3 million in 2018, primarily due to increased average loan volumes and rates, increased investment securities volumes and rates, increased rates on interest bearing due from banks, increased average certificates of deposit volumes and rates, which was partially offset by decreased average due from banks volume and increased average interest-bearing transaction, savings and money market account volumes and rates.

There was no provision for loan losses in 2019 compared to provision for loan loss of $2.1 million in 2018.  Net charge-offs were $466 thousand in 2019 compared to $411 thousand in 2018.  The decrease in the provision for loan losses was primarily due to limited loan growth coupled with improvements in credit quality and decreased non-performing assets and associated specific reserves.

Non-interest income totaled $7.2 million for each of the periods ended in 2019 and 2018.  Gain on sale of loans held-for sale and mortgage brokerage income increased in 2019 compared to 2018, which was partially offset by a decrease in other non-interest income.

Non-interest expenses totaled $33.9 million for 2019, up 5.5% from $32.2 million in 2018.  The increase was primarily due to increases in salaries and employee benefits due to increased staffing levels, occupancy and equipment expense due to the opening of an administrative office space and a branch in the second half of 2019, data processing expenses as a result of enhanced IT infrastructure and outsourcing of core processing and other real estate owned expense primarily due to a write-down on other real estate owned.  The increase in non-interest expenses was partially offset by a reversal of FDIC assessments expense due to the receipt of credits applied in the second half of 2019.

The Company reported total assets of $1.29 billion as of December 31, 2019, up 3.4% from $1.25 billion as of December 31, 2018.

Investments increased to $342.9 million as of December 31, 2019, a 9.0% increase from $314.6 million as of December 31, 2018.  U.S. Treasury securities totaled $43.3 million as of December 31,  2019, down 14.7% from $50.7 million as of December 31, 2018; securities of U.S. government agencies and corporations totaled $53.9 million, up 28.1% from $42.1 million as of December 31, 2018; obligations of state and political subdivisions totaled $27.0 million, up 41.0% from $19.2 million as of December 31, 2018; collateralized mortgage obligations totaled $79.4 million, up 24.5% from $63.8 million as of December 31, 2018; and mortgage-backed securities totaled $139.3 million, up 0.3% from $138.9 million as of December 31, 2018.

Loans (including loans held-for-sale), net of allowance, increased to $773.0 million as of December 31, 2019, a 1.0% increase from $765.7 million as of December 31, 2018.  Commercial loans totaled $106.1 million as of December 31, 2019, down 15.2% from $125.2 million as of December 31, 2018; commercial real estate loans were $451.8 million, up 7.5% from $420.1 million as of December 31, 2018; agriculture loans were $115.8 million, down 6.4% from $123.6 million as of December 31, 2018; residential mortgage loans were $64.9 million, up 27.2% from $51.1 million as of December 31, 2018; residential construction loans were $15.2 million, down 24.4% from $20.1 million as of December 31, 2018; and consumer loans totaled $26.8 million, down 24.2% from $35.4 million as of December 31, 2018.

Deposits increased to $1.14 billion as of December 31, 2019, a 1.3% increase from $1.12 billion as of December 31, 2018.

Stockholders' equity increased to $132.9 million as of December 31, 2019, an 18.2% increase from $112.5 million as of December 31, 2018.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The Company’s discussion and analysis of its financial condition and results of operations are based upon the Company’s consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.  The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires the Company to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, income and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities.  On an on-going basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to the allowance for loan losses, other real estate owned, investments, and income taxes.  The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources.  Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

The Company believes the following critical accounting policies affect its more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of its consolidated financial statements:

Allowance for Loan Losses

The Company believes the allowance for loan losses accounting policy is critical because the loan portfolio represents the largest asset on the consolidated balance sheet, and there is significant judgment used in determining the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses.  The Company maintains an allowance for loan losses resulting from the inability of borrowers to make required loan payments.  Loan losses are charged off against the allowance, while recoveries of amounts previously charged off are credited to the allowance.  A provision for loan losses is based on the Company’s periodic evaluation of the factors mentioned below, as well as other pertinent factors.  The allowance for loan losses consists of an allocated component and a general component.  The components of the allowance for loan losses represent an estimate.  The allocated component of the allowance for loan losses reflects expected losses resulting from analyses developed through specific credit allocations for individual loans and historical loss experience for each loan category.  The specific credit allocations are based on regular analyses of all loans where the internal credit rating is at or below a predetermined classification.  These analyses involve a high degree of judgment in estimating the amount of loss associated with specific loans, including estimating the amount and timing of future cash flows and collateral values.  The historical loan loss element is determined using analysis that examines loss experience.

The allocated component of the allowance for loan losses also includes consideration of concentrations and changes in portfolio mix and volume.  The general portion of the allowance reflects the Company’s estimate of probable inherent but undetected losses within the portfolio due to uncertainties in economic conditions, delays in obtaining information, including unfavorable information about a borrower’s financial condition, the difficulty in identifying triggering events that correlate perfectly to subsequent loss rates, and risk factors that have not yet manifested themselves in loss allocation factors.  Uncertainty surrounding the strength and timing of economic cycles also affects estimates of loss.  There are many factors affecting the allowance for loan losses; some are quantitative while others require qualitative judgment.  Although the Company believes its process for determining the allowance adequately considers all of the potential factors that could potentially result in credit losses, the process includes subjective elements and may be susceptible to significant change.  To the extent actual outcomes differ from Company estimates, additional provision for credit losses could be required that could adversely affect earnings or financial position in future periods.

Impaired Loans

A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement, including scheduled interest payments.  For a loan that has been restructured in a troubled debt restructuring, the contractual terms of the loan agreement refer to the contractual terms specified by the original loan agreement, not the contractual terms specified by the restructuring agreement.  An impaired loan is measured based upon the present value of future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective rate, the loan’s observable market price, or the fair value of collateral if the loan is collateral dependent.  If the measurement of the impaired loan is less than the recorded investment in the loan, an impairment is recognized by a charge to the allowance for loan losses.

 

Other-than-temporary Impairment in Debt Securities

Debt securities with fair values that are less than amortized cost are considered impaired.  Impairment may result from either a decline in the financial condition of the issuing entity or, in the case of fixed interest rate debt securities, from rising interest rates.  At each consolidated financial statement date, management assesses each debt security in an unrealized loss position to determine if impaired debt securities are temporarily impaired or if the impairment is other than temporary. This assessment includes consideration regarding the duration and severity of impairment, the credit quality of the issuer and a determination of whether the Company intends to sell the security, or if it is more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current-period credit losses.  Other-than-temporary impairment is recognized in earnings if one of the following conditions exists:  1) the Company’s intent is to sell the security; 2) it is more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell the security before the impairment is recovered; or 3) the Company does not expect to recover its amortized cost basis.  If, by contrast, the Company does not intend to sell the security and will not be required to sell the security prior to recovery of the amortized cost basis, the Company recognizes only the credit loss component of other-than-temporary impairment in earnings.  The credit loss component is calculated as the difference between the security’s amortized cost basis and the present value of its expected future cash flows.  The remaining difference between the security’s fair value and the present value of the future expected cash flows is deemed to be due to factors that are not credit related and is recognized in other comprehensive income.

Fair Value Measurements

The Company utilizes fair value measurements to record fair value adjustments to certain assets and liabilities and to determine fair value disclosures.  Securities available-for-sale are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis.  Additionally, from time to time, the Company may be required to record at fair value other assets on a non-recurring basis, such as loans held-for-sale, loans held-for-investment and certain other assets.  These non-recurring fair value adjustments typically involve application of lower of cost or market accounting or write-downs of individual assets.  Transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy are recognized on the actual date of the event or circumstances that caused the transfer, which generally corresponds with the Company’s quarterly valuation process.  For additional discussion, see Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K.

Share-Based Payment

The Company determines the fair value of stock options at grant date using the Black-Scholes-Merton pricing model that takes into account the stock price at the grant date, the exercise price, the expected dividend yield, stock price volatility, and the risk-free interest rate over the expected life of the option.  The Black-Scholes-Merton model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions including the expected life of the stock-based award and stock price volatility.  The estimates used in the model involve inherent uncertainties and the application of Management’s judgment.  As a result, if other assumptions had been used, our recorded stock-based compensation expense could have been materially different from that reflected in these financial statements.  The fair value of non-vested restricted common shares generally equals the stock price at grant date.  In addition, we are required to estimate the expected forfeiture rate and only recognize expense for those share-based awards expected to vest.  If our actual forfeiture rate is materially different from the estimate, the share-based compensation expense could be materially different.  For additional discussion, see Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K.

Accounting for Income Taxes

Income taxes reported in the consolidated financial statements are computed based on an asset and liability approach.  We recognize the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year, and deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences that have been recognized in the financial statements.  Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the differences between the consolidated financial statements and tax basis of assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to reverse.  We record net deferred tax assets to the extent it is more-likely-than-not that they will be realized.  In evaluating our ability to recover the deferred tax assets, Management considers all available positive and negative evidence, including scheduled reversals of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, tax planning strategies and recent financial operations.  In projecting future taxable income, Management develops assumptions including the amount of future state and federal pretax operating income, the reversal of temporary differences, and the implementation of feasible and prudent tax planning strategies.  These assumptions require significant judgment about the forecasts of future taxable income and are consistent with the plans and estimates being used to manage the underlying business.  The Company files consolidated federal and combined state income tax returns.

 

A "more-likely-than-not" recognition threshold must be met before a tax benefit can be recognized in the consolidated financial statements.  For tax positions that meet the more-likely-than-not threshold, an enterprise may recognize only the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the taxing authority.  To the extent tax authorities disagree with these tax positions, our effective tax rates could be materially affected in the period of settlement with the taxing authorities.  For additional discussion, see Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K.

Mortgage Servicing Rights

 

Transfers and servicing of financial assets and extinguishments of liabilities are accounted for and reported based on consistent application of a financial-components approach that focuses on control.  Transfers of financial assets that are sales are distinguished from transfers that are secured borrowings.  Retained interests (mortgage servicing rights) in loans sold are measured by allocating the previous carrying amount of the transferred assets between the loans sold and retained interest, if any, based on their relative fair value at the date of transfer.  Fair values are estimated using discounted cash flows based on a current market interest rate.  The Company recognizes a gain and a related asset for the fair value of the rights to service loans for others when loans are sold.

The recorded value of mortgage servicing rights is included in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets initially at fair value, and is amortized in proportion to, and over the period of, estimated net servicing revenues.  The Company assesses capitalized mortgage servicing rights for impairment based upon the fair value of those rights at each reporting date.  For purposes of measuring impairment, the rights are stratified based upon the product type, term and interest rates.  Fair value is determined by discounting estimated net future cash flows from mortgage servicing activities using discount rates that approximate current market rates and estimated prepayment rates, among other assumptions.  The amount of impairment recognized, if any, is the amount by which the capitalized mortgage servicing rights for a stratum exceeds their fair value.  Impairment, if any, is recognized through a valuation allowance for each individual stratum.

 

Impact of Recently Issued Accounting Standards

In March 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-01, Leases (Topic 842): Codification Improvements.  These amendments align the guidance for fair value of the underlying asset by lessors that are not manufacturers or dealers in Topic 842 with that of existing guidance (Issue 1).  This ASU also requires lessors within the scope of Topic 942, Financial Services - Depository and Lending, to present all "principal payments received under leases" within investing activities (Issue 2).  Finally, this ASU exempts both lessees and lessors from having to provide certain interim disclosures in the fiscal year in which a company adopts the new leases standard (Issue 3).  Issue 1 and Issue 2 are effective for public companies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years.  Issue 3 is effective for public companies for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018.  The Company adopted Issue 3 of ASU 2019-01 on January 1, 2019, which did not have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.  See Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K.

In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-19, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses.  The guidance clarifies that receivables arising from operating leases are not within the scope of the credit losses standard, but rather should be accounted for in accordance with the leases standard.  The effective date and transition requirements are the same as the effective dates and transition requirements in the credit losses standard, ASU 2016-13.  The Company does not expect the adoption of this update to have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.  The amendments in ASU 2016-13, among other things, require the measurement of all expected credit losses for financial assets held at the reporting date based on historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts.  Financial institutions and other organizations will now use forward-looking information to better inform their credit loss estimates.  Many of the loss estimation techniques applied today will still be permitted, although the inputs to those techniques will change to reflect the full amount of expected credit losses.  In addition, ASU 2016-13 amends the accounting for credit losses on available-for-sale debt securities and purchased financial assets with credit deterioration.  The amendments are effective for public companies for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2019.  Early application will be permitted for all organizations for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018.  On October 16, 2019, the FASB voted to delay the adoption of ASU 2016-13 until January 1, 2023 for small reporting companies with less than $250 million in public float as defined in the SEC's rules.  The Company qualifies for this delay in adoption.  The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact of ASU 2016-13 on our financial statements. In that regard, the Company has formed a cross-functional working group, under the direction of our Chief Financial Officer and our Chief Credit Officer. The working group is comprised of individuals from various functional areas including credit risk, finance and information technology, among others. The Company is currently working through its implementation plan which includes assessment and documentation of processes, internal controls and data sources; model development and documentation; and system configuration, among other things. The Company is also in the process of implementing a third-party vendor solution to assist us in the application of ASU 2016-13. The adoption of ASU 2016-13 could result in an increase in the Company’s allowance for loan losses as a result of changing from an “incurred loss” model, which encompasses allowances for current known and inherent losses within the portfolio, to an “expected loss” model, which encompasses allowances for losses expected to be incurred over the life of the portfolio. Furthermore, ASU 2016-13 will necessitate that the Company establish an allowance for expected credit losses for certain debt securities and other financial assets. While the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the impact of adopting ASU 2016-13, the Company expects that the impact of adoption will be significantly influenced by the composition, characteristics and quality of its loan and securities portfolios as well as the prevailing economic conditions and forecasts as of the adoption date.

In April 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-04, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments.  These amendments clarify and improve areas of guidance related to the recently issued standards on credit losses, hedging, and recognition and measurement.  The Company does not expect the adoption of this update to have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-05, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Targeted Transition Relief.  These amendments provide entities that have certain instruments within the scope of Subtopic 326-20, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses—Measured at Amortized Cost, with an option to irrevocably elect the fair value option in Subtopic 825-10, Financial Instruments—Overall, applied on an instrument-by-instrument basis for eligible instruments, upon adoption of Topic 326. The fair value option election does not apply to held-to-maturity debt securities. An entity that elects the fair value option should subsequently apply the guidance in Subtopics 820-10, Fair Value Measurement—Overall, and 825-10.  The effective date and transition methodology are the same as in ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.  The Company does not expect the adoption of this update to have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In November 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-10, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326), Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), and Leases (Topic 842): Effective Dates.  This ASU amends the effective dates of ASU 2017-12 (Hedging); ASU 2016-13 (Credit Losses) and ASU 2016-02 (Leases). It pushes back by one year the effective date for all other entities, and also distinguishes that smaller reporting companies as defined by the SEC are considered for purposes of ASU No. 2016-13 only, as an other entity.  This standard was effective immediately.  ASU 2017-12, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815) was effective for the Company on January 1, 2019 and did not have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.  The Company adopted ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) on January 1, 2019, which resulted in the Company's recognition of a right-of-use asset of $4,417,000 included in Interest receivable and other assets and lease liabilities of $4,812,000 included in Interest payable and other liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  The Company qualifies as a smaller reporting company as defined by the SEC and as such, the Company is allowed to delay the adoption of ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326) to January 1, 2023.  See discussion above on the expected impact of ASU 2016-13.

In November 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-11, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses.  This ASU, among other narrow-scope improvements, clarifies guidance around how to report expected recoveries.  This ASU permits organizations to record expected recoveries on assets purchased with credit deterioration.  In addition to other narrow technical improvements, the ASU also reinforces existing guidance that prohibits organizations from recording negative allowances for available-for-sale debt securities.  The effective date and transition methodology are the same as in ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.  The Company does not expect the adoption of this update to have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In December 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-12, Income Taxes (Topic 740): Simplifying the Accounting for Income Taxes.  This ASU removes specific exceptions to the general principles in Topic 740 in GAAP.  It eliminates the need for an organization to analyze whether certain exceptions apply in a given period.  This ASU also improves financial statement preparers’ application of income tax-related guidance and simplifies GAAP for: a) Franchise taxes that are partially based on income; b) Transactions with a government that result in a step up in the tax basis of goodwill; c) Separate financial statements of legal entities that are not subject to tax; and d) Enacted changes in tax laws in interim periods.  For public business entities, ASU 2019-12 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, and interim periods within those fiscal years.  The Company does not expect the adoption of this update to have a significant impact on its consolidated financial statements.

STATISTICAL INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

The following statistical information and discussion should be read in conjunction with the Selected Financial Data included in Part II (Item 6) and the audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in Part II (Item 8) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The following tables present information regarding the consolidated average assets, liabilities and stockholders’ equity, the amounts of interest income from average earning assets and the resulting yields, and the amount of interest expense paid on interest-bearing liabilities.  Average loan balances include non-performing loans.  Interest income includes proceeds from loans on non-accrual status only to the extent cash payments have been received and applied as interest income.  Tax-exempt income is not shown on a tax equivalent basis.

Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity;

Interest Rates and Interest Differential

(Dollars in thousands)

 

 

Net Interest Earnings

 Average Balances, Yields and Rates

(Dollars in thousands)

 

 

 

Continuation of

Net Interest Earnings

Average Balances, Yields and Rates

(Dollars in thousands)

(1)       Net interest margin is computed by dividing net interest income by total average interest-earning assets.

 

Analysis of Changes

in Interest Income and Interest Expense

(Dollars in thousands)

Following is an analysis of changes in interest income and expense (dollars in thousands) for 2019 over 2018.  Changes not solely due to interest rate or volume have been allocated proportionately to interest rate and volume.

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

Composition of Investment Securities

The mix of investment securities held by the Company at December 31 of the previous three fiscal years is as follows (dollars in thousands):

Maturities of Investment Securities

The following table is a summary of the relative maturities (dollars in thousands) and projected yields of the Company’s investment securities as of December 31, 2019.  The yields on tax-exempt securities are shown on a tax equivalent basis.