UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission File Number 0-23113

GUARANTY BANCSHARES, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(903) 572-9881

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

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

Common Stock, par value
$1.00 per share

     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. Yes   X     No     .

     Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [  ]

     As of February 25, 2002, the number of outstanding shares of Common Stock was 3,004,428. As of such date, the aggregate market value of the shares of Common Stock held by non-affiliates, based on the closing price of the Common Stock on the Nasdaq National Market System on such date, was approximately $39.1million.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:

Portions of the Company’s Proxy Statement relating to the 2002 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which will be filed within 120 days after December 31, 2001, are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10-13 of this Form 10-K.

PART I

SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

     Statements and financial discussion and analysis contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements describe the Company’s future plans, strategies and expectations, are based on assumptions and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control. The important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements include, without limitation:

- 3 -

     All written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to the Company are expressly qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements.

General

     Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) was incorporated as a business corporation under the laws of the State of Texas in 1980 to serve as a holding company for Guaranty Bank (the “Bank”), which was chartered in 1913, and for Talco State Bank, which was chartered in 1912 and merged into the Bank in 1997. The Company’s headquarters are located at 100 West Arkansas, Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455, and its telephone number is (903) 572-9881.

     The Company has grown through a combination of internal growth, the acquisition of community banks and the opening of new community banking offices. In 1992, the Company established its Deport, Texas location by acquiring certain assets and liabilities of the First National Bank of Deport (the “Deport Bank”). The Deport Bank also had a branch in Paris, Texas, which the Company acquired. To enhance its expansion into the Paris community, in 1994 the Company constructed a new facility to serve as its Paris location. In 2001, the Paris facility was expanded from approximately 5,400 square feet to approximately 9,700 square feet, again to service the expanded customer base. In 1993, the Company purchased a commercial bank in Bogata, Texas and in 1996 opened a second retail-service banking facility in Mount Pleasant. In 1997, the Company merged Talco State Bank into the Bank and opened a full-service location in Texarkana. Texarkana is the center of a trade area encompassing approximately 123,000 people. Management of the Company believes that this trade area provides opportunity for strong continued growth in loans and deposits. Texas Highway 59 (scheduled to become Interstate 69), which serves as the primary “NAFTA Highway” linking the interior United States and Mexico, is a main artery to Texarkana. The increased traffic along this NAFTA Highway is expected to enhance economic activity in this area and create more opportunities for growth. In 1998, the Company completed a new facility in Texarkana to enhance its expansion in the Texarkana market. In 1999, the Company opened a full-service location in Pittsburg, Texas, a community of approximately 4,500 people located 12 miles from Mount Pleasant. Also in 1999, the Company acquired the First American Financial Corporation, (“First American”), with locations in Sulphur Springs and Commerce, Texas. The Company also acquired First American’s wholly owned mortgage company. In 2000, the operations of the mortgage subsidiary, which were being continued by the Company under the name Guaranty Mortgage Company, were merged into the Bank. Also in August 2000, the Company was granted approval by the Texas Department of Banking to open a loan production office in Fort Stockton, Texas. In December of 2000, the Company was granted approval by the Department to operate this facility as a full-service bank location. As of December 31, 2001, the Company continues to operate the Fort Stockton location as a loan production office.

     The Company has developed a community-banking network, with most of its offices located in separate communities. Lending and investment activities are funded from a strong core deposit base consisting of approximately 38,000 deposit accounts. Each of the Company’s offices has the authority and flexibility to make pricing decisions within overall ranges developed by the Company as a form of quality control. Management of the Company believes that its responsiveness to local customers and ability to adjust deposit rates and price loans at each location gives it a distinct competitive advantage. Employees are committed to personal service and developing long-term customer relationships, and adequate staffing is provided at each location to ensure that customers’ needs are well addressed. The Company provides economic incentives to its officers to develop additional business for the Company and to cross-sell additional products and services to existing customers.

     The Company continues to look for additional expansion opportunities, either through acquisitions of existing financial institutions or by establishing de novo offices. The Company intends to consider various strategic acquisitions of banks, banking assets or financial service entities related to banking in those areas that management believes would complement and help grow the Company’s existing business. The Company is particularly optimistic about the growth potential in the Texarkana, Sulphur Springs, Paris, and Mount Pleasant market areas.

     The Bank owns interests in four entities which complement the Company’s business: (i) Guaranty Leasing Company (“Guaranty Leasing”), which finances equipment leases and has engaged in certain transactions which have resulted in the recognition of federal income tax losses deductible by the Company; (ii) GB Com, Inc., a nominee company; (iii) BSC Securities, L.C. (“BSC”), which provides brokerage services; and, (iv) Independent Bank Services, L.C. (“IBS”), which performs compliance, loan review, internal audit and EDP audit functions. These entities are accounted for in the Bank’s financial statements using the equity method of accounting and are included in other assets on the balance sheet.

- 4 -

Business

     The Company’s guiding strategy is to increase shareholder value by providing customers with individualized, responsive, quality service and to augment its existing market share. The Company’s main objective is to increase loans and deposits through additional expansion opportunities in Texas, while stressing efficiency and maximizing profitability. In furtherance of this objective, the Company has employed the following operating strategies:

     Focus On Community Banking. The Company has developed a reputation of being a premier provider of financial services to small and medium-sized businesses, professionals and individuals in Northeast Texas. Management believes the Company’s reputation for providing personal, professional and dependable service is well established in communities located in this area. Each of the Company’s full-service branch locations is administered by a local President with knowledge of the community and lending expertise in the specific industries found in the community, whether it is agriculture, manufacturing and commerce or professional services. Decisions regarding loans are made at each location in a timely manner.

     Continue Strong Core Growth. In recent years, the Company has increased its market share in each of the communities in which it maintains a full-service banking facility. In its principal location of Mount Pleasant, the Company’s market share of financial institution deposits is approximately 44.5% for the year ended December 31, 2001. Deposits at the Paris location grew 24.1% in 2000 and 10.6% in 2001. Deposits at the Commerce location, which opened in September of 1999, grew 9.6% in 2000, and $6.5 million in 2001. Deposits at the Pittsburg location, which opened in May 2000, grew $9.5 million in 2000 and $2.9 million in 2001 representing 8.4% of the market share in Camp County. Deposits at the Sulphur Springs location represent an approximate market share of 13.9%. The Company is well known in its geographic area as a result of its longevity and reputation for service. The Company intends to grow by continuing to seek strategic acquisitions and branching opportunities.

     Enhance Technology. The Company has embraced technological change as a way to remain competitive, manage operational costs associated with growth and offer superior products to its customers. Recent technological implementations include end-user Internet Banking, electronic bill and note payment, check, loan file, and other document imaging, optical report archival and an automated voice response system. Currently, the Company is evaluating several additional enhancements that will improve its ability to deliver information internally to improve productivity and externally to provide convenience and timeliness to its growing customer base. Such enhancements include high-speed wireless communications between all locations combining data and voice traffic, and on-line account reconciliation and internal transfers. The Company has made significant investments in technology, and has become a technological leader in its market.

     Offer Competitive Products. The Company recognizes its competition is not solely banks, but brokerage houses, insurance companies, credit unions and various other competitors, and that in order to thrive it must be competitive in the products that it offers. The Company offers a full range of commercial loan products, including term loans, lines of credit, fixed asset loans and working capital loans. The Company also offers consumers a full range of personal loan products including automobile loans, home improvement loans, consumer loans and mortgage loans. The Company also has a wide variety of deposit products, including a Premier Money Market Account that pays a rate competitive with most brokerage investment accounts and has been very attractive to customers. This product, coupled with certificates of deposit, NOW accounts, savings accounts, Internet banking, free checking, debit cards and overdraft protection, gives the customer a full complement of deposit products at competitive rates.

     Expand Revenue Sources. In order to provide service to its customers and to augment revenues, the Company offers trust services and brokerage services through BSC, a full-service brokerage company. BSC offers a complete array of investment options including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, financial and retirement planning, tax advantaged investments and asset allocations. BSC offers securities through Southwest Securities, a Texas-based independent clearing firm and is licensed and regulated through the National Association of Securities Dealers, the Securities and Exchange Commission and various state and federal banking authorities. The Company’s Trust Department offers complete trust services, including estate administration and custody, trust and asset management services. Management believes that an aging affluent population will foster an increase in the need for professional estate administration services. The maturing of the baby boomer generation is creating a market for asset management services. The Trust Department is in a unique position since there is little competition for trust services in the Company’s markets. Because of the Company’s strong presence in its markets, management believes that banking relationships can be leveraged into growth for the Trust Department. Growth in trust assets and corresponding management fees will result from expanding estate administration, traditional trust services, asset management services and custodial services in the Company’s markets.

- 5 -

     Improve Operating Efficiencies. In order to control overhead expenses, the Company seeks to provide a full range of services as effectively as possible. Through BSC, the Company is able to provide its customers with full brokerage services without having to carry the entire cost itself due to a shared cost agreement with other banks. Similarly, the Company enjoys the compliance and loan review functions provided by IBS on a shared cost basis with a group of other banks participating in this arrangement. The Company has spent the last nine years and considerable revenue expanding its market and improving the delivery of its financial products, which has resulted in a higher than desired efficiency ratio. Beginning with the acquisition of the Deport Bank in 1992, the Company has added nine locations. As a result, it has taken longer for the Company to achieve the desired economies of scale, but with its growth rate, those economies are beginning to be realized and the efficiency ratio is expected to show declining trends in the future. The Company has the support staff and related fixed asset investments to accommodate additional growth and enjoy additional economies of scale.

Competition

     The banking business is highly competitive, and the profitability of the Company depends principally on the Company’s ability to compete in the market areas in which its banking operations are located. The Company competes with other commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage and investment banking firms, asset-based non-bank lenders and certain other non-financial entities, including retail stores which may maintain their own credit programs and certain governmental organizations which may offer more favorable financing than the Company. The Company has been able to compete effectively with other financial institutions by emphasizing customer service, technology and local office decision-making, by establishing long-term customer relationships and building customer loyalty, and by providing products and services designed to address the specific needs of its customers. Competition from both financial and non-financial institutions is expected to continue.

     Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, effective March 11, 2000, securities firms and insurance companies that elect to become financial holding companies may acquire banks and other financial institutions. See “-Supervision and Regulation – The Company”. The financial services industry is also likely to become even more competitive as further technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services. These technological advances may diminish the importance of depository institutions and other financial intermediaries in the transfer of funds between parties.

Leveraged Lease Transactions

     In a series of transactions in 1992, 1994 and 1995, Guaranty Leasing acquired limited partnership interests in certain partnerships (collectively, the “Partnerships” or individually, a “Partnership”) engaged in the equipment leasing business. The investments were structured by TransCapital Corporation (“TransCapital”) through various subsidiaries and controlled partnerships.

     Generally, in each of the transactions the Partnership became the lessee of equipment from an equipment owner (pursuant to a sale and leaseback transaction) and the sublessor of the equipment to the equipment user. Each Partnership receives note payments from the equipment owner under a purchase money note given to purchase the equipment from that Partnership. The Partnership makes lease payments to the equipment owner pursuant to the master lease of the equipment. In most instances, payments under the purchase money note equals lease payments under the master lease. Rental payments from the equipment used under these equipment subleases were sold in advance subject to existing liens for purchase of the equipment.

     The Partnership incurs a tax loss while the master lease/sublease structure is in place, primarily because deductions for rentals paid under the master lease exceed taxable interest income under the purchase money note. Consequently, Guaranty Leasing has reported tax losses as a result of its investments in the Partnerships, which were deductible by the Company. In November 1998, Guaranty Leasing was informed by the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) that it has taken the position that certain losses taken by a Partnership during 1994, 1995 and 1996 of $302,000, $410,000 and $447,000, respectively, would be disallowed. In October 2001, Guaranty Leasing was informed by the Service that it has taken the position that certain losses taken by a Partnership during 1992 of $487,000 would also be disallowed. The Company believes that it has correctly reported these transactions for tax purposes and that it has obtained appropriate legal, accounting and appraisal opinions and authority to support its positions. The Partnership plans to appeal the Service’s determination with the Service’s Appellate Division. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the Partnership plans to litigate the matter in Tax Court. Any final determination with respect to the Partnership will be binding on the Company. If the Service is ultimately successful in redetermining the Partnership’s tax liability, the Company’s tax deductions taken in 1992, 1994, 1995 and 1996 may be disallowed and its tax liability may be adjusted, which may have a material adverse affect on the Company. The Partnership is actively contesting the position of the Service in connection with this matter, and will take appropriate steps necessary to protect its legal position.

- 6 -

     During the year ended December 31, 2000, Guaranty Leasing acquired for approximately $2.8 million, a 2.5% ownership in an Aircraft Finance Trust (“AFT”), a special purpose business trust formed to acquire, finance, refinance, own, lease, sublease, sell and maintain aircraft. AFT was created by General Electric Capital Corporation, and is a financing transaction through which airlines lease aircraft. AFT is a business trust formed in 1999 under the laws of the state of Delaware, and it leases aircraft to airlines around the world. The senior notes issued to AFT are rated AA by Standard and Poors and the notes are secured by the cash flow from the aircraft leases. The notes mature in 2024.

     Management believes its investment in AFT has been permanently impaired by declines in air travel and reduced demand for commercial aircraft. During the third quarter of 2001, AFT recorded an impairment charge of $18,158,000 related to two airplanes. In addition, management has received indications the appraised value of AFT’s fleet of airplanes may have declined approximately 9 percent from the year earlier level. Although the investment has had limited marketability, management believes these facts, coupled with the uncertainty surrounding the air transport industry, indicate the value of its investment in AFT has been permanently impaired. Accordingly, an impairment charge was made to income and the carrying amount of the investment was reduced to $1.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2001.

Employees

As of December 31, 2001, the Company had 184 full-time employees and 30 part-time employees, 75 of whom were officers of the Bank. All employees are non-union employees. The Company provides medical and hospitalization insurance to its full-time employees. The Company considers its relations with employees to be excellent.

Supervision and Regulation

     The supervision and regulation of bank holding companies and their subsidiaries is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the deposit insurance funds of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the banking system as a whole, and not for the protection of the bank holding company shareholders or creditors. The banking agencies have broad enforcement power over bank holding companies and banks including the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties for violations of laws and regulations.

The following description summarizes some of the laws to which the Company and the Bank are subject. References herein to applicable statutes and regulations are brief summaries thereof, do not purport to be complete, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations.

     The Company. The Company is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”), and it is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”). The BHC Act and other federal laws subject bank holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage, and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations.

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

- 7 -

     Under Federal Reserve policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to each of its banking subsidiaries and commit resources to their support. Such support may be required at times when, absent this Federal Reserve policy, a holding company may not be inclined to provide it. As discussed below, a bank holding company in certain circumstances could be required to guarantee the capital plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary.

     In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the trustee will be deemed to have assumed and is required to cure immediately any deficit under any commitment by the debtor holding company to any of the federal banking agencies to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution, and any claim for breach of such obligation will generally have priority over most other unsecured claims.

     Financial Modernization. On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Enacted in response to the terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, the Patriot Act is intended to strengthen U.S. law enforcement’s and the intelligence communities’ ability to work cohesively to combat terrorism on a variety of fronts. The potential impact of the Act on financial institutions of all kinds is significant and wide ranging. The Act contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and requires various regulations, including:

     The Company is unable to predict the impact of such laws on its financial condition or results of operations at this time.

     Under the Financial Services Modernization Act, federal banking regulators adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. Pursuant to the rules, financial institutions must provide:

     These privacy provisions will affect how customer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors. It is not possible at this time to assess the impact of the privacy provisions on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

     Safe and Sound Banking Practices. Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

- 8 -

     The Federal Reserve has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their non-banking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

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

     Capital Adequacy Requirements. The Federal Reserve has adopted a system using risk-based capital guidelines to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. Under the guidelines, specific categories of assets are assigned different risk weights, based generally on the perceived credit risk of the asset. These risk weights are multiplied by corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk-weighted” asset base. The guidelines require a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% (of which at least 4.0% is required to consist of Tier 1 capital elements). Total capital is the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital. As of December 31, 2001, the Company’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets was 11.52% and its ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets was 12.58%. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.

     In addition to the risk-based capital guidelines, the Federal Reserve uses a leverage ratio as an additional tool to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. The leverage ratio is a company’s Tier 1 capital divided by its average total consolidated assets. Certain highly rated bank holding companies may maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 3.0%, but other bank holding companies may be required to maintain a leverage ratio of up to 200 basis points above the regulatory minimum. As of December 31, 2001, the Company’s leverage ratio was 8.44%.

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

     Imposition of Liability for Undercapitalized Subsidiaries. Bank regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” to resolve problems associated with insured depository institutions whose capital declines below certain levels. In the event an institution becomes “undercapitalized,” it must submit a capital restoration plan. The capital restoration plan will not be accepted by the regulators unless each company having control of the undercapitalized institution guarantees the subsidiary’s compliance with the capital restoration plan up to a certain specified amount. Any such guarantee from a depository institution’s holding company is entitled to a priority of payment in bankruptcy.

The aggregate liability of the holding company of an undercapitalized bank is limited to the lesser of 5% of the institution’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized or the amount necessary to cause the institution to be “adequately capitalized.” The bank regulators have greater power in situations where an institution becomes “significantly” or “critically” undercapitalized or fails to submit a capital restoration plan. For example, a bank holding company controlling such an institution can be required to obtain prior Federal Reserve approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

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

- 9 -

     Control Acquisitions. The Change in Bank Control Act prohibits a person or group of persons from acquiring “control” of a bank holding company unless the Federal Reserve has been notified and has not objected to the transaction. Under a rebuttable presumption established by the Federal Reserve, the acquisition of 10% or more of a class of voting stock of a bank holding company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, such as the Company, would, under the circumstances set forth in the presumption, constitute acquisition of control of the Company.

In addition, any company is required to obtain the approval of the Federal Reserve under the BHC Act before acquiring 25% (5% in the case of an acquirer that is a bank holding company) or more of the outstanding Common Stock of the Company, or otherwise obtaining control or a “controlling influence” over the Company.

     The Bank. The Bank is a Texas-chartered banking association, the deposits of which are insured by the Bank Insurance Fund (“BIF”) of the FDIC. The Bank is not a member of the Federal Reserve System; therefore, the Bank is subject to supervision and regulation by the FDIC and the Texas Department of Banking (“TDB”). Such supervision and regulation subjects the Bank to special restrictions, requirements, potential enforcement actions and periodic examination by the FDIC and the TDB. Because the Federal Reserve regulates the bank holding company parent of the Bank, the Federal Reserve also has supervisory authority, which directly affects the Bank.

     Equivalence to National Bank Powers. The Texas Constitution, as amended in 1986, provides that a Texas-chartered bank has the same rights and privileges that are or may be granted to national banks domiciled in Texas. To the extent that the Texas laws and regulations may have allowed state-chartered banks to engage in a broader range of activities than national banks, the FDICIA has operated to limit this authority. FDICIA provides that no state bank or subsidiary thereof may engage as principal in any activity not permitted for national banks, unless the institution complies with applicable capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity poses no significant risk to the insurance fund. In general, statutory restrictions on the activities of banks are aimed at protecting the safety and soundness of depository institutions.

     Financial Modernization. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a national bank may establish a financial subsidiary and engage, subject to limitations on investment, in activities that are financial in nature, other than insurance underwriting as principal, insurance company portfolio investment, real estate development, real estate investment and annuity issuance. To do so, a bank must be well capitalized, well managed and have a CRA rating of satisfactory or better. Subsidiary banks of a financial holding company or national banks with financial subsidiaries must remain well capitalized and well managed in order to continue to engage in activities that are financial in nature without regulatory actions or restrictions, which could include divestiture of the financial subsidiary or subsidiaries. In addition, a financial holding company or a bank may not acquire a company that is engaged in activities that are financial in nature unless each of the subsidiary banks of the financial holding company or the bank has a CRA rating of satisfactory or better.

     Although the powers of state-chartered banks with respect to engaging in financial activities are not specifically addressed in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, state banks, such as the Bank, will have the same if not greater powers as national banks through the parity provision contained in the Texas Constitution.

     Branching. Texas law provides that a Texas-chartered bank can establish a branch anywhere in Texas provided that the branch is approved in advance by the TDB. The branch must also be approved by the FDIC, which considers a number of factors, including financial history, capital adequacy, earnings prospects, character of management, needs of the community and consistency with corporate powers.

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

     Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which generally requires that certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other nonaffiliated persons.

     The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests (collectively referred to herein as “insiders”) contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured institutions and their subsidiaries and holding companies. These restrictions include limits on loans to one borrower and conditions that must be met before such a loan can be made. There is also an aggregate limitation on all loans to insiders and their related interests. These loans cannot exceed the institution’s total unimpaired capital and surplus, and the FDIC may determine that a lesser amount is appropriate. Insiders are subject to enforcement actions for knowingly accepting loans in violation of applicable restrictions.

- 10 -

     Restrictions on Distribution of Subsidiary Bank Dividends and Assets. Dividends paid by the Bank have provided a substantial part of the Company’s operating funds and it is anticipated that dividends paid by the Bank to the Company will continue to be the Company’s principal source of operating funds. Capital adequacy requirements serve to limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by the Bank. Under federal law, the Bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the Bank will be “undercapitalized.” The FDIC may declare a dividend payment to be unsafe and unsound even though the Bank would continue to meet its capital requirements after the dividend.

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

     Examinations. The FDIC periodically examines and evaluates insured banks. Based upon such an evaluation, the FDIC may revalue the assets of the institution and require that it establish specific reserves to compensate for the difference between the FDIC-determined value and the book value of such assets. The TDB also conducts examinations of state banks but may accept the results of a federal examination in lieu of conducting an independent examination.

     Audit Reports. Insured institutions with total assets of $500 million or more must submit annual audit reports prepared by independent auditors to federal and state regulators. In some instances, the audit report of the institution’s holding company can be used to satisfy this requirement. Auditors must receive examination reports, supervisory agreements and reports of enforcement actions. In addition, financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America, management’s certifications concerning responsibility for the financial statements, internal controls and compliance with legal requirements designated by the FDIC, and an attestation by the auditor regarding the statements of management relating to the internal controls must be submitted. For institutions with total assets of more than $3 billion, independent auditors may be required to review quarterly financial statements. FDICIA requires that independent audit committees be formed, consisting of outside directors only. The committees of such institutions must include members with experience in banking or financial management, must have access to outside counsel, and must not include representatives of large customers.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The FDIC has adopted regulations establishing minimum requirements for the capital adequacy of insured institutions. The FDIC may establish higher minimum requirements if, for example, a bank has previously received special attention or has a high susceptibility to interest rate risk.

     The FDIC’s risk-based capital guidelines generally require state banks to have a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4.0% and a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8.0%. The capital categories have the same definitions for the Bank as for the Company. As of December 31, 2001, the Bank’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets was 10.83% and its ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets was 11.85%. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.

     The FDIC’s leverage guidelines require state banks to maintain Tier 1 capital of no less than 5.0% of average total assets, except in the case of certain highly rated banks for which the requirement is 3.0% of average total assets. The TDB has issued a policy, which generally requires state chartered banks to maintain a leverage ratio (defined in accordance with federal capital guidelines) of 6.0%. As of December 31, 2001, the Bank’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to average total assets (leverage ratio) was 8.25%. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.

- 11 -

     Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies. The federal banking regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to capital-deficient institutions. Agency regulations define, for each capital category, the levels at which institutions are “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “under capitalized,” “significantly under capitalized” and “critically under capitalized.” A “well capitalized” bank has a total risk based capital ratio of 10.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk based capital ratio of 6.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 5.0% or higher; and is not subject to any written agreement, order or directive requiring it to maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. An “adequately capitalized” bank has a total risk based capital ratio of 8.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk based capital ratio of 4.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 4.0% or higher (3.0% or higher if the bank was rated a composite 1 in its most recent examination report and is not experiencing significant growth); and does not meet the criteria for a well capitalized bank. A bank is “under capitalized” if it fails to meet any one of the ratios required to be adequately capitalized. The Bank is classified as “well capitalized” for purposes of the FDIC’s prompt corrective action regulations.

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

     As an institution’s capital decreases, the FDIC’s enforcement powers become more severe. A significantly undercapitalized institution is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management, and other restrictions. The FDIC has only very limited discretion in dealing with a critically undercapitalized institution and is virtually required to appoint a receiver or conservator.

     Banks with risk-based capital and leverage ratios below the required minimums may also be subject to certain administrative actions, including the termination of deposit insurance upon notice and hearing, or a temporary suspension of insurance without a hearing in the event the institution has no tangible capital.

     Management believes that the Company meets all capital adequacy requirements to which it is subject at December 31, 2001. The Bank’s capital ratios exceeded the minimum requirements for “well capitalized” institutions under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action at December 31, 2001. As a result, the Company does not believe that FDICIA’s prompt corrective action regulations will have any material effect on the activities or operations of the Bank. It should be noted, however, that a bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying the FDIC’s “prompt corrective action” regulations and that the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the Bank’s overall financial condition or prospects.

     Deposit Insurance Assessments. The Bank must pay assessments to the FDIC for federal deposit insurance protection. The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system as required by FDICIA. Under this system, FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher-risk classifications (that is, institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to their respective deposit insurance funds) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions that pose a lower risk. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to the regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments in certain instances. The current range of BIF assessments is between 0% and 0.27% of deposits.

     The FDIC established a process for raising or lowering all rates for insured institutions semi-annually if conditions warrant a change. Under this new system, the FDIC has the flexibility to adjust the assessment rate schedule twice a year without seeking prior public comment, but only within a range of five cents per $100 above or below the premium schedule adopted. Changes in the rate schedule outside the five-cent range above or below the current schedule can be made by the FDIC only after a full rulemaking with opportunity for public comment.

     On September 30, 1996, President Clinton signed into law an act that contained a comprehensive approach to recapitalize the Savings Association Insurance Fund (“SAIF”) and assure the payment of the Financing Corporation’s (“FICO”) bond obligations. Under this new act, banks insured under the BIF are required to pay a portion of the interest due on bonds that were issued by FICO to help shore up the ailing Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation in 1987. The FDIC also applies an assessment against BIF-assessable deposits to be paid to the Financing Corporation (“FICO”) to assist in paying interest of FICO bonds, which financed the resolution of the thrift industry crisis. The FICO assessment is approximately 1.22 basis points, on an annual basis, on BIF-insured deposits.

- 12 -

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

     Brokered Deposit Restrictions. Adequately capitalized institutions cannot accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits except with a waiver from the FDIC, and are subject to restrictions on the interest rates that can be paid on such deposits. Undercapitalized institutions may not accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits.

     Cross-Guarantee Provisions. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) contains a “cross-guarantee” provision which generally makes commonly controlled insured depository institutions liable to the FDIC for any losses incurred in connection with the failure of a commonly controlled depository institution.

     Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA and the regulations issued thereunder are intended to encourage banks to help meet the credit needs of their service area, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operations of the banks. These regulations also provide for regulatory assessment of a bank’s record in meeting the needs of its service area when considering applications to establish branches, merger applications and applications to acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of another bank. FIRREA requires federal banking agencies to make public a rating of a bank’s performance under the CRA. In the case of a bank holding company, the CRA performance record of the banks involved in the transaction are reviewed in connection with the filing of an application to acquire ownership or control of shares or assets of a bank or to merge with any other bank holding company. An unsatisfactory record can substantially delay or block the transaction.

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

     Instability of Regulatory Structure. Various legislation, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which expanded the powers of banking institutions and bank holding companies, and proposals to overhaul the bank regulatory system and limit the investments that a depository institution may make with insured funds, is from time to time introduced in Congress. Such legislation may change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company and the Bank in substantial and unpredictable ways. The Company cannot determine the ultimate effect that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act will have or the effect that potential legislation, if enacted, or implementing regulations with respect thereto, would have, upon the financial condition or results of operations of the Company or its subsidiaries.

     Expanding Enforcement Authority. One of the major additional burdens imposed on the banking industry by FDICIA is the increased ability of banking regulators to monitor the activities of banks and their holding companies. In addition, the Federal Reserve and FDIC possess extensive authority to police unsafe or unsound practices and violations of applicable laws and regulations by depository institutions and their holding companies. For example, the FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any institution, which it determines has engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice. The agencies can also assess civil money penalties, issue cease and desist or removal orders, seek injunctions, and publicly disclose such actions. FDICIA, FIRREA and other laws have expanded the agencies’ authority in recent years, and the agencies have not yet fully tested the limits of their powers.

- 13 -

     Effect on Economic Environment. The policies of regulatory authorities, including the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, have a significant effect on the operating results of bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the means available to the Federal Reserve to affect the money supply are open market operations in U.S. Government securities, changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings, and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for deposits.

     Federal Reserve monetary policies have materially affected the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The nature of future monetary policies and the effect of such policies on the business and earnings of the Company and the Bank cannot be predicted.

     The Company conducts business at eleven banking locations, two of which are located in Mount Pleasant, eight are located in the Northeast Texas communities of Bogata, Commerce, Deport, Paris, Pittsburg, Sulphur Springs, Talco, Texarkana and one located in the west Texas community of Fort Stockton. The Company’s headquarters are located at 100 West Arkansas in Mount Pleasant in a two-story office building. The Company owns all of its locations. The following table sets forth specific information on each of the Company’s locations:

(1) Location operates as a loan production office.

- 14 -

     The Company faces ordinary routine litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, liabilities (if any) arising from such claims will not have a material adverse effect upon the business, results of operations or financial condition of the Company.

     In March 2000, the Company filed an action in the District Court of Titus County, Texas against Guaranty Federal Bank, F.S.B., (“Guaranty Federal”) a thrift institution, after the Company discovered that Guaranty Federal was using the name, “Guaranty Bank”, in its business dealings. The case sought a declaratory judgment that the Company has the sole right to the name “Guaranty Bank”. In November 2001, a settlement was reached. In exchange for $3.0 million, the Company dropped the lawsuit against Guaranty Federal and the Company agreed to change its name by December 31, 2002. At December 31, 2001, the financial statements of the Company reflect the effect of this settlement.

     As disclosed by the Company in its Form S-1 filed with the Commission on May 6, 1998, the Internal Revenue Service has been conducting a review of the Company’s ownership interest in certain partnerships and the tax treatment of losses in such partnerships. On October 5, 2001, the Company was notified that the Internal Revenue Service has disallowed an item of partnership loss in the amount of $487,313 for taxable year 1992 with respect to one of the partnerships under examination in which the Company is a partner. Based upon advice of counsel, the Company believes that the Internal Revenue Service’s disallowance is unsupported by competent authority. Accordingly, the Company is seeking an administrative review of the Internal Revenue Service’s determination. In the event that the administrative review is unsuccessful, the Company intends to seek a judicial review of this matter. Although unlikely, an adverse judicial determination with respect to this matter may have an adverse material effect on the Company’s financial results.

     No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2001.

PART II

     The Common Stock began trading on May 21, 1998 and is listed on the Nasdaq National Market System (“Nasdaq NMS”) under the symbol “GNTY”. Prior to that date, the Company’s Common Stock was privately held and not listed on any public exchange or actively traded. The Company had a total of 3,004,428 shares outstanding at December 31, 2001. As of December 31, 2001, there were 420 registered shareholders of record. The number of beneficial shareholders is unknown to the Company at this time.

- 15 -

     The following table presents the high and low Common Stock prices reported on the Nasdaq NMS by quarter during the two years ended December 31, 2001:

     Holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends when, as and if declared by the Company’s Board of Directors out of funds legally available therefor. While the Company has declared dividends on its Common Stock since 1980, and paid semi-annual dividends aggregating $0.28 per share per annum in 2001, there is no assurance that the Company will continue to pay dividends in the future.

The principal source of cash revenues to the Company is dividends paid by the Bank with respect to the Bank’s capital stock. There are certain restrictions on the payment of such dividends imposed by federal and state banking laws, regulations and authorities. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Supervision and Regulation – “The Bank”.

     The cash dividends paid per share by quarter were as follows:

- 16 -

SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA OF THE COMPANY

     The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company and the notes thereto, appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the information contained in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The selected historical consolidated financial data as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2001 are derived from the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements, which have been audited by independent certified public accountants.

     (Table continues on next page.)

- 17 -

- 18 -

     Certain statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K include forward-looking information within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are subject to the “safe harbor” created by those sections. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the factors listed above and those described in this discussion and analysis. See “Special Cautionary Notice Regarding Forward Looking Information.” Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations analyzes the major elements of the Company’s balance sheets and statements of earnings. This section should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying notes and other detailed information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Overview

     Net earnings available to common shareholders were $3.3 million, $2.5 million and $3.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, respectively, and net earnings per common share were $1.09, $0.80 and $1.03 for these same periods. The increase in earnings from 2000 to 2001 resulted primarily from an increase in net interest income, caused by a growth in interest earning assets and a lower cost of funds, and an increase in noninterest income offset by an increase in the provision for loan losses and an increase in noninterest expense. Average interest earning assets increased from $356.4 million to $390.3 million, or 9.5% for the year ended December 31, 2001 while the average cost of funds were 5.42% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2000 compared to 4.80% for the same period in 2001, a decrease of 11.4%. Noninterest income increased $2.5 million or 66.6% from $3.7 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2000 to $6.2 million for the same period in 2001. This increase was generated from the settlement of the Guaranty Federal lawsuit of $3.0 million and an increase in service charge income of $282,000 or 11.8% offset by a loss from subsidiaries of $1.4 million which was caused primarily from a write-down for permanent impairment of the AFT lease. The provision for loan loss increased from $595,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2000 to $1.4 million for the same period in 2001 due primarily to loan growth, an increase in problem assets and deteriorating national economy. Noninterest expenses increased $1.4 million or 11.36% during the same comparative period primarily due to increases in personnel related cost. The decrease in earnings from 1999 to 2000 resulted primarily from an increase in interest expense caused by higher cost of funds and a growth in interest-bearing liabilities and an increase in noninterest expense offset by an increase in noninterest income. The Company posted returns on average assets of 0.76%, 0.64% and 1.01 % and returns on average common equity of 10.74%, 8.87% and 12.01% for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, respectively.

     Total assets at December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 were $460.5 million, $411.0 million and $370.4 million, respectively. Total deposits at December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 were $383.3 million, $358.3 million and $328.6 million, respectively. Deposits increased by $25.0 million or 7.0% in 2001 compared with fiscal 2000 and by $29.7 million or 9.0% in 2000 compared with fiscal 1999. These increases were primarily attributable to internal growth in the Commerce, Paris, Pittsburg and Mt. Pleasant locations in 2001 and attributable to free checking growth and certificate of deposit campaigns and to the First American acquisition in September 1999. At December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, investment securities totaled $81.7 million, $81.6 million and $79.8 million, respectively. The increase of investment securities in 2001 and 2000 was primarily attributable to the increase in unrealized gain on securities available for sale of $585,000 million from December 31, 2000 to December 31, 2001 and $1.9 million from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2000. Common shareholders’ equity was $31.8 million, $29.4 million and $28.5 million at December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, respectively. The increase in common shareholder’s equity for the year ended December 31, 2001 reflects earnings retention and an increase in the unrealized gain on securities available for sale offset by the purchase of treasury stock and payment of dividends.

- 19 -

Results of Operation

Net Interest Income

     Net interest income represents the amount by which interest income on interest-earning assets, including securities and loans, exceeds interest expense incurred on interest-bearing liabilities, including deposits and other borrowed funds. Net interest income is the principal source of the Company’s earnings. Interest rate fluctuations, as well as changes in the amount and type of earning assets and liabilities, combine to affect net interest income.

     2001 versus 2000. Net interest income increased from $12.3 million in 2000 to $13.5 million in 2001, an increase of $1.2 million or 10.0%, primarily due to a growth in interest income of $844,000, or 2.9%, and a decrease in interest expense of $379,000, or 2.3%. This resulted in net interest margins of 3.46% and 3.44% and net interest spreads of 2.85% and 2.72% for the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, respectively.

     The increase in total interest income for 2001 was primarily due to growth in average loans of $34.7 million or 12.9% and growth in federal funds sold of $9.4 million or 272.9%, which contributed $1.4 million and $368,000, respectively, to total interest income. Total interest income was negatively affected by a reduction in average securities of $10.2 million or 12.1% as well as lower yields on loans, securities, and federal funds sold. The decrease in total interest expense was primarily due to a decrease in the cost of funds from 5.42% in 2000 to 4.80% in 2001, which offset increases in average interest-bearing liabilities of $32.3 million or 10.5%.

     2000 versus 1999. Net interest income increased from $11.1 million in 1999 to $12.3 million in 2000, an increase of $1.2 million or 11.0%, primarily due to a growth in interest income of $7.4 million, or 34.5%, offset by an increase in interest expense of $6.2 million, or 59.4%. This resulted in net interest margins of 3.44% and 3.93% and net interest spreads of 2.72% and 3.12% for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, respectively.

     The increase in total interest income for 2000 was primarily due to growth in average loans of $54.3 million or 25.4% and growth in average investment securities of $26.6 million or 45.7%, which contributed $5.7 million and $2.0 million, respectively, to the increase in total interest income. Total interest income was negatively affected by lower yields on both loans and securities. The increase in interest expense was due primarily to an increase in average interest-bearing deposits of $64.0 million or 28.2%, along with an increase in cost of funds from 4.55% in 2000 to 5.42% in 2000. For the year ended December 31, 2000 the Company also had an increase in average other borrowed funds and long-term debt of $8.5 million and $5.4 million, respectively.

- 20 -

     The following table presents for the periods indicated the total dollar amount of interest income from average interest-earning assets and the resultant yields, as well as the interest expense on average interest-bearing liabilities, expressed both in dollars and rates. No tax equivalent adjustments were made and all average balances are yearly average balances. Nonaccruing loans have been included in the tables as loans carrying a zero yield.

- 21 -

     The following schedule presents the dollar amount of changes in interest income and interest expense for the major components of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and distinguishes between the increase related to higher outstanding balances and the volatility of interest rates. For purposes of this table, changes attributable to both rate and volume, which can be segregated, have been allocated.

Provision for Loan Losses

     The Company’s provision for loan losses is established through charges to operating income in the form of the provision in order to bring the total allowance for loan losses to a level deemed appropriate by management of the Company based on such factors as historical experience, the volume and type of lending conducted by the Company, the amount of nonperforming assets, regulatory policies, generally accepted accounting principles, general economic conditions, and other factors related to the collectability of loans in the Company’s portfolio. During 2001, significant enhancements were made to the allowance for loan loss methodology to better quantify the risk associated with these internal and external factors.

     The Company’s provision for loan losses during the twelve months ended December 31, 2001 was $1.4 million compared with $595,000 during the twelve months ended December 31, 2000, an increase of $805,000. The increase in the provision was due primarily to loan growth, an increase in problem assets, and the national economic conditions. Average loans outstanding increased from $268.0 million for 2000 to $302.7 million for 2001, an increase of $34.7 million or 12.9%. Problem assets increased from $9.6 million at December 31, 2000 to $13.0 million at December 31, 2001, an increase of $3.4 million or 35.4%. Good asset quality is still reflected as net charge-offs remain at manageable levels totaling $617,000, or 0.20% of average loans in 2001 compared with $508,000, or 0.19% of average loans in 2000. The Company’s provision for loan losses increased from $310,000 in 1999 to $595,000 in 2000 primarily due to loan growth.

Noninterest Income

     Noninterest income is an important source of revenue for financial institutions. The Company’s primary sources of noninterest income are service charges on deposit accounts and other banking service related fees. Noninterest income for the year ended December 31, 2001 was $6.2 million, an increase of $2.5 million from $3.7 million in 2000 and up from $3.4 million in 1999. The increase is primarily due to a nonrecurring gain associated with the Guaranty Federal lawsuit totaling $3.0 million. This gain represents the amount received in January 2002 in connection with the November 2001 settlement and concurrent transfer of the Company’s rights to certain intangible assets. This income was partially offset by a nonrecurring impairment charge of $1.5 million associated with the AFT lease transaction. Excluding the gain on settlement of litigation and the impairment charge of the AFT, recurring noninterest income totaled $4.7 million, an increase of $1.0 million or 26.3%. The year ended December 31, 2001 reflected an increase in service charge income of $282,000 over the same period in 2000 and $495,000 over the same period in 1999, representing a 11.8% and a 26.0% increase respectively. Securities gains also increased $450,000, from ($34,000) in 2000 to $416,000 in 2001. As to normal and recurring noninterest income, the Company actually experienced a 26.2% increase to $4.7 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2001 and a 10.3% increase to $3.7 million for the same period in 2000.

- 22 -

     The following table presents for the periods indicated the major categories of noninterest income:

     The increase in noninterest income from 2000 to 2001, excluding the gain on settlement of litigation and the loss from subsidiaries, resulted primarily from service charges and fee income due to an increase in the number of deposit accounts. Additionally, the Company continued to emphasize fee-based services resulting in greater income from check cashing, ATM fees, appraisal fees and wire transfer fees.

Noninterest Expense

     For the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, noninterest expense totaled $13.5 million, $12.1 million and $10.3 million, respectively. The $1.4 million, or 11.4%, increase in 2001 was primarily the result of increases in employee compensation and benefits, fixed asset expense, and increased litigation expense. Employee compensation and benefits increased from $6.8 million in 2000 to $7.6 million in 2001, an increase of $801,000 or 11.8%. This increase was due to an increase in full time equivalent employees from 192 at December 31, 2000 to 199 at December 31, 2001, an increase in incentive compensation, and normal salary adjustments. Legal and professional fees increased $227,000 or 40.7% primarily due to litigation involving the lawsuit settlement with Guaranty Federal.

     The increase in total noninterest expense for 2000 over 1999 of $1.9 million, or 18.3%, was primarily the result of additional operating expenses incurred in connection with the addition of the Sulphur Springs and Commerce locations acquired from First American in September 1999. The Company’s efficiency ratios, calculated by dividing total noninterest expense (excluding securities gains and losses) by net interest income plus noninterest income, were 70.10% in 2001, 75.72% in 2000, and 71.12% in 1999.

- 23 -

     The following table presents for the periods indicated the major categories of noninterest expense:

Income Taxes

     Federal income tax is reported as income tax expense and is influenced by the amount of taxable income, the amount of tax-exempt income, the amount of non-deductible interest expense and the amount of other non-deductible expense. The Company utilized tax benefits on leveraged lease transactions in the amounts of $763,000, $650,000 and $423,000 for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, respectively. The effective tax rates for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 were 31.39%, 23.14% and 19.27%, respectively. Income taxes for financial purposes in the consolidated statements of earnings differ from the amount computed by applying the statutory income tax rate of 35% to earnings before income taxes. The difference in the statutory rate is primarily due to the tax benefits on the leveraged lease transactions and non-taxable income.

     Additionally, the State of Texas imposes a Texas franchise tax. Taxable income for the income tax component of the Texas franchise tax is the federal pre-tax income, plus certain officers’ salaries, less interest income from federal securities. Total franchise tax expense was $50,000 in 2001, $56,000 in 2000 and $40,000 in 1999 for each of the twelve month periods ended December 31. Such expense was included as a part of other noninterest expense.

Impact of Inflation

     The effects of inflation on the local economy and on the Company’s operating results have been relatively modest for the past several years. Since substantially all of the Company’s assets and liabilities are monetary in nature, such as cash, securities, loans and deposits, their values are less sensitive to the effects of inflation than to changing interest rates, which do not necessarily change in accordance with inflation rates. The Company tries to control the impact of interest rate fluctuations by managing the relationship between its interest rate sensitive assets and liabilities. See “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” below.

Financial Condition

Loan Portfolio

     The Company provides a broad range of commercial, real estate and consumer loan products to small and medium-sized businesses and individuals. The Company aggressively pursues qualified lending customers in both the commercial and consumer sectors, providing customers with direct access to lending personnel and prompt, professional service. The 86.4% loan to deposit ratio as of December 31, 2001, reflects the Company’s commitment as an active lender in the local communities it serves. Total loans were $331.3 million at December 31, 2001, an increase of $43.9 million or 15.3% compared with $287.3 million at December 31, 2000. In 2000, total loans increased by $32.1 million or 12.6% to $287.3 million from $255.2 million at December 31, 1999. In 1999, total loans increased by $69.3 million or 37.3% from $185.9 million at December 31, 1998. The growth in loans reflects the stable local economy, an aggressive advertising campaign, the Company’s pro-lending reputation and the solicitation of new companies and individuals entering the Company’s market areas.

- 24 -

     The following table summarizes the loan portfolio of the Company by type of loan as of the dates indicated:

     The primary lending focus of the Company is on loans to small and medium-sized businesses and one-to- four family residential mortgage loans. The Company’s commercial lending products include business loans, commercial real estate loans, equipment loans, working capital loans, term loans, revolving lines of credit and letters of credit. Most commercial loans are collateralized and on payment programs. The purpose of a particular loan generally determines its structure. In almost all cases, the Company requires personal guarantees on commercial loans to help assure repayment.

     The Company’s commercial mortgage loans are generally secured by first liens on real estate, typically have fixed interest rates and amortize over a 10 to 15 year period with balloon payments due at the end of one to five years. In underwriting commercial mortgage loans, consideration is given to the property’s operating history, future operating projections, current and projected occupancy, location and physical condition. The underwriting analysis also includes credit checks, appraisals and a review of the financial condition of the borrower.

     The Company makes loans to finance the construction of residential and, to a limited extent, nonresidential properties. Construction loans generally are secured by first liens on real estate. The Company conducts periodic inspections, either directly or through an agent, prior to approval of periodic draws on these loans. Underwriting guidelines similar to those described above are also used in the Company’s construction lending activities. In keeping with the community-oriented nature of its customer base, the Company also provides construction and permanent financing for churches located within its market areas.

     The Company rarely makes loans at its legal lending limit. Lending officers are assigned various levels of loan approval authority based upon their respective levels of experience and expertise. All loans above $600,000 are evaluated and acted upon by the Executive Committee, which meets weekly. All new and renewed loans greater than $25,000 are reported to the Board of Directors All new and renewed loans less than $25,000 are reported weekly at the Executive Committee. The Company’s strategy for approving or disapproving loans is to follow conservative loan policies and underwriting practices which include: (i) granting loans on a sound and collectible basis; (ii) investing funds properly for the benefit of shareholders and the protection of depositors; (iii) serving the legitimate needs of the community and the Company’s general market area while obtaining a balance between maximum yield and minimum risk; (iv) ensuring that primary and secondary sources of repayment are adequate in relation to the amount of the loan; (v) developing and maintaining adequate diversification of the loan portfolio as a whole and of the loans within each category; and (vi) ensuring that each loan is properly documented and, if appropriate, insurance coverage is adequate. The Company’s loan review and compliance personnel interact daily with commercial and consumer lenders to identify potential underwriting or technical exception variances. In addition, the Company has placed increased emphasis on the early identification of problem loans to aggressively seek resolution of the situations and thereby keep loan losses at a minimum.

     The Company’s loans collateralized by one-to-four family residential real estate generally are originated in amounts of no more than 90% of the lower of cost or appraised value. The Company requires mortgage title insurance and hazard insurance in the amount of the loan. Of the mortgages originated, the Company generally retains mortgage loans with short terms or variable rates and sells longer-term fixed-rate loans that do not meet the Company’s credit underwriting standards. Prior to the acquisition of First American, the Company sold such loans to Texas Independent Bank Mortgage Company; however, since the First American acquisition, the Company sells these loans directly into the secondary market.

- 25 -

     As of December 31, 2001, the Company’s one-to-four family residential real estate loan portfolio was $126.1 million. Of this amount, $40.5 million is repriceable in one year or less and an additional $66.2 million is repriceable from one year to five years. These high percentages in short-term real estate loans reflect the Company’s commitment to reducing interest rate risk.

     The Company provides a wide variety of consumer loans including motor vehicle, watercraft, education loans, personal loans (collateralized and uncollateralized) and deposit account collateralized loans. The terms of these loans typically range from 12 to 72 months and vary based upon the nature of collateral and size of loan. As of December 31, 2001, the Company had no indirect consumer loans, indicating a preference to maintain personal banking relationships and strict underwriting standards. During the last several years, management has placed tighter controls on consumer credit due to record high personal bankruptcy filings nationwide.

     The contractual maturity ranges of the commercial, industrial and real estate construction loan portfolio and the amount of such loans with predetermined interest rates in each maturity range as of December 31, 2001, are summarized in the following table:

Nonperforming Assets

     The Company has several procedures in place to assist it in maintaining the overall quality of its loan portfolio. The Company has established underwriting guidelines to be followed by its officers and also monitors its delinquency levels for any negative or adverse trends. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company’s loan portfolio will not become subject to increasing pressures from deteriorating borrower credit due to general economic conditions.

     Nonperforming assets at December 31, 2001, increased $1.2 million or 24.8% to $6.2 million compared with $5.0 million at December 31, 2000. This increase was primarily due to the addition of one loan in the amount of $1.0 million. A specific reserve has been assigned to this loan in an amount equal to the Company’s estimated loss exposure. Nonperforming assets were $1.1 million at December 31, 1999. This resulted in ratios of nonperforming assets to total loans plus other real estate of 1.87%, 1.73% and 0.43% for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999, respectively.

     The Company generally places a loan on nonaccrual status and ceases to accrue interest when loan payment performance is deemed unsatisfactory. Loans where the interest payments jeopardize the collection of principal are placed on nonaccrual status, unless the loan is both well secured and in the process of collection. Cash payments received while a loan is classified as nonaccrual are recorded as a reduction of principal as long as doubt exists as to collection. If interest on nonaccrual loans had been accrued, such income would have been approximately $251,000 and $113,000 for 2001 and 2000, respectively. The Company is sometimes required to revise a loan’s interest rate or repayment terms in a troubled debt restructuring; however, the Company had no restructured loans or additional nonperforming interest-earning assets at either December 31, 2001, December 31, 2000 or December 31, 1999. In addition to an internal loan review, the Company retains IBS for an annual external review to evaluate the loan portfolio.

- 26 -

     The Company maintains current appraisals on loans secured by real estate, particularly those categorized as nonperforming loans and potential problem loans. In instances where updated appraisals reflect reduced collateral values, an evaluation of the borrower’s overall financial condition is made to determine the need, if any, for possible write-downs or appropriate additions to the allowance for loan losses. The Company records other real estate at fair value at the time of acquisition, less estimated costs to sell.

     The following table presents information regarding nonperforming assets at the dates indicated:

     The Company considers a loan to be impaired based on current information and events, if it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect the scheduled payments of principal or interest when due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. The measurement of impaired loans is based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate or the loan’s observable market price or based on the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral-dependent.

Allowance for Loan Losses

     The allowance for loan losses is a reserve established through charges to earnings in the form of a provision for loan losses. Management has established an allowance for loan losses, which it believes, is adequate for estimated losses in the Company’s loan portfolio. Based on an evaluation of the loan portfolio, management presents a quarterly review of the allowance for loan losses to the Company’s Board of Directors, indicating any change in the allowance since the last review and any recommendations as to adjustments in the allowance. In making its evaluation, management considers the diversification by industry of the Company’s commercial loan portfolio, the effect of changes in the local real estate market on collateral values, the results of recent regulatory examinations, the effects on the loan portfolio of current economic indicators and their probable impact on borrowers, the amount of charge-offs for the period, the amount of nonperforming loans and related collateral security, the results of Managements internal loan review, the evaluation of its loan portfolio through an annual external loan review conducted by IBS and the annual examination of the Company’s financial statements by its independent auditors. Charge-offs occur when loans are deemed to be uncollectible.

     The Company follows an internal loan review program to evaluate the credit risk in the loan portfolio. Through the loan review process, the Company maintains an internally classified loan list, which, along with the delinquency list of loans, helps management assess the overall quality of the loan portfolio and the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. Loans internally classified as “substandard” or in the more severe categories of “doubtful” or “loss” are those loans that, at a minimum, have clear and defined weaknesses such as a highly-leveraged position, unfavorable financial ratios, uncertain repayment sources or poor financial condition, which may jeopardize recoverability of the debt. At December 31, 2001, the Company had $13.0 million of such loans compared with $9.6 million at December 31, 2000, an increase of $3.4 million, or 35.4%. This increase is primarily due to the classification of one $1.7 million loan relationship and seven smaller loan relationships ranging from $200,000 to $500,000. Specific reserves have been established based on the estimated exposure on these lines. Further, a more conservative problem asset identification process was implemented during 2001 whereas all loans past due greater than 60 days are automatically added to the classified loan list unless the servicing loan officer provides written justification for removal.

- 27 -

     In addition to the internally classified loan list and delinquency list of loans, the Company maintains a separate “watch list” which further aids the Company in monitoring loan portfolios. Watch list loans show warning elements where the present status portrays one or more deficiencies that require attention in the short term or where pertinent ratios of the loan account have weakened to a point where more frequent monitoring is warranted. These loans do not have all of the characteristics of a classified loan (substandard or doubtful) but do show weakened elements as compared with those of a satisfactory credit. The Company reviews these loans to assist in assessing the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. At December 31, 2001, the Company had $2.3 million of such loans compared with $2.2 million at December 31, 2000, an increase of $100,000, or 4.5%.

     In order to determine the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses, the Company establishes both specific and general reserves. The Company establishes specific allocations for the majority of problem loans based on the estimated exposure in each individual loan. The exposure is generally identified by determining the present value of estimated future cash flows or the fair value of collateral if repayment is expected solely from the collateral. The Company establishes general reserves for non-problem loans primarily based on its historical charge-off experience. Consideration is also given to the level and trend of delinquent loans, loan growth, underwriting standards, economic conditions, and other qualitative factors based on management’s judgment. During 2001, significant enhancements were made to the allowance methodology to better quantify these internal and external factors, resulting in an increase to general reserves of $439,000 compared to 2000.

     Management actively monitors the Company’s asset quality and provides specific loss allowances when necessary. Loans are charged-off against the allowance for loan losses when appropriate. Although management believes it uses the best information available to make determinations with respect to the allowance for loan losses, future adjustments may be necessary if economic conditions differ from the assumptions used in making the initial determinations.

     For the twelve months ended December 31, 2001, net loan charge-offs totaled $617,000 or 0.20% of average loans outstanding for the period, compared with $508,000 in net loan charge-offs or 0.19% of average loans for the year ended December 31, 2000. During 2001, the Company recorded a provision for loan losses of $1.4 million compared with $595,000 for 2000. The increase in provision for 2001 is due primarily to loan growth, an increase in problem assets, and the current economic conditions. The Company made a provision for loan losses of $310,000 for 1999. At December 31, 2001, the allowance for loan losses totaled $3.3 million, or 1.01% of total loans. At December 31, 2000, the allowance for loan losses totaled $2.6 million or 0.90% of total loans.

- 28 -

     The following table presents, for the periods indicated, an analysis of the allowance for loan losses and other related data: