OLD POINT FINANCIAL CORP - Annual Report: 2009 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009

or

For the transition period from              to             

Commission file number 000-12896

OLD POINT FINANCIAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

1 West Mellen Street, Hampton, Virginia 23663

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(757) 728-1200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

None

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

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

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

The aggregate market value of voting and non-voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2009 was $57,536,427 based on the closing sales price on the NASDAQ Capital Market of $18.50.

There were 4,922,160 shares of common stock outstanding as of February 26, 2010.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on April 27, 2010, are incorporated by reference in Part III of this report.

Table of Contents

OLD POINT FINANCIAL CORPORATION

FORM 10-K

INDEX

-i-

Table of Contents

Part I

GENERAL

Old Point Financial Corporation (the Company) was incorporated under the laws of Virginia on February 16, 1984, for the purpose of acquiring all the outstanding common stock of The Old Point National Bank of Phoebus (the Bank), in connection with the reorganization of the Bank into a one-bank holding company structure. At the annual meeting of the stockholders on March 27, 1984, the proposed reorganization was approved by the requisite stockholder vote. At the effective date of the reorganization on October 1, 1984, the Bank merged into a newly formed national bank as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, with each outstanding share of common stock of the Bank being converted into five shares of common stock of the Company.

The Company completed a spin-off of its trust department as of April 1, 1999. The newly formed organization is chartered as Old Point Trust and Financial Services, N.A. (Trust). Trust is a nationally chartered trust company. The purpose of the spin-off was to have a corporate structure more ready to compete in the field of wealth management. Trust is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

The Bank is a national banking association that was founded in 1922. As of the end of 2009, the Bank had 21 branch offices serving the Hampton Roads localities of Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Williamsburg/James City County, York County and Isle of Wight County. The Bank offers a complete line of consumer, mortgage and business banking services, including loan, deposit, and cash management services to individual and business customers.

The Company’s primary activity is as a holding company for the common stock of the Bank and Trust. The principal business of the Company is conducted through its subsidiaries which continue to conduct business in substantially the same manner.

As of December 31, 2009, the Company had assets of $921.4 million, loans of $635.2 million, deposits of $662.5 million, and stockholders’ equity of $81.6 million. At year-end, the Company and its subsidiaries had a total of 331 employees, 22 of whom were part-time.

MARKET AREA AND COMPETITION

The Company’s market area is located in Hampton Roads. According to the United States Census Bureau, Hampton Roads is the 34^th most populous Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the United States. Situated in the southeastern corner of Virginia and boasting the world’s largest natural deepwater harbor, the Hampton Roads MSA includes the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach and Williamsburg and the counties of Isle of Wight, Gloucester, James City, Mathews, York and Surry.

The Hampton Roads MSA is the largest market between Washington, D.C. and Atlanta, Georgia, and the fourth largest MSA in the southeast. The region saw a 7.0% increase in population between 2000 and 2008 and was home to 1.7 million people. The Virginia Employment Commission projects the population in the Hampton Roads MSA to be nearly 1.82 million people by the year 2020.

The banking business in Virginia, and in the Company’s primary service area in Hampton Roads, is highly competitive, and is dominated by a relatively small number of large banks with many offices operating over a wide geographic area. Among the advantages such large banks have over the Company is their ability to finance wide-ranging advertising campaigns and, by virtue of their greater total capitalization, to have substantially higher lending limits than the Company.

Factors such as interest rates offered, the number and location of branches and the types of products offered, as well as the reputation of the institution affect competition for deposits and loans. The Company competes by emphasizing customer service and technology, establishing long-term customer relationships and building customer loyalty, and providing products and services to address the specific needs of the Company’s customers. The Company targets individual and small-to-medium size business customers.

1

Table of Contents

The Hampton Roads MSA is the third largest deposit market in Virginia, after Richmond and the Washington Metropolitan area, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The Company’s market area is serviced by 383 branches of banks and savings and loans and 53 credit unions. Because community banks typically rely on branch deposits to fund loans, competition for local deposits is fierce. This is particularly true now with the recent upheaval in the financial services industry. According to research conducted by Aite Group LLC, community banks are well positioned to reclaim ground lost to larger banks and are better positioning themselves for future success through opportunities that have arisen from the economic crisis. More than half of the community banks that were surveyed by Aite Group LLC have experienced growth in deposits as a result of new customer acquisition and existing customers maintaining higher balances than in the past.

In order to capitalize on these opportunities and come out of the crisis stronger, community banks must establish themselves to compete with larger banks in the long term. To accomplish this, the Company is focused on strengthening customer loyalty, establishing a strong, customer-focused brand and improving its cross-selling strategies across all lines of business. Because high levels of trust drive both referral behavior and future purchase intentions, and because loyalty experts agree it is more cost effective to retain customers than to acquire them, the Company is concentrating its efforts with its own customer base. Furthermore, recent ad campaigns have centered on building an emotional connection to the Company and reinforcing the Company’s brand essence, “Real. Friendly.”, in every interaction with every customer every day.

Currently, the Company is striving to build a stronger presence with business customers, where greater opportunities for fee-based revenues and cross-selling exist. In 2009, the Company expanded its treasury services offerings by adding a Corporate Banking group and expanding its product offerings to match those offered by larger institutions.

As of June 30, 2009, the Company holds eighth place with 3% market share of all Hampton Roads deposits. The Company’s total deposits for the entire Hampton Roads area grew by almost $13.0 million, or 2% between June 2008 and June 2009. In Hampton, the Company retains first place with 34% market share. In addition, deposit growth in other parts of the peninsula between June 2008 and June 2009 was good. Deposits in Newport News grew 13%, in Isle of Wight deposits grew 9% and in Williamsburg and James City County deposits grew 8%.

Overall deposit growth remains strong in some of the Company’s smaller markets as well. The Company opened its second Virginia Beach location in January of 2008 and this upward deposit trend continued with 16% deposit growth between June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009.

The Company has seen some decline in deposits in some areas. Some of this decline can be attributed to the movement of government funds. However, with the opening of the Company’s Ghent branch in November of 2009, the Company expects its market share to increase in this area of the MSA.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

The Company maintains a website on the Internet at www.oldpoint.com. The Company makes available free of charge, on or through its website, its proxy statements, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This reference to the Company’s Internet address shall not, under any circumstances, be deemed to incorporate the information available at such Internet address into this Form 10-K or other SEC filings. The information available at the Company’s Internet address is not part of this Form 10-K or any other report filed by the Company with the SEC. The public may read and copy any documents the Company files at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The Company’s SEC filings can also be obtained on the SEC’s website on the Internet at www.sec.gov.

REGULATION AND SUPERVISION

Set forth below is a brief description of some of the material laws and regulations that affect the Company. The description of these statutes and regulations is only a summary and does not purport to be complete. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the statutes and regulations summarized below. No assurance can be given that these statutes or regulations will not change in the future.

2

Table of Contents

General. The Company is subject to the periodic reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), which include, but are not limited to, the filing of annual, quarterly and other reports with the SEC. As an Exchange Act reporting company, the Company is directly affected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the SOX), which is aimed at improving corporate governance and reporting procedures and requires additional corporate governance measures and expanded disclosure of the Company’s corporate operations and internal controls. The Company is complying with the applicable SEC and other rules and regulations implemented pursuant to the SOX and intends to comply with any applicable rules and regulations implemented in the future. Although the Company has incurred and will continue to incur additional expense in complying with the provisions of the SOX and the resulting regulations, this compliance has not had, and is not expected to have, a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, and is registered as such with, and subject to the supervision of, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Generally, a bank holding company is required to obtain the approval of the Board of Governors before it may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, and before it may acquire ownership or control of the voting shares of any bank if, after giving effect to the acquisition, the bank holding company would own or control more than 5 percent of the voting shares of such bank. The approval of the Board of Governors is also required for the merger or consolidation of bank holding companies.

The Company is required to file periodic reports with the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) and provide any additional information the FRB may require. The FRB also has the authority to examine the Company and its subsidiaries, as well as any arrangements between the Company and its subsidiaries, with the cost of any such examinations to be borne by the Company.

Banking subsidiaries of bank holding companies are also subject to certain restrictions imposed by Federal law in dealings with their holding companies and other affiliates. Subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Federal Reserve Act, a bank can loan or extend credit to an affiliate, purchase or invest in the securities of an affiliate, purchase assets from an affiliate or issue a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate, as long as the aggregate amount of such transactions of a bank and its subsidiaries with its affiliates does not exceed 10 percent of the capital stock and surplus of the bank on a per affiliate basis or 20 percent of the capital stock and surplus of the bank on an aggregate affiliate basis. In addition, such transactions must be on terms and conditions that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. In particular, a bank and its subsidiaries generally may not purchase from an affiliate a low-quality asset, as defined in the Federal Reserve Act. These restrictions also prevent a bank holding company and its other affiliates from borrowing from a banking subsidiary of the bank holding company unless the loans are secured by marketable collateral of designated amounts. Additionally, the Company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, sale or lease of property or furnishing of services.

A bank holding company is prohibited from engaging in or acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5 percent of the voting shares of any company engaged in nonbanking activities. A bank holding company may, however, engage in or acquire an interest in a company that engages in activities which the FRB has determined by regulation or order are so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to banking. In making these determinations, the FRB considers whether the performance of such activities by a bank holding company would offer advantages to the public that outweigh possible adverse effects.

As a national bank, the Bank is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the Comptroller). Each depositor’s account with the Bank is insured by the FDIC to the maximum amount permitted by law. The Bank is also subject to certain regulations promulgated by the FRB and applicable provisions of Virginia law, insofar as they do not conflict with or are not preempted by federal banking law.

As a non-depository national banking association, Trust is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the Comptroller. Trust’s exercise of fiduciary powers must comply with Regulation 9 promulgated by the Comptroller and with Virginia law.

3

Table of Contents

The regulations of the FDIC, the Comptroller and FRB govern most aspects of the Company’s business, including deposit reserve requirements, investments, loans, certain check clearing activities, issuance of securities, payment of dividends, branching, deposit interest rate ceilings and numerous other matters. As a consequence of the extensive regulation of commercial banking activities in the United States, the Company’s business is particularly susceptible to changes in state and Federal legislation and regulations, which may have the effect of increasing the cost of doing business, limiting permissible activities or increasing competition.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. It is not clear at this time what impact initiatives of the United States Treasury and other bank regulatory agencies will have on the financial markets, the financial services industry, the Company, the Bank or Trust. Examples of such initiatives that have been announced include the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the EESA), enacted October 3, 2008, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the ARRA), enacted February 17, 2009 which amended the EESA. Additional programs may be initiated by bank regulatory agencies in the future.

Capital Requirements. The FRB, the Comptroller and the FDIC have adopted risk-based capital adequacy guidelines for bank holding companies and banks. These capital adequacy regulations are based upon a risk-based capital determination, whereby a bank holding company’s capital adequacy is determined in light of the risk, both on- and off-balance sheet, contained in the company’s assets. Different categories of assets are assigned risk weightings by the regulatory agencies and are counted as a percentage of their book value. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Capital Resources” in Item 7 of this report on Form 10-K.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA). There are five capital categories applicable to insured institutions, each with specific regulatory consequences. If the appropriate federal banking agency determines, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, that an insured institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition, it may reclassify the institution to the next lower capital category (other than critically undercapitalized) and require the submission of a plan to correct the unsafe or unsound condition. The Comptroller has issued regulations to implement these provisions. Under these regulations, the categories are:

a. Well Capitalized — the institution exceeds the required minimum level for each relevant capital measure. A well capitalized institution is one (i) having a Risk-based Capital Ratio of 10 percent or greater, (ii) having a Tier 1 Risk-based Capital Ratio of 6 percent or greater, (iii) having a Leverage Ratio of 5 percent or greater and (iv) that is not subject to any order or written directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.

b. Adequately Capitalized — the institution meets the required minimum level for each relevant capital measure. No capital distribution may be made that would result in the institution becoming undercapitalized. An adequately capitalized institution is one (i) having a Risk-based Capital Ratio of 8 percent or greater, (ii) having a Tier 1 Risk-based Capital Ratio of 4 percent or greater and (iii) having a Leverage Ratio of 4 percent or greater or a Leverage Ratio of 3 percent or greater if the institution is rated composite 1 under the CAMELS (Capital, Assets, Management, Earnings, Liquidity and Sensitivity to market risk) rating system.

c. Undercapitalized — the institution fails to meet the required minimum level for any relevant capital measure. An undercapitalized institution is one (i) having a Risk-based Capital Ratio of less than 8 percent or (ii) having a Tier 1 Risk-based Capital Ratio of less than 4 percent or (iii) having a Leverage Ratio of less than 4 percent, or if the institution is rated a composite 1 under the CAMELS rating system, a Leverage Ratio of less than 3 percent.

d. Significantly Undercapitalized — the institution is significantly below the required minimum level for any relevant capital measure. A significantly undercapitalized institution is one (i) having a Risk-based Capital Ratio of less than 6 percent or (ii) having a Tier 1 Risk-based Capital Ratio of less than 3 percent or (iii) having a Leverage Ratio of less than 3 percent.

e. Critically Undercapitalized — the institution fails to meet a critical capital level set by the appropriate federal banking agency. A critically undercapitalized institution is one having a ratio of tangible equity to total assets that is equal to or less than 2 percent.

4

Table of Contents

An institution which is less than adequately capitalized must adopt an acceptable capital restoration plan, is subject to increased regulatory oversight, and is increasingly restricted in the scope of its permissible activities. Each company having control over an undercapitalized institution must provide a limited guarantee that the institution will comply with its capital restoration plan. Except under limited circumstances consistent with an accepted capital restoration plan, an undercapitalized institution may not grow. An undercapitalized institution may not acquire another institution, establish additional branch offices or engage in any new line of business unless determined by the appropriate federal banking agency to be consistent with an accepted capital restoration plan, or unless the FDIC determines that the proposed action will further the purpose of prompt corrective action. The appropriate federal banking agency may take any action authorized for a significantly undercapitalized institution if an undercapitalized institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fails in any material respect to implement a plan accepted by the agency. A critically undercapitalized institution is subject to having a receiver or conservator appointed to manage its affairs and for loss of its charter to conduct banking activities.

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

Deposit Insurance Assessments. The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (the DIF) of the FDIC. The DIF is the successor to the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, which were merged in 2006. The FDIC amended its risk-based assessment system for 2007 to implement authority granted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (FDIRA). Under the revised system, insured institutions are assigned to one of four risk categories based on supervisory evaluations, regulatory capital levels and certain other factors. An institution’s assessment rate depends upon the category to which it is assigned. Unlike the other categories, Risk Category I, which contains the least risky depository institutions, contains further risk differentiation based on the FDIC’s analysis of financial ratios, examination component ratings and other information.

Under the financial ratios method, each financial ratio and a weighted average of CAMELS component ratings is multiplied by a pricing multiplier. The weights applied to CAMELS components are as follows: 25 percent each for Capital and Management; 20 percent for Asset quality; and 10 percent each for Earnings, Liquidity, and Sensitivity to market risk. The CAMELS component weights and pricing multipliers are the same for all institutions subject to the financial ratios method.

Beginning April 1, 2009, the FDIC introduced a new financial ratio into the financial ratios method (the adjusted brokered deposit ratio). The adjusted brokered deposit ratio affects institutions whose brokered deposits are more than 10 percent of domestic deposits and whose total assets are more than 40 percent greater than they were four years previously. The adjusted brokered deposit ratio excludes certain reciprocal deposits for institutions in Risk Category I. Brokered deposits that consist of balances swept into an insured institution are included in the adjusted brokered deposit ratio for all institutions.

FDIRA also provided for a one-time credit for eligible institutions based on their assessment base as of December 31, 1996. Subject to certain limitations with respect to institutions that are exhibiting weaknesses, credits can be used to offset assessments until exhausted. The Company’s one-time credit was $360 thousand, of which $135 thousand and $225 thousand were applied to offset assessments in 2008 and 2007, respectively. FDIRA also provided for the possibility that the FDIC may pay dividends to insured institutions if the DIF reserve ratio equals or exceeds 1.35 percent of estimated insured deposits.

On February 27, 2009, the FDIC: (1) adopted a final rule modifying the risk-based assessment system and setting initial base assessments rates beginning April 1, 2009, at 12 to 45 basis points, and (2) due to extraordinary circumstances, extended the period of its Restoration Plan to replenish the DIF from five to seven years.

5

Table of Contents

On May 22, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule imposing a 5 basis point special assessment on each insured depository institution’s assets minus Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009. The special assessment was collected on September 30, 2009.

On November 12, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule to require insured deposit institutions to prepay their quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012 on December 30, 2009, along with each institution’s risk-based assessment for the third quarter of 2009.

The EESA temporarily raised the basic limit on federal deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor until December 31, 2009. In 2009, the insurance coverage of $250,000 per depositor was extended until December 31, 2013. The legislation did not increase coverage for retirement accounts, which will continue to be $250,000.

On October 13, 2008, the FDIC adopted the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (the TLGP) because of disruptions in the credit market, particularly the interbank lending market, which reduced banks’ liquidity and impaired their ability to lend. The goal of the TLGP is to decrease the cost of bank funding so that bank lending to consumers and businesses will normalize. The TLGP is industry funded and does not rely on the DIF to achieve its goals. The final rule implementing the TLGP was approved by the FDIC Board of Directors on November 21, 2008. The TLGP consists of two components: a temporary guarantee of newly-issued senior unsecured debt (the Debt Guarantee Program) and a temporary unlimited guarantee of funds in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts at FDIC-insured institutions (the Transaction Account Guarantee Program). The Company is participating in both of these programs and will be required to pay assessments associated with the TLGP as follows:

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the GLBA) implemented major changes to the statutory framework for providing banking and other financial services in the United States. The GLBA, among other things, eliminated many of the restrictions on affiliations among banks and securities firms, insurance firms and other financial service providers. A bank holding company that qualifies as a financial holding company will be permitted to engage in activities that are financial in nature or incident or complementary to financial activities. The activities that the GLBA expressly lists as financial in nature include insurance underwriting, sales and brokerage activities, providing financial and investment advisory services, underwriting services and limited merchant banking activities.

To become eligible for these expanded activities, a bank holding company must qualify as a financial holding company. To qualify as a financial holding company, each insured depository institution controlled by the bank holding company must be well-capitalized, well-managed and have at least a satisfactory rating under the CRA (discussed below). In addition, the bank holding company must file with the FRB a declaration of its intention to become a financial holding company. While the Company satisfies these requirements, the Company has elected for various reasons not to be treated as a financial holding company under the GLBA.

6

Table of Contents

The GLBA has not had a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations. To the extent that it allows banks, securities firms and insurance firms to affiliate, the financial services industry has experienced further consolidation. This consolidation has the result of increasing competition faced from larger institutions and other companies offering financial products and services, many of which may have substantially greater financial resources.

The GLBA and certain new regulations issued by federal banking agencies also provide protections against the transfer and use by financial institutions of consumer nonpublic personal information. A financial institution must provide to its customers, at the beginning of the customer relationship and annually thereafter, the institution’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of customers’ nonpublic personal financial information. These privacy provisions generally prohibit a financial institution from providing a customer’s personal financial information to unaffiliated third parties unless the institution discloses to the customer that the information may be so provided and the customer is given the opportunity to opt out of such disclosure.

Community Reinvestment Act. The Company is subject to the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act (the CRA). The CRA imposes on financial institutions an affirmative and ongoing obligation to meet the credit needs of their local communities, including low and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of those institutions. A financial institution’s efforts in meeting community credit needs are currently evaluated as part of the examination process. These efforts also are considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions and applications to open a branch or facility.

USA Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act became effective on October 26, 2001 and provides for the facilitation of information sharing among governmental entities and financial institutions for the purpose of combating terrorism and money laundering. Among other provisions, the USA Patriot Act permits financial institutions, upon providing notice to the United States Treasury, to share information with one another in order to better identify and report to the federal government concerning activities that may involve money laundering or terrorists’ activities. The USA Patriot Act is considered a significant banking law in terms of information disclosure regarding certain customer transactions. Certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act impose the obligation to establish anti-money laundering programs, including the development of a customer identification program, and the screening of all customers against any government lists of known or suspected terrorists. Although it does create a reporting obligation and compliance costs, the USA Patriot Act has not materially affected the Company’s products, services or other business activities.

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

Consumer Laws and Regulations. The Company is also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the list set forth herein is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions transact business with customers. The Company must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of its ongoing customer relations.

7

Table of Contents

U.S. and international credit markets and economic conditions could adversely affect liquidity and financial condition. Global market and economic conditions appear to be improving but could continue to be disrupted and volatile. Although the Company remains well capitalized and has not suffered any liquidity issues, the cost and availability of funds may be adversely affected by illiquid credit markets. Continued turbulence in the U.S. and international markets and economy may adversely affect the Company’s liquidity, financial condition and profitability.

The Company is subject to interest rate risk and variations in interest rates may negatively affect its financial performance. The Company’s profitability depends in substantial part on its net interest margin, which is the difference between the rates received on loans and investments and the rates paid for deposits and other sources of funds. The net interest margin depends on many factors that are partly or completely outside of the Company’s control, including competition; federal economic, monetary and fiscal policies; and economic conditions. Changes in interest rates affect operating performance and financial condition. The Company tries to minimize its exposure to interest rate risk, but it is unable to completely eliminate this risk. Because of the differences in the maturities and repricing characteristics of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, changes in interest rates do not produce equivalent changes in interest income earned on interest-earning assets and interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities. Accordingly, fluctuations in interest rates could adversely affect the Company’s net interest margin and, in turn, its profitability. At December 31, 2009, based on scheduled maturities only, the Company’s balance sheet was liability sensitive at the one year time frame and, as a result, its net interest margin will tend to decrease in a rising interest rate environment and increase in a declining interest rate environment.

In addition, any substantial and prolonged increase in market interest rates could reduce the Company’s customers’ desire to borrow money or adversely affect their ability to repay their outstanding loans by increasing their credit costs. Interest rate changes could also affect the fair value of the Company’s financial assets and liabilities. Accordingly, changes in levels of market interest rates could materially and adversely affect the Company’s net interest margin, asset quality, loan origination volume, business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The Company’s substantial dependence on dividends from its subsidiaries may prevent it from paying dividends to its stockholders and adversely affect its business, results of operations or financial condition. The Company is a separate legal entity from its subsidiaries and does not have significant operations or revenues of its own. The Company substantially depends on dividends from its subsidiaries to pay dividends to stockholders and to pay its operating expenses. The availability of dividends from the subsidiaries is limited by various statutes and regulations. It is possible, depending upon the financial condition of the Company and other factors, that the Comptroller could assert that payment of dividends by the subsidiaries is an unsafe or unsound practice. In the event the subsidiaries are unable to pay dividends to the Company, the Company may not be able to pay dividends on the Company’s common stock, service debt or pay operating expenses. Consequently, the inability to receive dividends from the subsidiaries could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects and limit stockholders’ return, if any, to capital appreciation.

The Company’s profitability depends significantly on local economic conditions. The Company’s success depends primarily on the general economic conditions of the markets the Company operates in. Unlike larger financial institutions that are more geographically diversified, the Company provides banking and financial services to customers primarily in the Hampton Roads MSA. The local economic conditions in this area have a significant impact on the demand for loans, the ability of the borrowers to repay these loans and the value of the collateral securing these loans. A significant decline in general economic conditions, caused by inflation, recession, acts of terrorism, an outbreak of hostilities or other international or domestic calamities, unemployment or other factors beyond our control could impact these local economic conditions. The decline in general economic conditions and the current recession have negatively affected the financial results of the Company’s operations.

A decline in real estate values could cause a significant portion of the Company’s loan portfolio to be under-collateralized and adversely impact the Company’s operating results and financial condition. The market value of real estate, particularly real estate held for investment, can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time as a result of market conditions in the geographic area in which the real estate is located. If the value of

8

Table of Contents

the real estate serving as collateral for the Company’s loan portfolio were to decline materially, a significant part of the loan portfolio could become under-collateralized. If the loans that are collateralized by real estate become troubled during a time when market conditions are declining or have declined, then, in the event of foreclosure, the Company may not be able to realize the amount of collateral that it anticipated at the time of originating the loan. The market value of real estate has declined, leaving the Company with certain loans that are under-collateralized. Some of these loans have become troubled and have been foreclosed upon, and the Company was unable to realize the expected value of the collateral. Due to these events, the Company has increased its loan loss provision and established a valuation reserve for foreclosed assets. In addition, the Company has experienced losses when selling foreclosed property. These three factors have had an adverse affect on operating results.

Market risk affects the earnings of Trust. The fee structure of Trust is generally based upon the market value of accounts under administration. Most of these accounts are invested in equities of publicly traded companies and debt obligations of both government agencies and publicly traded companies. As such, fluctuations in the equity and debt markets in general have had a direct impact upon the earnings of Trust.

The Company may be adversely affected by changes in government monetary policy. As a bank holding company, the Company’s business is affected by the monetary policies established by the Board of Governors of the FRB, which regulates the national money supply in order to mitigate recessionary and inflationary pressures. In setting its policy, the FRB may utilize techniques such as the following:

These techniques may have an adverse effect on deposit levels, net interest margin, loan demand or the Company’s business and operations.

The allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual losses. A significant source of risk arises from the possibility that losses could be sustained because borrowers, guarantors, and related parties may fail to perform in accordance with the terms of their loans and leases. Like all financial institutions, the Company maintains an allowance for loan losses to provide for loan defaults and non-performance. The allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual loan losses. In addition, future provisions for loan losses could, and has in 2009, materially and adversely affected the Company’s operating results. The allowance for loan losses is determined by analyzing historical loan losses, current trends in delinquencies and charge-offs, plans for problem loan resolutions, changes in the size and composition of the loan portfolio and industry information. Also included in management’s estimates for loan losses are considerations with respect to the impact of economic events, the outcome of which are uncertain. The amount of future losses is susceptible to changes in economic and other conditions, including changes in interest rates, that may be beyond the Company’s control and these future losses may exceed current estimates. Federal regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review the Company’s loans and allowance for loan losses. While management believes that the Company’s allowance is adequate to cover current losses, the Company cannot assure investors that it will not need to increase the allowance or that regulators will not require the allowance to be increased. Either of these occurrences could materially and adversely affect earnings and profitability.

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation which could adversely affect them. The Company is subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities and is subject to various laws and judicial and administrative decisions imposing requirements and restrictions on part or all of operations. Regulations adopted by these agencies, which are generally intended to protect depositors and customers rather than to benefit stockholders, govern a comprehensive range of matters including, without limitation, ownership and control of the Company’s shares, acquisition of other companies and businesses, permissible activities that the Company and its subsidiaries may engage in, maintenance of adequate capital levels and other aspects of operations. These regulations could limit the Company’s growth by restricting certain of its activities. The laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Company are subject to regular modification and change. Regulatory changes could subject the Company to more demanding regulatory compliance requirements which could affect the Company in unpredictable and adverse ways. Such changes could subject the Company to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products it may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws,

9

Table of Contents

regulations or policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties and/or reputation damage, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Legislation and regulatory initiative containing wide-ranging proposals for altering the structure, regulation and competitive relationship of financial institutions are introduced regularly. The Company cannot predict whether or what form of proposed statute or regulation will be adopted or the extent to which such adoption may affect its business.

The Company’s future success depends on its ability to compete effectively in the highly competitive financial services industry. The Company faces substantial competition in all phases of its operations from a variety of different competitors. Growth and success depends on the Company’s ability to compete effectively in this highly competitive financial services environment. Many competitors offer products and services that are not offered by the Company, and many have substantially greater resources, name recognition and market presence that benefit them in attracting business. In addition, larger competitors may be able to price loans and deposits more aggressively and may have larger lending limits that would allow them to serve the credit needs of larger customers. Some of the financial services organizations with which the Company competes are not subject to the same degree of regulation as is imposed on bank holding companies and federally insured national banks. As a result, these non-bank competitors have certain advantages over the Company in accessing funding and in providing various services. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. Failure to compete effectively to attract new and retain current customers in the Company’s markets could cause it to lose market share, slow its growth rate and may have an adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.

Negative public opinion could damage the Company’s reputation and adversely impact the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operation. Reputation risk, or the risk to the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operation from negative public opinion, is inherent in the financial services industry. Negative public opinion can result from actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices and corporate governance, and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public opinion could adversely affect the Company’s ability to keep and attract customers and employees and could expose it to litigation and regulatory action. Damage to the Company’s reputation could adversely affect deposits and loans and otherwise negatively affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operation.

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to transaction risk, which could adversely affect business, financial condition and results of operation. The Company and its subsidiaries, like all businesses, are subject to transaction risk, which is the risk of loss resulting from human error, fraud or unauthorized transactions due to inadequate or failed internal processes and systems, and external events that are wholly or partially beyond the Company’s control (including, for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages). Transaction risk also encompasses compliance (legal) risk, which is the risk of loss from violations of, or noncompliance with, laws, rules, regulations, prescribed practices or ethical standards. Although the Company and its subsidiaries seek to mitigate operational risk through a system of internal controls, there can be no assurance that they will not suffer losses from operational risks in the future that may be material in amount. Any losses resulting from transaction risk could take the form of explicit charges, increased operational costs, litigation costs, harm to reputation or forgone opportunities, any and all of which could have a material adverse effect on business, financial condition and results of operations.

None.

As of December 31, 2009, the Company owns the main office located in Hampton, Virginia, five office buildings and 16 branches. All of these are owned directly and free of any encumbrances. The land at the Fort Monroe branch is leased by the Company under an agreement expiring in October 2011. Two of the remaining three branches are leased from unrelated parties. The Crown Center branch is leased from Crown Center Associates, LLC, which is indirectly owned by Michael Glasser, a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. The three branch leases have renewal options that expire anywhere from five to eleven years.

10

Table of Contents

For more information concerning the commitments under current leasing agreements, see Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this report on Form 10-K.

Neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries is a party to any material pending legal proceedings before any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

11

Table of Contents

Part II

The common stock of the Company is quoted on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “OPOF”. The approximate number of stockholders of record as of February 26, 2010 was 1,259. On that date, the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Capital Market was $14.39. The range of high and low prices and dividends paid per share of the Company’s common stock for each quarter during 2009 and 2008 is presented in Item 7 of this report on Form 10-K under “Capital Resources” and is incorporated herein by reference. Additional information related to stockholder matters can be found in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” of this report on Form 10-K.

On January 6, 2009, the Company authorized a program to repurchase during any given calendar year up to an aggregate of 5 percent of the shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding as of January 1 of that calendar year. The Company did not repurchase any shares of the Company’s common stock during 2009. On January 12, 2010, the Company replaced the 2009 plan with a similar plan. There is currently no stated expiration date for this program.

Five Year Stock Performance. The line graph below compares the Company’s stockholder return with the return of the NASDAQ Bank Index and the Russell 2000 Index.

This performance graph was created by comparing the percentage change in stock prices for the Company and the indices on a year to year basis, factoring in dividend payments, and looking only at the closing price of the stock as of December 31 of each year surveyed. This graph may be affected by unusually high or low prices at December 31, 2004 or by temporary swings in stock price at December 31 of any given year. Accordingly, this is not necessarily the best measure of the Company’s performance.

The index reflects the total return on the stock that is shown, including price appreciation, all stock splits and stock dividends, and reinvestment of cash dividends at time of payment, relative to the value of the stock at the beginning of the time period. Thus a move from 100 to 150 on the index scale indicates a 50% increase in the value of the investment. The NASDAQ Bank Composite Index contains all non-holding company banking institutions traded on the NASDAQ exchange. In addition to traditional banks this includes thrifts, but does not include other non-regulated finance companies. The Russell 2000 Index is comprised of the smallest 2000 companies in the Russell 3000 Index, which tracks almost 99% of the stocks included in portfolios of institutional investors.

12

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the Company’s performance for the past five years.

SELECTED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

13

Table of Contents

The following discussion is intended to assist readers in understanding and evaluating the financial condition, changes in financial condition and the results of operations of the Company, consisting of the parent company (the Parent) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Bank and Trust. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and other financial information contained elsewhere in this report.

Caution About Forward-Looking Statements

In addition to historical information, this report may contain forward-looking statements. For this purpose, any statement that is not a statement of historical fact may be deemed to be a forward-looking statement. These forward-looking statements may include statements regarding profitability, liquidity, allowance for loan losses, interest rate sensitivity, market risk, growth strategy and financial and other goals. Forward-looking statements often use words such as “believes,” “expects,” “plans,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “projects,” “contemplates,” “anticipates,” “forecasts,” “intends” or other words of similar meaning. You can also identify them by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties, and actual results could differ materially from historical results or those anticipated by such statements.

There are many factors that could have a material adverse effect on the operations and future prospects of the Company including, but not limited to, changes in interest rates, general economic conditions, the quality or composition of the loan or investment portfolios, the level of nonperforming assets and charge-offs, the local real estate market, volatility and disruption in national and international financial markets, government intervention in the U.S. financial system, FDIC premiums and/or assessments, demand for loan products, deposit flows, competition, and accounting principles, policies and guidelines. Monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. Government could also adversely affect the Company; such policies include the impact of any regulations or programs implemented pursuant to the EESA, the ARRA and other policies of the Comptroller, U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board.

The Company has experienced losses due to the current economic climate. Dramatic declines in the residential and commercial real estate market in the past year have resulted in significant write-downs of asset values by the Company as well as by other financial institutions in the U.S. Concerns about the stability of the U.S. financial markets generally have reduced the availability of funding to certain financial institutions, leading to a tightening of credit, reduction of business activity, and increased market volatility.

On May 22, 2009, the FDIC approved a final rule to impose a special assessment of 5 basis points on each bank’s total assets minus Tier 1 capital in order to replenish the DIF. The special assessments, plus higher quarterly assessments have impacted and will continue to impact the Company’s performance by directly increasing expenses. In addition, in November of 2009, the FDIC issued a final rule that required insured institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012. The prepaid assessment for these periods was collected on December 30, 2009.

It is not clear what other impacts the EESA, the ARRA or other liquidity and funding initiatives of the Treasury and other bank regulatory agencies will have on the financial markets and the financial services industry. The extreme levels of volatility and limited credit availability currently being experienced could continue to affect the U.S. banking industry and the broader U.S. and global economies, which would have an effect on all financial institutions, including the Company.

These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating the forward-looking statements contained herein, and readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such statements. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which it is made. In addition, past results of operations are not necessarily indicative of future results.

Executive Overview

Description of Operations

Headquartered in Hampton, Virginia, the Company is the parent company of Trust and the Bank. Trust is a wealth management services provider. The Bank offers a complete line of consumer, mortgage and business banking services, including loan, deposit, and cash management services to individual and business customers. The Bank is an independent community bank. In November of 2009, the Bank opened the Ghent office in Norfolk. With this opening, the Bank has 21 branches throughout the Hampton Roads localities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Isle of Wight County, Newport News, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Williamsburg/James City County and York County.

14

Table of Contents

Primary Financial Data for 2009

The Company earned $1.7 million in 2009, a 75.23% decrease in net income from 2008. Net interest income for 2009 decreased by $136 thousand as compared to net interest income for 2008. Due to the economy, the decline in real estate values and trends in nonaccruals and past due loans, the Company increased its provision for loan losses to $6.9 million in 2009 as compared to $2.4 million in 2008. Noninterest income for 2009 declined slightly as compared to noninterest income for 2008 and noninterest expense was $2.8 million higher in 2009 as compared to 2008.

Significant Factors Affecting Earnings in 2009

Major factors in the decrease in 2009 income as compared to 2008 were an increase in the provision for loan losses of $4.5 million, an increase in FDIC insurance costs of $1.5 million, an increase of $418 thousand in loan expenses, and an increase of $252 thousand in loss on write-down or sale of foreclosed assets. The increase in loan expenses was due to an additional $444 thousand in expenses related to foreclosed assets and legal fees related to loans.

On September 10, 2007, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement with Tidewater Mortgage Services, Inc. to provide mortgage origination services. Under the terms of the agreement, the joint venture is called Old Point Mortgage, LLC and is headquartered in Hampton. The Company owns 49% of Old Point Mortgage, LLC. Tidewater Mortgage Services, Inc. owns 51% of Old Point Mortgage, LLC and is the managing member. Earnings from this joint venture in 2009 were $172 thousand more than earnings in 2008.

Critical Accounting Estimates

The accounting and reporting policies of the Company are in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and conform to general practices within the banking industry. The Company’s financial position and results of operations are affected by management’s application of accounting policies, including estimates, assumptions and judgments made to arrive at the carrying value of assets and liabilities and amounts reported for revenues, expenses and related disclosures. Different assumptions in the application of these policies could result in material changes in the Company’s consolidated financial position and/or results of operations. The accounting policy that required management’s most difficult, subjective or complex judgments is the Company’s Allowance for Loan Losses, which is described below.

Allowance for Loan Losses

The allowance for loan losses is an estimate of the losses that may be sustained in the loan portfolio. The allowance is based on three basic principles of accounting which require: (i) that losses be accrued when they are probable of occurring and estimable, (ii) that losses be accrued based on the differences between the value of collateral, present value of future cash flows or values that are observable in the secondary market and the loan balance and (iii) that adequate documentation exist to support the allowance for loan losses estimate.

The Company’s allowance for loan losses is the accumulation of various components that are calculated based on independent methodologies. Management’s estimate is based on certain observable, historical data that management believes are most reflective of the underlying credit losses being estimated. This evaluation includes credit quality trends; collateral values; loan volumes; geographic, borrower and industry concentrations; seasoning of the loan portfolio; the findings of internal credit quality assessments and results from external Company regulatory examinations. These factors, as well as historical losses and current economic and business conditions, are used in developing estimated loss factors used in the calculations.

Authoritative accounting literature requires that the impairment of loans that have been separately identified for evaluation be measured based on the present value of expected future cash flows or, alternatively, the observable market price of the loans or the fair value of the collateral. However, for those loans that are collateral dependent (that is, if repayment of those loans is expected to be provided solely by the underlying collateral) and for which management has determined foreclosure is probable, the measure of impairment is to be based on the net realizable value of the collateral. Authoritative accounting literature, as amended, also requires certain disclosures about investments in impaired loans and the allowance for loan losses and interest income recognized on loans.

15

Table of Contents

Reserves for commercial loans are determined by applying estimated loss factors to the portfolio based on management’s evaluation and “risk grading” of the commercial loan portfolio. Reserves are provided for noncommercial loan categories using estimated loss factors applied to the total outstanding loan balance of each loan category. Specific reserves are determined on a loan-by-loan basis based on management’s evaluation of the Company’s exposure for each credit, given the current payment status of the loan and the net market value of any underlying collateral.

While management uses the best information available to establish the allowance for loan and lease losses, future adjustment to the allowance may be necessary if economic conditions differ substantially from the assumptions used in making the valuations or if required by regulators, based upon information available to them at the time of their examinations. Such adjustments to original estimates, as necessary, are made in the period in which these factors and other relevant considerations indicate that loss levels may vary from previous estimates.

Income Taxes

The Company recognizes expense for federal income and state bank franchise taxes payable as well as deferred federal income taxes for estimated future tax effects of temporary differences between the tax basis of assets and liabilities and amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements. Income and franchise tax returns are subject to audit by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities. Income and franchise tax expense for current and prior periods is subject to adjustment based on the outcome of such audits. The Company believes it has adequately provided for all taxes payable.

Earnings Summary

Net income was $1.7 million, or $0.34 diluted earnings per share in 2009 compared to $6.8 million, or $1.38 diluted earnings per share in 2008 and $8.0 million, or $1.59 diluted earnings per share in 2007. During 2009, the Company increased its loan loss provision to $6.9 million as compared to $2.4 million and $1.0 million in 2008 and 2007 respectively. The increase to the loan loss provision was made to ensure that the Company has adequately provided for loan losses caused by the downturn in the economy and a decline in real estate values. In addition, the cost of FDIC insurance increased by $1.5 million over 2008 and $1.6 million when compared to 2007.

Net Interest Income

The principal source of earnings for the Company is net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest and fees generated by earning assets and interest expense paid to fund them. Changes in the volume and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, as well as their respective yields and rates, have a significant impact on the level of net interest income. The net interest margin is calculated by dividing tax equivalent net interest income by average earning assets. Net interest income, on a fully tax-equivalent basis, was $27.7 million in 2009, down $341 thousand from 2008 and up $1.3 million from 2007. The net interest margin was 3.44% in 2009 as compared to 3.61% in 2008 and 3.42% in 2007.

When comparing 2009 to 2008, the following changes were noted. Tax equivalent interest income decreased $5.0 million, or 10.68%. Average earning assets grew $29.6 million, or 3.82%. Total average loans increased $10.7 million, or 1.72%, while average investment securities increased $24.2 million, or 23.05%. The yield on earning assets decreased by 85 basis points due to decreasing yields in both the investment and loan portfolios.

Interest expense decreased $4.7 million, or 24.64% in 2009 as compared to 2008, while average interest-bearing liabilities increased $27.7 million, or 4.31%. The cost of interest-bearing liabilities decreased 82 basis points due to lower interest rates.

16

Table of Contents

The following table shows an analysis of average earning assets, interest-bearing liabilities and rates and yields. Nonaccrual loans are included in loans outstanding.

TABLE I

AVERAGE BALANCE SHEETS, NET INTEREST INCOME* AND RATES*

17

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes changes in net interest income attributable to changes in the volume of interest- bearing assets and liabilities and changes in interest rates.

TABLE II

VOLUME AND RATE ANALYSIS*

(in thousands)

Interest Sensitivity

An important element of earnings performance and the maintenance of sufficient liquidity is proper management of the interest sensitivity gap. The interest sensitivity gap is the difference between interest sensitive assets and interest sensitive liabilities in a specific time interval. This gap can be managed by repricing assets or liabilities, which are variable rate instruments, by replacing an asset or liability at maturity or by adjusting the interest rate during the life of the asset or liability. Matching the amounts of assets and liabilities maturing in the same time interval helps to hedge interest rate risk and to minimize the impact of rising or falling interest rates on net interest income.

The Company determines the overall magnitude of interest sensitivity risk and then formulates policies governing asset generation and pricing, funding sources and pricing, and off-balance sheet commitments. These decisions are based on management’s expectations regarding future interest rate movements, the state of the national and

18

Table of Contents

regional economy, and other financial and business risk factors. The Company uses computer simulations to measure the effect of various interest rate scenarios on net interest income. This modeling reflects interest rate changes and the related impact on net interest income and net income over specified time horizons.

Based on scheduled maturities only, the Company was liability sensitive at the one-year timeframe as of December 31, 2009. It should be noted, however, that non-maturing deposit liabilities, which consist of interest checking, money market and savings accounts, are less interest sensitive than other market driven deposits. On December 31, 2009 non-maturing deposit liabilities totaled $205.6 million, or 37.33%, of total interest-bearing liabilities. In a rising rate environment these deposit rates have historically lagged behind the changes in earning asset rates, thus mitigating the impact from the liability sensitivity position. The asset/liability model allows the Company to reflect the fact that non-maturing deposits are less rate sensitive than other deposits by using a decay rate. The decay rate is a type of artificial maturity that simulates maturities for non-maturing deposits over the number of months that more closely reflects historic data. Using the decay rate, the model reveals that the Company is asset sensitive.

When the Company is liability sensitive, net interest income should decrease if interest rates rise since liabilities will reprice faster than assets. Conversely, if interest rates fall, net interest income should increase, depending on the optionality (prepayment speeds) of the assets. When the Company is asset sensitive, net interest income should rise if rates rise and should fall if rates fall.

The most likely scenario represents the rate environment as management forecasts it to occur. Management uses a “static” test to measure the effects of changes in interest rates on net interest income. This test assumes that management takes no steps to adjust the balance sheet to respond to the shock by repricing assets/liabilities, as discussed in the first paragraph of this section.

Under the rate environment forecasted by management, rate shocks in 50 to 100 basis point increments are applied to see the impact on the Company’s earnings. The rate shock model reveals that a 50 basis point decrease in rates would cause an approximate 1.61% annual decrease in net interest income. The rate shock model reveals that a 100 basis point rise in rates would cause an approximate 2.28% annual increase in net interest income and that a 200 basis point rise in rates would cause an approximate 3.18% annual increase in net interest income.

19

Table of Contents

TABLE III

INTEREST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS