LIMESTONE BANCORP, INC. - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

PART I

Preliminary Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

This report contains statements about the future expectations, activities and events that constitute forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements express our beliefs, assumptions and expectations of our future financial and operating performance and growth plans, taking into account information currently available to us. These statements are not statements of historical fact. The words “believe,” “may,” “should,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “objective,” “seek,” “plan,” “strive” or similar words, or the negatives of these words, identify forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations of future results we expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties can be difficult to predict and may be beyond our control. Factors that could contribute to differences in our results include, but are not limited to deterioration in the financial condition of borrowers resulting in significant increases in loan losses and provisions for those losses; changes in the interest rate environment, which may reduce our margins or impact the value of securities, loans, deposits and other financial instruments; changes in loan underwriting, credit review or loss reserve policies associated with economic conditions, examination conclusions, or regulatory developments; general economic or business conditions, either nationally, regionally or locally in the communities we serve, may be worse than expected, resulting in, among other things, a deterioration in credit quality or a reduced demand for credit; the results of regulatory examinations; any matter that would cause us to conclude that there was impairment of any asset, including intangible assets; the continued service of key management personnel; our ability to attract, motivate and retain qualified employees; factors that increase the competitive pressure among depository and other financial institutions, including product and pricing pressures; the ability of our competitors with greater financial resources to develop and introduce products and services that enable them to compete more successfully than us; inability to comply with regulatory capital requirements and to secure any required regulatory approvals for capital actions; legislative or regulatory developments, including changes in laws concerning taxes, banking, securities, insurance and other aspects of the financial services industry; and fiscal and governmental policies of the United States federal government.

Other risks are detailed in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of this Form 10-K all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control.

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance or results. A forward-looking statement may include the assumptions or bases underlying the forward-looking statement. We have made our assumptions and bases in good faith and believe they are reasonable. We caution you however, that estimates based on such assumptions or bases frequently differ from actual results, and the differences can be material. The forward-looking statements included in this report speak only as of the date of the report. We do not intend to update these statements unless applicable laws require us to do so.

As used in this report, references to “the Company,” “we,” “our,” “us,” and similar terms refer to the consolidated entity consisting of Porter Bancorp, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary. The “Bank” refers to Porter Bancorp, Inc.’s bank subsidiary, Limestone Bank, Inc.

The Company is a bank holding company headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. The Company’s common stock is traded on Nasdaq’s Capital Market under the symbol PBIB. We operate the Bank, our wholly owned subsidiary and the fifteenth largest bank domiciled in the Commonwealth of Kentucky based on total assets (formerly known as PBI Bank). We operate banking offices in twelve counties in Kentucky. Our markets include metropolitan Louisville in Jefferson County and the surrounding counties of Henry and Bullitt. We serve south central Kentucky and southern Kentucky from banking offices in Butler, Green, Hart, Edmonson, Barren, Warren, Ohio, and Daviess Counties. We also have an office in Lexington, the second largest city in Kentucky. The Bank is a community bank with a wide range of commercial and personal banking products. As of December 31, 2017, we had total assets of $970.8 million, total loans of $712.1 million, total deposits of $847.0 million and stockholders’ equity of $72.7 million.

Our Markets

We operate in markets that include the four largest cities in Kentucky – Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green and Owensboro – and in other communities along the I-65, Western Kentucky Parkway, and Natcher Parkway corridors.

Our Products and Services 

We meet our customers’ banking needs with a broad range of financial products and services. Our lending services include real estate, commercial, mortgage, agriculture, and consumer loans to those in our communities and to small to medium-sized businesses, the owners and employees of those businesses, as well as other executives and professionals. We complement our lending operations with an array of retail and commercial deposit products. In addition, we offer our customers drive-through banking facilities, automatic teller machines, night depository, personalized checks, credit cards, debit cards, internet banking, mobile banking, treasury management services, remote deposit services, electronic funds transfers through ACH services, domestic and foreign wire transfers, cash management, and vault services, along with loan and deposit sweep accounts.

Employees

At December 31, 2017, the Company had 217 full-time equivalent employees. Our employees are not subject to a collective bargaining agreement, and management considers the Company’s relationship with employees to be good.

Competition 

The banking business is highly competitive, and we experience competition from many other financial institutions. Competition among financial institutions is based upon interest rates offered on deposit accounts, interest rates charged on loans, other credit and service charges relating to loans, the quality and scope of the services offered, the convenience of banking facilities and, in the case of loans to commercial borrowers, relative lending limits. We compete with commercial banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, mortgage banking firms, consumer finance companies, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, money market funds and other mutual funds, as well as super-regional, national and international financial institutions that operate offices within our market area and beyond.

Supervision and Regulation  

Written Agreement. On September 21, 2011, we entered into a written agreement (“Written Agreement”) with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The Company made formal commitments in the Written Agreement to use its financial and management resources to serve as a source of strength for the Bank and to assist the Bank in addressing weaknesses identified by the FDIC and the KDFI, to pay no dividends without prior written approval, to pay no interest or principal on subordinated debentures or trust preferred securities without written approval, and to submit an acceptable plan to maintain sufficient capital.

Bank and Holding Company Laws, Rules and Regulations. The following is a summary description of the relevant laws, rules and regulations governing banks and bank holding companies. The descriptions of, and references to, the statutes and regulations below are brief summaries and do not purport to be complete. The descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the specific statutes and regulations discussed.

The Dodd-Frank Act. On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act imposed new restrictions and an expanded framework of regulatory oversight for financial institutions, including depository institutions.

The Dodd-Frank Act represents a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry within the United States. There are a number of reform provisions that significantly impact the ways in which banks and bank holding companies, including the Company and the Bank, do business. For example, regulations issued under the Dodd-Frank Act changed the assessment base for federal deposit insurance premiums by modifying the assessment base calculation to be based on a depository institution’s consolidated assets less tangible capital instead of deposits, and permanently increased the standard maximum amount of deposit insurance per customer to $250,000. The Dodd-Frank Act also imposed more stringent capital requirements on bank holding companies by, among other things, imposing leverage ratios on bank holding companies and prohibiting new trust preferred security issuances from counting as Tier I capital. The Dodd-Frank Act also repealed the federal prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits, thereby permitting depository institutions to pay interest on business transaction and other accounts. The Dodd-Frank Act codified and expanded the Federal Reserve’s source of strength doctrine, which requires that all bank holding companies serve as a source of financial strength for its subsidiary banks. Other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act include, but are not limited to: (i) the creation of a financial consumer protection agency that is empowered to promulgate new consumer protection regulations and revise existing regulations in many areas of consumer protection; (ii) enhanced regulation of financial markets, including derivatives and securitization markets; (iii) reform related to the regulation of credit rating agencies; (iv) the elimination of certain trading activities by banks; and (v) new disclosure and other requirements relating to executive compensation and corporate governance.

Many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act require interpretation and rule-making by federal agencies. The Company monitors all relevant sections of the Dodd-Frank Act to ensure continued compliance with laws and regulations, which results in greater compliance costs and higher fees paid to regulators. Future implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act may result in restrictions on the Company’s operations.

Porter Bancorp. The Company is registered as a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and is subject to supervision and regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”). As such, we must file with the Federal Reserve Board annual and quarterly reports and other information regarding our business operations and the business operations of our subsidiaries. We are also subject to examination by the Federal Reserve Board and to operational guidelines established by the Federal Reserve Board. We are subject to the Bank Holding Company Act and other federal laws on the types of activities in which we may engage, and to other supervisory requirements, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations.

Acquisitions. A bank holding company must obtain Federal Reserve Board approval before acquiring, directly or indirectly, ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting stock or all or substantially all of the assets of a bank, merging or consolidating with any other bank holding company and before engaging, or acquiring a company that is not a bank and is engaged in certain non-banking activities. Federal law also prohibits a person or group of persons from acquiring “control” of a bank holding company without notifying the Federal Reserve Board in advance, and then may only do so if the Federal Reserve Board does not object to the proposed transaction. The Federal Reserve Board has established a rebuttable presumptive standard that the acquisition of 10% or more of the voting stock of a bank holding company would constitute an acquisition of control of the bank holding company. In addition, approval of the Federal Reserve Board is required before acquiring 25% (5% in the case of an acquirer that is a bank holding company) or more of any class of a bank holding company’s voting securities, or otherwise obtaining control or a “controlling influence” over a bank holding company.

Permissible Activities. A bank holding company is generally permitted under the Bank Holding Company Act to engage in or acquire direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank, bank holding company or company engaged in any activity that the Federal Reserve Board determines to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking.

Under current federal law, a bank holding company may elect to become a financial holding company, which enables the holding company to conduct activities that are “financial in nature,” incidental to financial activity, or complementary to financial activity that do not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally. Activities that are “financial in nature” include securities underwriting, dealing and market making in securities; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities; and activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. No regulatory approval is required for a financial holding company to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature, as determined by the Federal Reserve Board. We have not filed an election to become a financial holding company.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. Both the Company and the Bank are required to comply with capital adequacy guidelines. Guidelines are established by the Federal Reserve Board for the Company and the FDIC for the Bank. Both the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC have substantially similar risk based and leverage ratio guidelines for banking organizations, which are intended to ensure that banking organizations have adequate capital related to the risk levels of assets and off-balance sheet instruments. The capital adequacy guidelines are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria, assuming they have the highest regulatory rating. Banking organizations not meeting these criteria are expected to operate with capital positions well above the minimum ratios. The federal bank regulatory agencies may set capital requirements for a particular banking organization that are higher than the minimum ratios when circumstances warrant. Federal Reserve Board guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets.

In July 2013, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC approved final rules that substantially amended the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to the Company and Bank. The final rules implement the regulatory capital reforms of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision reflected in “Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems” (“Basel III”) and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rules implementing the Basel III regulatory capital reforms became effective for the Company and Bank on January 1, 2015, and include new minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratios. These rules refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating the capital ratios.

The Basel III minimum capital level requirements applicable to bank holding companies and banks subject to the rules are  a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6%, a total risk-based capital ratio of 8%, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The rules also establish a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5%, to be phased in over three years, above the regulatory minimum risk-based capital ratios. Once the capital conservation buffer is fully phased in, the minimum ratios area common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%.

The phase-in of the capital conservation buffer requirement began in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and increases each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution is subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases and paying discretionary bonuses if capital levels fall below minimum levels plus the buffer amounts. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions.

Under these new rules, Tier 1 capital generally consists of common stock (plus related surplus) and retained earnings, limited amounts of minority interest in the form of additional Tier 1 capital instruments, and non-cumulative preferred stock and related surplus, subject to certain eligibility standards, less goodwill and other specified intangible assets and other regulatory deductions. Tier 2 capital may consist of subordinated debt, certain hybrid capital instruments, qualifying preferred stock and a limited amount of the allowance for loan losses. Proceeds of trust preferred securities are excluded from Tier 1 capital unless issued before 2010 by an institution with less than $15 billion of assets. Total capital is the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital.

Prompt Corrective Action. Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), the FDIC must take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. FDIC regulations define the levels at which an insured institution would be considered “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized”. A bank is “undercapitalized” if it fails to meet any one of the ratios required to be adequately capitalized. A depository institution may be deemed to be in a capitalization category that is lower than is indicated by its actual capital position if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating. The degree of regulatory scrutiny increases and the permissible activities of a bank decrease, as the bank moves downward through the capital categories. Depending on a bank’s level of capital, the FDIC’s corrective powers include:

If an institution is required to submit a capital restoration plan, the institution’s holding company must guarantee 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 Board approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

Dividends. Under Federal Reserve Board policy, 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 declare a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. Historically, the majority of the Company’s revenue has been from dividends paid to it by the Bank. The Bank is subject to laws and regulations that limit the amount of dividends it can pay. If, in the opinion of a federal regulatory agency, an institution under its jurisdiction is engaged in or is about to engage in an unsafe or unsound practice, the agency may require, after notice and hearing, that the institution cease such practice. The federal banking agencies have indicated that paying dividends that deplete an institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (“FDICIA”), an insured institution may not pay any dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized. Moreover, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have issued policy statements providing that bank holding companies and banks should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings. A bank holding company may still declare and pay a dividend if it does not have current operating earnings if the bank holding company expects profits for the entire year and the bank holding company obtains the prior consent of the Federal Reserve.

Under Kentucky law, dividends by Kentucky banks may be paid only from current or retained net profits. The KDFI must approve the declaration of dividends if the total dividends to be declared by a bank for any calendar year would exceed the bank’s total net profits for such year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfers to surplus or a fund for the retirement of preferred stock or debt. Additionally, retained earnings must be positive. We are also subject to the Kentucky Business Corporation Act, which generally prohibits dividends to the extent they result in the insolvency of the corporation from a balance sheet perspective or in the corporation becoming unable to pay its debts as they come due. The Bank did not pay any dividends in 2017 or 2016 and cannot currently pay any dividends without prior regulatory approval.

With respect to the payment of dividends, Porter Bancorp’s issued and outstanding Series E and Series F Preferred Shares rank senior to its common shares and non-voting common shares.

Source of Financial Strength. Under Federal Reserve policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to, and to commit resources to support, its bank subsidiaries. This support may be required at times when, absent such a policy, the bank holding company may not be inclined to provide it. In addition, any capital loans by the bank holding company to its bank subsidiaries are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of the bank subsidiary. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of subsidiary banks will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment. The Federal Reserve’s “Source of Financial Strength” policy was codified in the Dodd-Frank Act.

Limestone Bank. The Bank, a Kentucky chartered commercial bank, is subject to regular bank examinations and other supervision and regulation by both the FDIC and the KDFI. Kentucky’s banking statutes contain a “super-parity” provision that permits a well-rated Kentucky banking corporation to engage in any banking activity which could be engaged in by a national bank operating in Kentucky; a state bank, a thrift or savings bank operating in any other state; or a federal chartered thrift or federal savings association meeting the qualified thrift lender test and operating in any state could engage, provided the Kentucky bank first obtains a legal opinion specifying the statutory or regulatory provisions that permit the activity.

Capital Requirements. Please see capital adequacy requirements discussion above.

Deposit Insurance Assessments. The deposits of the Bank are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC up to the limits set forth under applicable law and are subject to the deposit insurance premium assessments of the DIF. The FDIC imposes a risk-based deposit premium assessment system, which was amended pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (the “Reform Act”). Under this system, as amended, the assessment rates for an insured depository institution vary according to the level of risk incurred in its activities. To arrive at an assessment rate for a banking institution, the FDIC places it in one of four risk categories determined by reference to its capital levels and supervisory ratings. The assessment rate schedule can change from time to time, at the discretion of the FDIC, subject to certain limits.

The Dodd-Frank Act imposed additional assessments and costs with respect to deposits. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC imposes deposit insurance assessments based on total assets rather than total deposits. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC revised the deposit insurance assessment system and implemented a revised assessment rate process with the goal of differentiating insured depository institutions who pose greater risk to the DIF.

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

Branching. Kentucky law permits Kentucky chartered banks to establish a banking office in any county in Kentucky. A Kentucky bank may also establish a banking office outside of Kentucky. Well capitalized Kentucky banks that have been in operation at least three years and satisfy certain criteria relating to, among other things, their composite and management ratings, may establish a banking office in Kentucky without the approval of the KDFI upon notice to the KDFI and any other state bank with its main office located in the county where the new banking office will be located. Otherwise, branching requires the approval of the KDFI, which must ascertain and determine that the public convenience and advantage will be served and promoted and that there is reasonable probability of the successful operation of the banking office. The transaction 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.

Section 613 of the Dodd-Frank Act effectively eliminated the interstate branching restrictions set forth in the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Banks located in any state may now de novo branch in any other state, including Kentucky. Such unlimited branching power may increase competition within the markets in which the Company and the Bank operate.

Insider Credit Transactions. The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests (collectively referred to as “insiders”) contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries. 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, which may not exceed the institution’s total unimpaired capital and surplus.

Consumer Protection Laws. The Bank is subject to federal consumer protection statues and regulations promulgated under those laws, including, but not limited to, the:

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB, but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act allows borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB.

The Dodd-Frank Act also permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations. Federal preemption of state consumer protection law requirements, traditionally an attribute of the federal savings association charter, has also been modified by the Dodd-Frank Act and now requires a case-by-case determination of preemption by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and eliminates preemption for subsidiaries of a bank. Depending on the implementation of this revised federal preemption standard, the operations of the Bank could become subject to additional compliance burdens in the states in which it operates.

Loans to One Borrower. Under current limits, loans and extensions of credit outstanding at one time to a single borrower and not fully secured generally may not exceed 20% of an institution’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. Loans and extensions of credit fully secured by collateral may represent an additional 10% of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus.

Volcker Rule. On December 10, 2013, the final Volcker Rule under the Dodd-Frank Act was approved and implemented by the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Volcker Rule attempts to reduce risk and banking system instability by restricting U.S. banks from investing in or engaging in proprietary trading and speculation and imposing a strict framework to justify exemptions for underwriting, market-making and hedging activities. U.S. banks are restricted from investing in funds with collateral comprised of less than 100% loans that are not registered with the SEC and from engaging in hedging activities that do not hedge a specific identified risk. The Volcker Rule does not have a significant effect on the Bank’s operations.

Privacy. Federal law currently contains extensive customer privacy protection provisions. Under these provisions, a financial institution must provide to its customers, at the inception of the customer relationship and annually thereafter, the institution’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of customers’ nonpublic personal financial information. These provisions also provide that, except for certain limited exceptions, an institution may not provide such personal information to unaffiliated third parties unless the institution discloses to the customer that such information may be so provided and the customer is given the opportunity to opt out of such disclosure. Federal law makes it a criminal offense, except in limited circumstances, to obtain or attempt to obtain customer information of a financial nature by fraudulent or deceptive means.

Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) requires the FDIC to assess our record in meeting the credit needs of the communities we serve, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and persons. The FDIC’s assessment of our record is made available to the public. The assessment also is part of the Federal Reserve Board’s consideration of applications to acquire, merge or consolidate with another banking institution or its holding company, to establish a new banking office or to relocate an office.

Bank Secrecy Act. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (“BSA”) was enacted to deter money laundering, establish regulatory reporting standards for currency transactions and improve detection and investigation of criminal, tax and other regulatory violations. BSA and subsequent laws and regulations require us to take steps to prevent the use of the Bank in the flow of illegal or illicit money, including, without limitation, ensuring effective management oversight, establishing sound policies and procedures, developing effective monitoring and reporting capabilities, ensuring adequate training and establishing a comprehensive internal audit of BSA compliance activities. In recent years, federal regulators have increased the attention paid to compliance with the provisions of BSA and related laws, with particular attention paid to “Know Your Customer” practices. Banks have been encouraged by regulators to enhance their identification procedures prior to accepting new customers in order to deter criminal elements from using the banking system to move and hide illegal and illicit activities.

USA Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”) contains anti-money laundering measures affecting insured depository institutions, broker-dealers and certain other financial institutions. The Patriot Act requires financial institutions to implement policies and procedures to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. This includes standards for verifying customer identification at account opening, as well as rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering. It grants the Secretary of the Treasury broad authority to establish regulations and to impose requirements and restrictions on the operations of financial institutions. In addition, the Patriot Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution’s anti-money laundering activities when reviewing bank mergers and bank holding company acquisitions.

Effect on Economic Environment. The policies of regulatory authorities, including the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve Board, have a significant effect on the operating results of bank holding companies and bank subsidiaries. Among the means available to the Federal Reserve Board 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. Their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for deposits.

Federal Reserve Board 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 our business and earnings and those of our subsidiaries cannot be predicted.

Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives. From time to time various laws, regulations and governmental programs affecting financial institutions and the financial industry are introduced in Congress or otherwise promulgated by regulatory agencies. Such measures may change the environment in which the Company and its subsidiaries operate in substantial and unpredictable ways. The nature and extent of future legislative, regulatory or other changes affecting financial institutions are unpredictable at this time. Future legislation, policies and the effects thereof might have a significant influence on overall growth and distribution of loans, investments and deposits. They also may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on time and savings deposits. New legislation and policies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Available Information

The Company files periodic reports with the SEC including its annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current event reports on Form 8-K and proxy statements. The public may read and copy any materials filed with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Our SEC reports are accessible at no cost on our web site at http://www.limestonebank.com, under the Investors Relations section of the About Us tab, once they have been electronically filed with the SEC. A shareholder may also request a copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K free of charge upon written request to: Chief Financial Officer, Porter Bancorp, Inc., 2500 Eastpoint Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky 40223.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in the Company’s common stock involves a number of risks. Realization of any of the risks described below could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and/or future prospects.

The Company is subject to a Written Agreement with the Federal Reserve that restricts the conduct of the Company’s operations and may have a material adverse effect on its business.

In a Written Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Company made formal commitments in the agreement to use its financial and management resources to serve as a source of strength for the Bank and to assist the Bank in addressing weaknesses identified by the FDIC and the KDFI, to pay no dividends without prior written approval, to pay no interest or principal on subordinated debentures or trust preferred securities without written approval, and to submit an acceptable plan to maintain sufficient capital.

Bank regulatory agencies can exercise discretion when an institution does not meet minimum regulatory capital levels and the other terms of a consent order. The agencies may initiate changes in management, issue mandatory directives, impose monetary penalties or refrain from formal sanctions, depending on individual circumstances. Any action taken by regulatory agencies could damage our reputation and have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

As a bank holding company, we depend on dividends and distributions paid to us by our banking subsidiary.

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and our other subsidiaries. Our principal source of cash flow, from which we would fund any dividends paid to our shareholders, has historically been dividends the Company receives from the Bank. Regulations of the FDIC and the KDFI govern the ability of the Bank to pay dividends and other distributions to the Company, and regulations of the Federal Reserve govern our ability to pay dividends or make other distributions to shareholders. Since the Bank is unlikely to be in a position to pay dividends to the Company without prior regulatory approval until retained earnings are positive, cash inflows for the Company are limited to common stock or debt issuances. See the “Item 1. Business” “Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities – Dividends.”

We are currently precluded from paying any dividends.

Our agreement with the holders of our trust preferred securities provides that we cannot pay dividends until we pay all deferred distributions in full and resume paying quarterly distributions. We have also agreed with the Federal Reserve to obtain its written consent prior to declaring or paying any future dividends. In addition, the dividend preferences of our Series E and Series F Preferred Shares entitle our preferred shareholders to receive an annual, noncumulative 2% dividend before we can pay a dividend on our non-voting common shares and voting common shares.

Interest on junior subordinated debt is in deferral.

At December 31, 2017, we had an aggregate obligation of $22.2 million relating to the principal and accrued unpaid interest on our four issues of junior subordinated debentures, which has resulted in a deferral of distributions on our trust preferred securities. Although we are permitted to defer payments on these securities for up to five years (and we commenced doing so in 2016), the deferred interest payments continue to accrue until paid in full. Our deferral period expires after the second quarter of 2021.

The Company’s senior debt is secured by the Bank’s common stock and contains financial covenants that must be maintained to avoid default.

The Company’s senior secured loan agreement is with a commercial bank. The loan matures on June 30, 2022. Interest is payable quarterly at a rate of three-month LIBOR plus 250 basis points through June 30, 2020, at which time quarterly principal payments of $250,000 plus interest will commence. The loan is secured by a first priority pledge of 100% of the issued and outstanding stock of the Bank. The Company may prepay any amount due under the promissory note at any time without premium or penalty.

The loan agreement contains customary representations, warranties, covenants and events of default, including the following financial covenants: (i) the Company must maintain minimum cash on hand of not less than $750,000 through June 30, 2018, and not less than $2,500,000 thereafter, (ii) the Company must maintain a total risk based capital ratio at least equal to 9% of risk-weighted assets to June 30, 2018, and 10% thereafter, (iii) the Bank must maintain a total risk based capital ratio at least equal to 10% of risk-weighted assets to June 30, 2018, and 11% thereafter, and (iv) non-performing assets of the Bank may not exceed 2.5% of the Bank’s total assets. Both the Company and Bank were in compliance with the covenants as of December 31, 2017.

We are defendants in various legal proceedings.

The Company and the Bank are involved in judicial proceedings and regulatory investigations concerning matters arising from our business activities. Although we believe we have a meritorious defense in all significant litigation pending against us, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. We record contingent liabilities resulting from claims against us when a loss is assessed to be probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. Assessing probability of loss and estimating probable losses requires analysis of multiple factors, including in some cases judgments about the potential actions of third party claimants and courts. Recorded contingent liabilities are based on the best information available and actual losses in any future period are inherently uncertain. Accruals are not made in cases where liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. We provide disclosure of matters where we believe liability is reasonably possible and which may be material to our consolidated financial statements. If we do not prevail, the ultimate outcome of litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. For more information about ongoing legal proceedings, see the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

In the past, the Bank served as trustee for employee stock ownership plans (“ESOPs”) which engaged in transactions that are under review by the U. S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), subjecting us to certain legal risks.

From 2007 until the first quarter of 2013, the Bank served as trustee for certain ESOPs that purchased the stock of companies from prior owners in purchase transactions. Stock purchase transactions by ESOPs are subject to regular and routine reviews by the DOL for compliance with ERISA. Failure to fulfill fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to any such plan would subject the Bank to certain financial risks such as claims for damages as well as fines and penalties assessable under ERISA. The Bank was a defendant in legal proceedings initiated by the DOL with respect to two stock purchase transactions by ESOPs for which the Bank served as trustee. Both matters were settled. A ruling in any future litigation that the Bank failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to an ESOP, including stock purchases by the ESOP, could subject the Bank to claims for damages as well as fines and penalties assessable under ERISA.

Investigations into and heightened scrutiny of our operations could result in additional costs and damage our reputation.

In October 2014, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) initiated an investigation concerning possible violations of federal laws, including, among other things, possible violations related to false bank entries, bank fraud and securities fraud. The investigation concerns allegations that Bank personnel engaged in practices intended to delay or avoid disclosure of the Bank’s asset quality at the time of and following the United States Treasury’s purchase of preferred shares from the Company in November 2008. The Bank has cooperated with all requests for information from the DOJ. At this time, the DOJ has not indicated whether it intends to pursue any action in the matter. Heightened scrutiny of the operations of the Company and the Bank by federal officials may subject us to governmental or regulatory inquiries, investigations, actions, penalties and fines, which could adversely affect our reputation and result in costs to us in excess of current reserves and management’s estimate of the aggregate range of possible loss for such matters.

Our business may be adversely affected by conditions in the financial markets and by economic conditions generally.

Weakness in business and economic conditions generally or specifically in our markets may have one or more of the following adverse effects on our business:

Adverse conditions in the general business environment have had an adverse effect on our business in the past. Although the general business environment has improved, we cannot predict how long such improvement can be sustained. In addition, the improvement of certain economic indicators, such as real estate asset values, rents, and unemployment, may vary between geographic markets and may continue to lag behind improvement in the overall economy. These economic indicators typically affect the real estate and financial services industries, in which we have a significant number of customers, more significantly than other economic sectors. Furthermore, we have a substantial lending business that depends upon the ability of borrowers to make debt service payments on loans. Should economic conditions worsen, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

A large percentage of our loans are collateralized by real estate, and prolonged weakness in the real estate market may result in losses and adversely affect our profitability.

Approximately 73.7% of our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017, was comprised of commercial and residential loans collateralized by real estate. Adverse economic conditions could decrease demand for real estate and depress real estate values in our markets. Persistent weakness in the real estate market could significantly impair the value of our collateral and our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. If real estate values decline, it will become more likely that we would be required to increase our allowance for loan losses. If during a period of depressed real estate values, we were required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt or to increase our allowance for loan losses, it could materially reduce our profitability and adversely affect our financial condition.

We offer real estate construction and development loans, which carry a higher degree of risk than other real estate loans. Weakness in the residential construction and commercial development real estate markets has in the past increased the non-performing assets in our loan portfolio and our provision for loan loss expense. These impacts have had, and could have in the future, a material adverse effect on capital, financial condition and results of operations.

Approximately 8.1% of our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017 consisted of real estate construction and development loans, up from 5.7% at December 31, 2016 and 5.4% at December 31, 2015. These loans generally carry a higher degree of risk than long-term financing of existing properties because repayment depends on the ultimate completion of the project and permanent financing or sale of the property. If the Bank is forced to foreclose on a project prior to its completion, it may not be able to recover the entire unpaid portion of the loan or it may be required to fund additional money to complete the project, or hold the property for an indeterminate period of time. Any of these outcomes may result in losses and adversely affect profitability and financial condition.

Residential construction and commercial development real estate activity in our markets were affected by the challenging economic conditions that followed the financial crisis of 2008. Weakness in these sectors could lead to valuation adjustments to the loan portfolios and real estate owned. A weak real estate market could reduce demand for residential housing, which, in turn, could adversely affect real estate development and construction activities. Consequently, the longer challenging economic conditions persist, the more likely they are to adversely affect the ability of residential real estate development borrowers to repay loans and the value of property used as collateral for such loans.

Our decisions regarding credit risk may not be accurate, and our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover actual losses, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses at a level we believe is adequate to absorb probable incurred losses in the loan portfolio based on historical loan loss experience, economic and environmental factors, specific problem loans, value of underlying collateral and other relevant factors. If our assessment of these factors is ultimately inaccurate, the allowance may not be sufficient to cover actual future loan losses, which would adversely affect operating results. Management’s estimates are subjective, and their accuracy depends on the outcome of future events. Changes in economic, operating, and other conditions that are generally beyond our control could cause actual loan losses to increase significantly. In addition, bank regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their supervisory functions, periodically review the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses. Regulatory agencies may require an increase in provision for loan losses or to recognize additional loan charge-offs when their judgment differed from ours. Any of these events could have a material negative impact on our operating results.

Our levels of classified loans and non-performing assets may increase in the foreseeable future if economic conditions cause borrowers to default. Further, the value of the collateral underlying a given loan, and the realizable value of such collateral in a foreclosure sale, may decline, making it less likely to realize a full recovery if a borrower defaults on a loan. Any additional increases in the level of our non-performing assets, loan charge-offs or provision for loan losses, or our inability to realize the estimated net value of underlying collateral in the event of a loan default, could negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and the trading price of our securities.

If we experience greater credit losses than anticipated, our operating results would be adversely affected.

As a lender, the Bank is exposed to the risk that borrowers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms and that any collateral securing the payment of their loans may not be sufficient to assure repayment. Credit losses are inherent in the business of making loans and could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. Our credit risk with respect to our real estate and construction loan portfolio will relate principally to the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate serving as security for the repayment of loans. Our credit risk with respect to our commercial and consumer loan portfolio will relate principally to the general creditworthiness of businesses and individuals within our local markets.

We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of our loan portfolio and provide an allowance for estimated loss losses based on a number of factors. We believe that our allowance for loan losses is adequate. However, if our assumptions or judgments are wrong, our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover our actual loan losses. We may have to increase our allowance in the future at the request of one of our primary banking regulators, to adjust for changing conditions and assumptions, or as a result of any deterioration in the quality of our loan portfolio. The actual amount of future provisions for loan losses cannot be determined at this time and may vary from the amounts of past provisions.

We continue to hold and from time to time acquire OREO properties, which could increase operating expenses and result in future losses to the Company.

During recent years, the Bank has acquired and disposed of a significant amount of real estate as a result of foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure that is listed on our balance sheet as other real estate owned (“OREO”). An increase in our OREO portfolio increases the expenses incurred to manage and dispose of these properties, which sometimes includes funding construction required to facilitate sale.

Properties in our OREO portfolio are recorded at fair value, which represents the estimated sales price of the properties on the date acquired less estimated selling costs. Generally, in determining “fair value” an orderly disposition of the property is assumed, except where a different disposition strategy is expected. Significant judgment is required in estimating the fair value of OREO, and the period of time within which such estimates can be considered current may change during periods of market volatility. Any decreases in market prices of real estate in our market areas may lead to additional OREO write downs, with a corresponding expense in our statement of operations. We evaluate OREO property values periodically and write down the carrying value of the properties if and when the results of our analysis require it.

In response to market conditions and other economic factors, we may utilize alternative sale strategies other than orderly disposition as part of our OREO disposition strategy, such as auctions or bulk sales. In this event, as a result of the significant judgments required in estimating fair value and the variables involved in different methods of disposition, the net proceeds realized from such sales transactions could differ significantly from appraisals, comparable sales, and other estimates used to determine the fair value of our OREO properties. In addition, our disposition of OREO through alternative sales strategies could impact the fair value of comparable OREO properties remaining in our portfolio.

Our profitability depends significantly on local economic conditions.

Most of our business activities are conducted in central Kentucky and most of our credit exposure is in that region. We are at risk from adverse economic or business developments affecting this area, including declining regional and local business and employment activity, a downturn in real estate values and agricultural activities and natural disasters. To the extent the central Kentucky economy weakens, delinquency rates, foreclosures, bankruptcies and losses in our loan portfolio will likely increase. Moreover, the value of real estate or other collateral that secures our loans could be adversely affected by the economic downturn or a localized natural disaster. Events that adversely affect business activity and real estate values in central Kentucky have had and may continue to have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

Our small to medium-sized business portfolio may have fewer resources to weather a downturn in the economy.

Our portfolio includes loans to small and medium-sized businesses and other commercial enterprises. Small and medium-sized businesses frequently have smaller market shares than their competitors, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need additional capital to expand or compete and may experience variations in operating results, any of which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small or medium-sized business often depends on the management talents and efforts of one or two persons or a small group of persons. The death, disability or resignation of one or more of these persons could have a material adverse impact on the business and its ability to repay our loan. A continued economic downturn may have a more pronounced negative impact on our target market, causing us to incur substantial credit losses that could materially harm our operating results.

Our profitability is vulnerable to fluctuations in interest rates.

Changes in interest rates could harm our financial condition or results of operations. Our results of operations depend substantially on net interest income, the difference between interest earned on interest-earning assets (such as investments and loans) and interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities (such as deposits and borrowings). Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies and domestic or international economic or political conditions. Factors beyond our control, such as inflation, recession, unemployment and money supply may also affect interest rates. If, as a result of decreasing interest rates, our interest-earning assets mature or reprice more quickly than our interest-bearing liabilities in a given period, our net interest income may decrease. Likewise, our net interest income may decrease if interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly than interest-earning assets in a given period as a result of increasing interest rates.

Fixed-rate loans increase our exposure to interest rate risk in a rising rate environment because interest-bearing liabilities may be subject to repricing before assets become subject to repricing. Fixed rate investment securities are subject to fair value declines as interest rates rise. Adjustable-rate loans decrease the risk associated with changes in interest rates but involve other risks, such as the inability of borrowers to make higher payments in an increasing interest rate environment. At the same time, for secured loans, the marketability of the underlying collateral may be adversely affected by higher interest rates. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as the borrowers refinance their loans at lower interest rates, which could reduce net interest income and harm our results of operations.

If we cannot obtain adequate funding, we may not be able to meet the cash flow requirements of our depositors and borrowers, or meet the operating cash needs of the Company.

Our liquidity policies and limits are established by the Board of Directors of the Bank, with operating limits managed and monitored by the Asset Liability Committee (“ALCO”), based upon analyses of the ratio of loans to deposits and the percentage of assets funded with non-core or wholesale funding. The ALCO regularly monitors the overall liquidity position of the Bank and the Company to ensure that various alternative strategies exist to meet unanticipated events that could affect liquidity. Liquidity is the ability to meet cash flow needs on a timely basis at a reasonable cost. If our liquidity policies and strategies do not work as well as intended, we may be unable to make loans and repay deposit liabilities as they become due or are demanded by customers. The ALCO follows established board approved policies and monitors guidelines to diversify our wholesale funding sources to avoid concentrations in any one-market source. Wholesale funding sources include Federal funds purchased, securities sold under repurchase agreements, and Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances that are collateralized with mortgage-related assets.

We maintain a portfolio of securities that can be used as a secondary source of liquidity. There are other available sources of liquidity, including additional collateralized borrowings such as FHLB advances, the issuance of debt securities, and the issuance of preferred or common shares in public or private transactions. If we are unable to access any of these funding sources when needed, we might not be able to meet the needs of our customers, which could adversely impact our financial condition, our results of operations, cash flows, and our level of regulatory-qualifying capital.

We may not be able to realize the value of our tax losses and deductions.

Due to historic losses, we have a net operating loss carry-forward of $25.6 million, credit carry-forwards of $900,000, and other net deferred tax assets of $4.8 million. In order to realize the benefit of these tax losses, credits and deductions, we will need to generate substantial taxable income in future periods. Our deferred tax assets are calculated using a federal corporate tax rate of 21%. Changes in tax laws and rates may affect our deferred tax assets in the future. If lower federal corporate tax rates are enacted, our net deferred tax assets would be reduced commensurate with the rate reduction. Additionally, should the Company need to raise additional capital by issuing new common shares or securities convertible into common shares, then depending on the number of common share equivalents issued, it could trigger a “change in control,” as defined by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Such an event could negatively impact or limit the ability to utilize our net operating loss carry-forwards, credit loss carry-forwards, and other net deferred tax assets.

We may sell capital stock in the future to raise additional capital or for additional liquidity at the holding company. Future sales or other dilution of our equity may adversely affect the market price of our common shares.

Our issuance of additional common shares or securities convertible into common shares would dilute the ownership interest of our existing common shareholders. The market price of our common shares could decline as a result of such an offering as well as other sales of a large block of shares of our common shares or similar securities in the market after such an offering, or the perception that such sales could occur. Our common shares have traded from time-to-time at a price below our book value per share. A sale of common shares at or below our book value would be dilutive to current shareholders. The sale of shares at a price below market value could negatively impact the market price of our common shares.

Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could significantly increase our non-interest expense.

Our deposits are insured by the FDIC up to legal limits and, accordingly, we are subject to FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments. FDIC assessments for deposit insurance are based on the average total consolidated assets of the insured institution during the assessment period, less the average tangible equity of the institution during the assessment period. Any increase in assessment rates may adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We face strong competition from other financial institutions and financial service companies, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We compete with other financial institutions in attracting deposits and making loans. Our competition in attracting deposits comes principally from other commercial banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, money market funds, and other mutual funds. Our competition in making loans comes principally from other commercial banks, credit unions, savings and loan associations, mortgage banking firms, and consumer finance companies. In addition, competition for business in the Louisville and Lexington metropolitan areas has grown in recent years as changes in banking law have allowed banks to enter those markets by establishing new branches.

Competition in the banking industry may also limit our ability to attract and retain banking clients. We maintain smaller staffs of associates and have fewer financial and other resources than larger institutions with which we compete. Financial institutions that have far greater resources and greater efficiencies than we do may have several marketplace advantages resulting from their ability to:

In addition, banks and other financial institutions with larger capitalization and other financial intermediaries may not be subject to the same regulatory restrictions as we are and may have larger lending limits than we do. Some of our current commercial banking clients may seek alternative banking sources as they develop needs for credit facilities larger than we can accommodate. If we are unable to attract and retain customers, we may not be able to maintain growth and our results of operations and financial condition may otherwise be negatively impacted.

We depend on our senior management team, and the unexpected loss of one or more of our senior executives could impair our relationship with customers and adversely affect our business and financial results.

Our future success significantly depends on the continued services and performance of our key management personnel. Our future performance will depend on our ability to motivate and retain these and other key officers. The Dodd-Frank Act, and the policies of bank regulatory agencies have placed restrictions on executive compensation practices. Such restrictions and standards may further impact our ability to compete for talent with other businesses that are not subject to the same limitations as we are. The loss of the services of members of senior management or other key officers or our inability to attract additional qualified personnel as needed could materially harm our business.

Our reported financial results depend on management’s selection of accounting methods and certain assumptions and estimates.

Accounting policies and assumptions are fundamental to the reported financial condition and results of operations. Management must exercise judgment in selecting and applying many of these accounting policies and methods so they comply with generally accepted accounting principles and reflect management’s judgment of the most appropriate manner in which to report our financial condition and results. In some cases, management must select the accounting policy or method to apply from two or more alternatives, any of which may be reasonable under the circumstances, yet may result in reporting materially different results than would have been reported under a different alternative.

Certain accounting policies are critical to presenting our reported financial condition and results. They require management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments about matters that are uncertain. Materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions or estimates. These critical accounting policies include the valuation of securities, allowance for loan losses, valuation of OREO, valuation of stock based compensation, valuation of net deferred income tax asset, assessing and estimating contingencies, and revenue recognition. Because of the uncertainty of estimates involved in these matters, we may be required, among other things, to significantly increase the allowance for credit losses, sustain credit losses that are significantly higher than the reserve provided, recognize significant impairment on OREO, or permanently impair deferred tax assets.

While management continually monitors and improves our system of internal controls, data processing systems, and corporate wide processes and procedures, we may suffer losses from operational risk in the future.

Management maintains internal operational controls, and we have invested in technology to help us process large volumes of transactions. However, we may not be able to continue processing at the same or higher levels of transactions. If our systems of internal controls should fail to work as expected, if our systems were to be used in an unauthorized manner, or if employees were to subvert the system of internal controls, significant losses could occur.

We process large volumes of transactions on a daily basis and are exposed to numerous types of operational risk, which could cause us to incur substantial losses. Operational risk resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, and systems includes the risk of fraud by employees or persons outside of our company, the execution of unauthorized transactions by employees, errors relating to transaction processing and systems, and breaches of the internal control system and compliance requirements. This risk of loss also includes potential legal actions that could arise as a result of the operational deficiency or as a result of noncompliance with applicable regulatory standards.

We establish and maintain systems of internal operational controls that provide management with timely and accurate information about our level of operational risk. While not foolproof, these systems have been designed to manage operational risk at appropriate, cost effective levels. We have also established procedures that are designed to ensure that policies relating to conduct, ethics and business practices are followed. Nevertheless, we experience loss from operational risk from time to time, including the effects of operational errors, and these losses may be substantial.

Our information systems may experience an interruption or security breach.

Failure in or breach of our operational or security systems or infrastructure, or those of our third party vendors and other service providers, including as a result of cyber attacks, could disrupt our businesses, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, increase our costs and cause losses. As a financial institution, we depend on our ability to process, record and monitor a large number of customer transactions on a continuous basis. As customer, public and regulatory expectations regarding operational and information security have increased, our operational systems and infrastructure must continue to be safeguarded and monitored for potential failures, disruptions, and breakdowns. Our business, financial, accounting, data processing systems or other operating systems and facilities may stop operating properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control. For example, there could be sudden increases in customer transaction volume, electrical or telecommunications outages, natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes; disease pandemics, events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts, and, as described below, cyber attacks. Although we have business continuity plans and other safeguards in place, our business operations may be adversely affected by significant and widespread disruption to our physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our businesses and customers.

Information security risks for financial institutions have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists, activists, and other external parties. As noted above, our operations rely on the secure processing, transmission and storage of confidential information in our computer systems and networks. In addition, to access our products and services, our customers may use personal smartphones, tablet PC’s, and other mobile devices that are beyond our control systems. Although we believe we have appropriate information security procedures and controls, our technologies, systems, networks, and our customers’ devices may become the target of cyber attacks or information security breaches. These events could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our customers’ confidential, proprietary and other information or that of our customers, or otherwise disrupt the business operations of ourselves, our customers or other third parties.

Third parties with which we do business or that facilitate our business activities, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints. Although to date we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber attacks or other information security breaches, we can give no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of, among other things, the evolving nature of these threats and the prevalence of Internet and mobile banking. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities. Disruptions or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our businesses and customers, or cyber attacks or security breaches of the networks, systems or devices that our customers use to access our products and services could result in customer attrition, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs, any of which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

We operate in a highly regulated environment and, as a result, are subject to extensive regulation and supervision that could adversely affect financial performance and ability to implement growth and operating strategies.

We are subject to examination, supervision and comprehensive regulation by federal and state regulatory agencies, as described under “Item 1 – Business-Supervision and Regulation.” Regulatory oversight of banks is primarily intended to protect depositors, the federal deposit insurance funds, and the banking system as a whole, and not our shareholders. Compliance with these regulations is costly and may make it more difficult to operate profitably.

Federal and state banking laws and regulations govern numerous matters including the payment of dividends, the acquisition of other banks, and the establishment of new banking offices. We must also meet specific regulatory capital requirements. Our failure to comply with these laws, regulations, and policies or to maintain required capital could affect our ability to pay dividends on common shares, our ability to grow through the development of new offices, make acquisitions, and remain independent. These limitations may prevent us from successfully implementing our growth and operating strategies.

In addition, the laws and regulations applicable to banks could change at any time, which could significantly impact our business and profitability. For example, new legislation or regulation could limit the manner in which we may conduct our business, including our ability to attract deposits and make loans. Events that may not have a direct impact on us, such as the bankruptcy or insolvency of a prominent U.S. corporation, can cause legislators and banking regulators and other agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and various taxing authorities to respond by adopting and or proposing substantive revisions to laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies, and interpretations. The nature, extent, and timing of the adoption of significant new laws and regulations, or changes in or repeal of existing laws and regulations may have a material impact on our business and results of operations. Changes in regulation may cause us to devote substantial additional financial resources and management time to compliance, which may negatively affect our operating results.

Changes in banking laws could have a material adverse effect on us.

We are subject to changes in federal and state laws as well as changes in banking and credit regulations, and governmental economic and monetary policies. We cannot predict whether any of these changes could adversely and materially affect us. The current regulatory environment for financial institutions entails significant potential increases in compliance requirements and associated costs. Federal and state banking regulators also possess broad powers to take supervisory actions as they deem appropriate. These supervisory actions may result in higher capital requirements, higher insurance premiums and limitations on our activities that could have a material adverse effect on our business and profitability.

Recent legislation regarding the financial services industry may have a significant adverse effect on operations. 

Enacted in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act has had a significant impact the U.S. financial system, including among other things:

Some provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act remain subject to regulatory rule-making, implementation, and interpretation, the effects of which are not yet known. As a result, it is difficult to gauge the ultimate impact of certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act because the implementation of many concepts is left to regulatory agencies. For example, the CFPB is given the power to adopt new regulations to protect consumers and is given control over existing consumer protection regulations adopted by federal banking regulators. The CFPB has already adopted a number of regulations but it is not known at this time when additional rules will be finalized and implemented.

The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and any rules adopted to implement those provisions, as well as any additional legislative or regulatory changes may impact the profitability of our business activities and costs of operations, require that we change certain of our business practices, materially affect our business model or affect retention of key personnel, require us to raise additional regulatory capital, including additional Tier 1 capital, and could expose us to additional costs (including increased compliance costs). These and other changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes and may adversely affect our ability to conduct our business as previously conducted or our results of operations or financial condition.

Not applicable.

The Bank operates 15 banking offices in Kentucky. The following table shows the location, square footage and ownership of each property. We believe that each of these locations is adequately insured. Support operations are located in our main office in Louisville and in Glasgow.

We are defendants in various legal proceedings. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable outcomes could occur. See Note 16, “Off Balance Sheet Risks, Commitments, and Contingent Liabilities” in the Notes to our consolidated financial statements for detail regarding ongoing legal proceedings and other matters.

Not applicable.

PART II

Market Information

Our common shares are traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “PBIB”. The following table presents the high and low market closing prices per share for our common shares reported on the Nasdaq Capital Market for the periods indicated. The per share prices shown in the table have been adjusted for the 1-for-5 reverse stock split of our common shares that took effect on December 16, 2016.

As of January 31, 2018, we had approximately 1,664 shareholders, including 470 shareholders of record and approximately 1,194 beneficial owners whose shares are held in “street” name by securities broker-dealers or other nominees.

Dividends 

As a bank holding company, our ability to declare and pay dividends depends on various federal regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve regarding capital adequacy and dividends.

Our principal source of revenue with which to pay dividends on our common shares are dividends the Bank may declare and pay out of funds legally available for payment of dividends. Currently, the Bank must obtain the prior written consent of its primary regulators prior to declaring or paying any dividends until retained earnings are positive. A Kentucky chartered bank may declare a dividend of an amount of the bank’s net profits as the board deems appropriate. The approval of the KDFI is required if the total of all dividends declared by a bank in any calendar year exceeds the total of its net profits for that year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfers to surplus or a fund for the retirement of preferred stock or debt. Under our Written Agreement, the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is also required for the payment of any Bank dividends.

Effective with the third quarter of 2016, the Company resumed deferring interest payments on the junior subordinated notes underlying our trust preferred securities. Deferring interest payments on the junior subordinated notes resulted in the deferral of distributions on our trust preferred securities. If we defer interest payments on our trust preferred securities for 20 consecutive quarters, we must pay all deferred interest or we will be in default. Our deferral period expires after the second quarter of 2021.

We will not be able to pay cash dividends on our common shares until we have paid all deferred distributions on our trust preferred securities. Deferred distributions on trust preferred securities are cumulative, and distributions accrue and compound on each subsequent payment date. If we become subject to any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of affairs, holders of the trust preferred securities and then holders of our preferred shares will be entitled to receive the liquidation amounts to which they are entitled including the amount of any accrued and unpaid distributions and dividends, before any distribution can be made to the holders of common shares or preferred shares. Series E and Series F Preferred Shares have priority over our common shares and non-voting common shares with respect to any payment of dividends.

Purchase of Equity Securities by Issuer

During the fourth quarter of 2017, the Company did not repurchase any of its common shares, which is its only registered class of equity securities.

The following table summarizes our selected historical consolidated financial data from 2013 to 2017. You should read this information in conjunction with Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Item 8. “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Selected Consolidated Financial Data 

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

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations analyzes the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) and its wholly owned subsidiary, Limestone Bank, Inc. (the “Bank”). The Bank completed a name change from PBI Bank to Limestone Bank on February 20, 2018. The Company is a Louisville, Kentucky-based bank holding company that operates banking offices of the Bank in twelve Kentucky counties. Our markets include metropolitan Louisville in Jefferson County and the surrounding counties of Henry and Bullitt. We serve south central Kentucky and southern Kentucky from banking offices in Butler, Green, Hart, Edmonson, Barren, Warren, Ohio, and Daviess Counties. We also have an office in Lexington, the second largest city in Kentucky. The Bank is a community bank with a wide range of commercial and personal banking products.

Historically, we have focused on commercial and commercial real estate lending, both in markets where we have banking offices and other growing markets in our region. Commercial, commercial real estate and real estate construction loans accounted for 58.4% of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017, and 55.6% as of December 31, 2016. Commercial lending generally produces higher yields than residential lending, but involves greater risk and requires more rigorous underwriting standards and credit quality monitoring.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes and other schedules presented elsewhere in the report.

Overview

For the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company reported net income of $38.5 million compared with net loss of $2.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 and a net loss of $3.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. After allocating earnings to participating securities, net income attributable to common shareholders was $37.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared with net loss attributable to common shareholders of $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, and a net loss attributable to common shareholders of $2.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. Basic and diluted income per common share were $6.15 for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared with net loss per common share of ($0.46) for 2016, and net loss per common share of ($0.62) for 2015.

The following significant items are of note for the year ended December 31, 2017:

These items are discussed in further detail throughout this Item 7.

Application of Critical Accounting Policies

The Company’s accounting and reporting policies comply with GAAP and conform to general practices within the banking industry. We believe that the following significant accounting policies may involve a higher degree of management assumptions and judgments that could result in materially different amounts to be reported if conditions or underlying circumstances were to change.

Allowance for Loan Losses – The Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses believed to be sufficient to absorb probable incurred credit losses existing in the loan portfolio. The Board of Directors evaluates the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses on a quarterly basis. We evaluate the adequacy of the allowance using, among other things, historical loan loss experience, known and inherent risks in the portfolio, adverse situations that may affect the borrower’s ability to repay, estimated value of the underlying collateral and current economic conditions and trends. The allowance may be allocated for specific loans or loan categories, but the entire allowance is available for any loan. The allowance consists of specific and general components. The specific component relates to loans that are individually evaluated and measured for impairment. The general component is based on historical loss experience adjusted for qualitative environmental factors. We develop allowance estimates based on actual loss experience adjusted for current economic conditions and trends. Allowance estimates are a prudent measurement of the risk in the loan portfolio applied to individual loans based on loan type. If the mix and amount of future charge-off percentages differ significantly from the assumptions used by management in making its determination, we may be required to materially increase our allowance for loan losses and provision for loan losses, which could adversely affect our results.

Other Real Estate Owned – OREO is real estate acquired as a result of foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure. It is classified as real estate owned until such time as it is sold. OREO is recorded at its fair market value less estimated cost to sell. Any write-down of the property at the time of acquisition is charged to the allowance for loan losses. Costs incurred in order to perfect the lien prior to foreclosure may be capitalized if the fair value less the cost to sell exceeds the balance of the loan at the time of transfer to OREO. Examples of eligible costs to be capitalized are payments of delinquent property taxes to clear tax liens or payments to contractors and subcontractors to clear mechanics’ liens. Fair value of OREO is determined on an individual property basis. To determine the fair value of OREO for smaller dollar single family homes, we consult with staff from the Bank’s special assets group as well as external realtors and appraisers. If the internally evaluated market price is below our underlying investment in the property, appropriate write-downs are taken. For larger dollar residential and commercial real estate properties, we obtain a new appraisal of the subject property or have staff from our special assets group evaluate the latest in-file appraisal in connection with the transfer to OREO. We typically obtain updated appraisals within five quarters of the anniversary date of ownership unless a sale is imminent. Subsequent reductions in fair value are recorded as non-interest expense when a new appraisal indicates a decline in value or in cases where a listing price is lowered below the appraised amount. 

Stock-based Compensation – Compensation cost is recognized for restricted stock awards issued to employees, based on the fair value of these awards at the date of grant. The market price of the Company’s common shares at the date of grant is used for restricted stock awards. Compensation cost is recognized over the required service period, generally defined as the vesting period. For awards with graded vesting, compensation cost is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for the entire award.

Valuation of Deferred Tax Asset – We evaluate deferred tax assets for impairment on a quarterly basis. We established a 100% deferred tax valuation allowance in December 2011 based upon the analysis of our past performance and our expected future performance. The Company’s ability to utilize the net deferred tax asset depends upon generating suffient future levels of taxable income. The determination to restore a deferred tax asset and eliminate a valuation allowance depends upon the evaluation of both positive and negative evidence regarding the likelihood of achieving future taxable income levels. In 2017, management concluded it was more-likely-than-not the asset would be utilized to reduce future taxes payable related to the future taxable income of the Company, and as such, reversed the valuation allowance.

Contingencies – We are defendants in various legal proceedings. We record contingent liabilities resulting from claims against us when a loss is assessed to be probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. Assessing probability of loss and estimating probable losses requires analysis of multiple factors, including in some cases judgments about the potential actions of third party claimants and courts. Recorded contingent liabilities are based on the best information available and actual losses in any future period are inherently uncertain.

Results of Operations 

The following table summarizes components of income and expense and the change in those components for 2017 compared with 2016:

NM: Not Meaningful

Net income of $38.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 increased by $41.2 million from a net loss of $2.8 million for 2016. During the period, improving trends in non-performing loans, past due loans, and loan risk categories continued. In addition, net income for 2017 was impacted by the reversal of the Company’s deferred tax asset valuation allowance and the change in federal corporate tax rates in connection with the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The net result of these two items, as well as income tax expense for the year, was an income tax benefit of $31.9 million for 2017. A negative provision for loan losses expense of $800,000 was recorded during 2017, compared to $2.5 million negative provision for loan losses expense for 2016. Non-interest income increased $19,000 during 2017. There was an increase of $295,000 in service charges on deposit accounts, $123,000 in bank card interchange fees, and $62,000 in other non-interest income which was offset by no OREO income during 2017, compared to $456,000 during 2016. Non-interest expense decreased $9.3 million during 2017 due primarily to a decrease in litigation and loan collection expense of $8.6 million as 2016 was negatively impacted by a ruling from the Kentucky Court of Appeals against the Bank that approximated $8.0 million. After consideration of earnings attributable to participating securities, net income attributable to common shareholders was $37.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to net loss attributable to common shareholders of $2.7 million for 2016.

The following table summarizes components of income and expense and the change in those components for 2016 compared with 2015:

Net loss of $2.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased by $460,000 from a net loss of $3.2 million for 2015. A negative provision for loan losses expense of $2.5 million was recorded for 2016 due to improvements in loan quality and management’s assessment of risk within the portfolio as compared to $4.5 million negative provision for loan losses expense for 2015. Non-interest income decreased $2.9 million during 2016 due primarily to a decrease in OREO rental income of $890,000 driven by the sale of income producing properties and a $1.6 million decrease in gains on the sale of securities compared to 2015. Non-interest expense decreased $5.4 million during 2016. OREO expense decreased by $10.8 million, but was offset by a $7.7 million increase in litigation and loan collection expense primarily resulting from the adverse Kentucky Court of Appeals ruling. After consideration of losses attributable to participating securities, net loss attributable to common shareholders was $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to net loss attributable to common shareholders of $2.9 million for 2015.

Net Interest Income – Net interest income was $31.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $1.5 million, or 5.1%, compared with $29.6 million for the same period in 2016. Net interest spread and margin were 3.35% and 3.48%, respectively, for 2017, compared with 3.32% and 3.42%, respectively, for 2016. Average nonaccrual loans were $7.1 million and $11.4 million in 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Average interest-earning assets were $904.1 million for 2017, compared with $875.3 million for 2016, a 3.3% increase, primarily attributable to higher average loans and investment securities, partially offset by a decrease in interest bearing deposits with financial institutions. Average loans were $667.5 million for 2017, compared with $621.3 million for 2016, a 7.4% increase. Average investment securities were $193.1 million for 2017, compared with $183.7 million for 2016, a 5.1% increase. Average interest bearing deposits with financial institutions and fed funds sold were $36.2 million in 2017, compared with $62.9 million in 2016, a 42.4% decrease. Total interest income increased 5.4% to $37.5 million for 2017, compared with $35.6 million for 2016.

Average interest-bearing liabilities increased by 1.7% to $773.2 million for 2017, compared with $760.7 million for 2016. Our total interest expense increased by 7.1% to $6.4 million for 2017, compared with $6.0 million during 2016, due primarily to the completion of a $10.0 million senior debt transaction during 2017 as well as an increase in FHLB advances outstanding during 2017. Average volume of certificates of deposit decreased 2.9% to $452.4 million for 2017, compared with $466.0 million for 2016. The average interest rate paid on certificates of deposit increased to 0.93% for 2017, compared with 0.88% for 2016. Average volume of interest checking and money market deposit accounts increased 6.2% to $247.3 million for 2017, compared with $232.7 million for 2016. The average interest rate paid on interest checking and money market deposit accounts decreased to 0.38% for 2017, compared with 0.40% for 2016.

Net interest income was $29.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, an increase of $70,000, or 0.2%, compared with $29.6 million for the same period in 2015. Net interest spread and margin were 3.32% and 3.42%, respectively, for 2016, compared with 3.18% and 3.27%, respectively, for 2015. Average nonaccrual loans were $11.4 million and $29.0 million in 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Average interest-earning assets were $875.3 million for 2016, compared with $917.5 million for 2015, a 4.6% decrease, primarily attributable to lower average loans, investment securities and interest bearing deposits with financial institutions. Average loans were $621.3 million for 2016, compared with $635.9 million for 2015, a 2.3% decrease. Average investment securities were $183.7 million for 2016, compared with $194.1 million for 2015, a 5.3% decrease. Average interest bearing deposits with financial institutions were $62.3 million in 2016, compared with $78.9 million in 2015, a 21.0% decrease. Our total interest income decreased 2.7% to $35.6 million for 2016, compared with $36.6 million for 2015.

Average interest-bearing liabilities decreased by 8.0% to $760.7 million for 2016, compared with $826.9 million for 2015. Total interest expense decreased by 14.8% to $6.0 million for 2016, compared with $7.0 million during 2015, due primarily to lower interest rates paid on and lower volume of certificates of deposit. Average volume of certificates of deposit decreased 16.4% to $466.0 million for 2016, compared with $557.4 million for 2015. The average interest rate paid on certificates of deposit decreased to 0.88% for 2016, compared with 0.96% for 2015, as the result of continued re-pricing of certificates of deposit at maturity to lower interest rates. The average volume of interest checking and money market deposit accounts increased 15.7% to $232.7 million for 2016, compared with $201.2 million for 2015. The average interest rate paid on interest checking and money market deposit accounts increased to 0.40% for 2016, compared with 0.38% for 2015.

Average Balance Sheets

The following table sets forth the average daily balances, the interest earned or paid on such amounts, and the weighted average yield on interest-earning assets and weighted average cost of interest-bearing liabilities for the periods indicated. Dividing income or expense by the average daily balance of assets or liabilities, respectively, derives such yields and costs for the periods presented.

Rate/Volume Analysis 

The table below sets forth information regarding changes in interest income and interest expense for the periods indicated. For each category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, information is provided on changes attributable to (1) changes in rate (changes in rate multiplied by old volume); (2) changes in volume (changes in volume multiplied by old rate); and (3) changes in rate-volume (change in rate multiplied by change in volume). Changes in rate-volume are proportionately allocated between rate and volume variance.