SIERRA BANCORP - Annual Report: 2014 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014

Commission file number: 000-33063

SIERRA BANCORP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(559) 782-4900

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           þ No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

¨ Yes           þ No

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.

þ Yes           ¨ 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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

þ Yes           ¨ No

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.

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

¨ Yes           þ No

As of June 30, 2014, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $190 million, based on the closing price reported to the registrant on that date of $15.80 per share. Shares of Common Stock held by each officer and director and each person or control group owning more than ten percent of the outstanding Common Stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

The number of shares of common stock of the registrant outstanding as of February 27, 2015 was 13,676,849.

Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to SEC Regulation 14A are incorporated by reference in Part III, Items 10-14.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Item 1. Business

General

The Company

Sierra Bancorp (the “Company”) is a California corporation headquartered in Porterville, California, and is a registered bank holding company under federal banking laws. The Company was formed to serve as the holding company for Bank of the Sierra (the “Bank”), and has been the Bank’s sole shareholder since August 2001. The Company exists primarily for the purpose of holding the stock of the Bank and of such other subsidiaries it may acquire or establish. At the present time, the Company’s only other direct subsidiaries are Sierra Statutory Trust II and Sierra Capital Trust III, which were formed in March 2004 and June 2006, respectively, solely to facilitate the issuance of capital trust pass-through securities (“TRUPS”). Pursuant to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s guidance on the consolidation of variable interest entities, these trusts are not reflected on a consolidated basis in the financial statements of the Company. References herein to the “Company” include Sierra Bancorp and its consolidated subsidiary, the Bank, unless the context indicates otherwise. At December 31, 2014, the Company had consolidated assets of $1.637 billion, gross loans of $971 million, deposits of $1.367 billion and shareholders’ equity of $187 million. The Company’s liabilities include $31 million in debt obligations due to Sierra Statutory Trust II and Sierra Capital Trust III, related to TRUPS issued by those entities.

The Bank

The Bank is a California state-chartered bank headquartered in Porterville, California, which opened for business in January 1978 and has since become the largest independent bank headquartered in the South San Joaquin Valley. We offer a full range of retail and commercial banking services primarily in Tulare, Kern, Fresno, and Kings Counties in Central California, and, in Southern California, in the rich agricultural corridor stretching from Santa Paula to Santa Clarita. The Bank’s growth has primarily been organic, but includes two acquisitions: Sierra National Bank in 2000, and Santa Clara Valley Bank (“SCVB”) in 2014. See the following section, Recent Developments, for details on the SCVB acquisition.

Our chief products and services are related to the business of lending money and accepting deposits. The Bank’s lending activities include real estate, commercial (including small business), mortgage warehousing, agricultural, and consumer loans. The bulk of our real estate loans are secured by commercial, professional office, and agricultural properties which are predominantly owner occupied, and we also offer a complete line of construction loans for residential and commercial development, permanent mortgage loans, land acquisition and development loans, and multifamily credit facilities. Secondary market services for residential mortgage loans are provided through the Bank’s affiliations with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and certain non-governmental institutions. As of December 31, 2014, the percentage of our total loan and lease portfolio for each of the principal types of credit we extend was as follows: (i) loans secured by real estate (72.6%); (ii) agricultural production loans (2.9%); (iii) commercial and industrial loans and leases (including SBA loans and direct finance leases) (11.7%); (iv) mortgage warehouse loans (10.9%); and (v) consumer loans (1.9%). Interest, fees, and other income on real-estate secured loans, which is by far the largest segment of our portfolio, totaled $33.5 million, or 49% of net interest plus other income in 2014, and $31.2 million, or 48% of net interest plus other income in 2013.

In addition to loans, we offer a wide range of deposit products for individuals and businesses including checking accounts, savings accounts, money market demand accounts, time deposits, retirement accounts, and sweep accounts. The Bank’s deposit accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) up to maximum insurable amounts. We have also been in the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (“CDARS”) network since its inception, and through CDARS are able to offer full FDIC insurance coverage on multi-million dollar deposits up to specified limits. We attract deposits throughout our market area with direct-mail campaigns, a customer-oriented product mix, competitive pricing, convenient locations, drive-through banking, and a multitude of alternative delivery channels, and we strive to retain our deposit customers by providing a consistently high level of service. At December 31, 2014 we had 99,200 deposit accounts totaling $1.367 billion, compared to 95,700 deposit accounts totaling $1.174 billion at December 31, 2013.

We currently operate 28 full service branch offices throughout our geographic footprint, including the three branches that were added in November 2014 via the acquisition of Santa Clara Valley Bank. The Bank has received regulatory approval for another branch in Bakersfield, California, which is expected to commence operations in the latter part of 2015. The locations of the Bank’s current offices are as follows:

In addition to our full-service branches the Bank has specialized lending units which include a real estate industries center, an agricultural credit center, and an SBA lending unit. We also have ATMs at all branch locations and offsite ATMs at six different non-branch locations. Furthermore, the Bank is a member of the Allpoint network, which provides our customers with surcharge-free access to over 43,000 ATMs across the nation and another 12,000 ATMs in foreign countries, and our customers have access to electronic point-of-sale payment alternatives nationwide via the Pulse EFT network. To ensure that account access preferences are addressed for all customers, we provide the following options: an internet branch which provides the ability to open deposit accounts online; an online banking option with bill-pay and mobile banking capabilities, including mobile check deposit; a customer service center that is accessible by toll-free telephone during business hours; and an automated telephone banking system that is usually accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We offer a multitude of other banking products and services to complement and support our lending and deposit products, including remote deposit capture and automated payroll services for business customers.

We have not engaged in any material research activities related to the development of new products or services during the last two fiscal years. However, our officers and employees are continually searching for ways to increase public convenience, enhance customer access to payment systems, and enable us to improve our competitive position. The cost to the Bank for these development, operations, and marketing activities cannot be calculated with any degree of certainty. We hold no patents or licenses (other than licenses required by appropriate bank regulatory agencies), franchises, or concessions. Our business has a modest seasonal component due to the heavy agricultural orientation of the Central Valley, but as our branches in more metropolitan areas have expanded we have become less reliant on the agriculture-related base. We are not dependent on a single customer or group of related customers for a material portion of our core deposits, but for loans we do have what could be considered to be industry concentrations in loans to the dairy industry (10% of total loans), and to mortgage companies in the form of mortgage warehouse loans (11% of total loans). Our efforts to comply with government and regulatory mandates on consumer protection and privacy, anti-terrorism, and other initiatives have resulted in significant ongoing expense to the Bank, including staffing additions and costs associated with compliance-related software. However, as far as can be determined there has been no material effect upon our capital expenditures, earnings, or competitive position as a result of environmental regulation at the Federal, state, or local level.

Recent Developments

In July 2014 the Bank entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Santa Clara Valley Bank, a community bank with branches in Santa Paula, Santa Clarita, and Fillmore, California. Subsequent to the receipt of requisite regulatory and shareholder approvals, the deal closed on November 14, 2014. As part of the transaction, cash consideration of $12.3 million, or $6.00 per share, was paid to SCVB common shareholders, and $3.0 million was paid to SCVB preferred shareholders to retire outstanding preferred stock and associated warrants. One-time acquisition costs added $2.1 million to the Company’s pre-tax non-interest expense in 2014. The SCVB acquisition contributed approximately $62 million to the Company’s outstanding loan balances, $44 million to investment securities, and $108 million to total deposits.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Information on recent accounting pronouncements is contained in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

Competition

The banking business in California in general, and specifically in many of our market areas, is highly competitive. The industry continues to consolidate, particularly with the relatively large number of FDIC-assisted takeovers of failed banks and other acquisitions of troubled banks in recent years. There are also many unregulated companies competing for business in our markets with financial products targeted at profitable customer segments. Many of those companies are able to compete across geographic boundaries and provide meaningful alternatives to significant banking products and services. These competitive trends are likely to continue.

With respect to commercial bank competitors, the business is dominated by a relatively small number of major banks that operate a large number of offices within our geographic footprint. Based on June 30, 2014 FDIC market share data for the 20 cities within which the Company maintains branches, the largest portion of deposits belongs to Wells Fargo Bank with 23.6% of total combined deposits, followed by Bank of America (16.2%), JPMorgan Chase (7.3%), and Union Bank (6.8%). Bank of the Sierra, including SCVB branches, ranks fifth on the 2014 market share list with 5.8% of total deposits. In Tulare County, however, where the Bank was originally formed, we rank first for deposit market share with 18.2% of total deposits and have the largest number of branch locations (12, including our online branch). The larger banks noted above have, among other advantages, the ability to finance wide-ranging advertising campaigns and to allocate their resources to regions of highest yield and demand. They can also offer certain services that we do not provide directly but may offer indirectly through correspondent institutions, and by virtue of their greater capitalization those banks have legal lending limits that are substantially higher than ours. For loan customers whose needs exceed our legal lending limits, we typically arrange for the sale, or participation, of some of the balances to financial institutions that are not within our geographic footprint.

In addition to other banks, our competitors include savings institutions, credit unions, and numerous non-banking institutions such as finance companies, leasing companies, insurance companies, brokerage firms, asset management groups, mortgage banking firms and internet-based companies. Technological innovations have lowered traditional barriers of entry and enabled many of these companies to offer services that previously were considered traditional banking products, and we have witnessed increased competition from companies that circumvent the banking system by facilitating payments via the internet, wireless devices, prepaid cards, and other means.

Strong competition for deposits and loans among financial institutions and non-banks alike affects interest rates and other terms on which financial products are offered to customers. Mergers between financial institutions have created additional pressures within the industry to remain competitive by streamlining operations, reducing expenses, and increasing revenues. Competition is also impacted by federal and state interstate banking laws which permit banking organizations to expand into other states. The relatively large California market has been particularly attractive to out-of-state institutions. Competitive conditions were further intensified in the year 2000 by the enactment of the Financial Modernization Act, which made it possible for full affiliations to occur between banks and securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial companies.

For years we have countered rising competition by offering a broad array of products with flexibility in structure and terms that cannot always be matched by our competitors. We also offer our customers community-oriented, personalized service, and rely on local promotional activity and personal contact by our employees. As noted above, layered onto our traditional personal-contact banking philosophy are technology-driven initiatives that improve customer access and convenience.

Employees

As of December 31, 2014 the Company had 349 full-time and 88 part-time employees. On a full-time equivalent basis staffing stood at 420 at December 31, 2014, up from 389 at December 31, 2013 due primarily to the acquisition of Santa Clara Valley Bank.

Regulation and Supervision

Banks and bank holding companies are heavily regulated by federal and state laws and regulations. Most banking regulations are intended primarily for the protection of depositors and the deposit insurance fund and not for the benefit of shareholders. The following is a summary of certain statutes, regulations and regulatory guidance affecting the Company and the Bank. This summary is not intended to be a complete explanation of such statutes, regulations and guidance, all of which are subject to change in the future, nor does it fully address their effects and potential effects on the Company and the Bank.

Regulation of the Company Generally

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and its other subsidiaries. As a bank holding company, the Company is regulated under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “BHC Act”), and is subject to supervision, regulation and inspection by the Federal Reserve Board. The Company is also under the jurisdiction of the SEC and is subject to the disclosure and regulatory requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each administered by the SEC. The Company’s common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select market (“NASDAQ”) under the trading symbol “BSRR” and the Company is, therefore, subject to the rules of NASDAQ for listed companies.

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the BHC Act and is registered as such with the Federal Reserve Board. A bank holding company is required to file annual reports and other information with the Federal Reserve regarding its business operations and those of its subsidiaries. In general, the BHC Act limits the business of bank holding companies to banking, managing or controlling banks and other activities that the Federal Reserve has determined to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto, including securities brokerage services, investment advisory services, fiduciary services, and management advisory and data processing services, among others. A bank holding company that also qualifies as and elects to become a “financial holding company” may engage in a broader range of activities that are financial in nature or complementary to a financial activity (as determined by the Federal Reserve or Treasury regulations), such as securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting and agency, and making merchant banking investments. The Company has not elected to become a financial holding company but may do so at some point in the future if deemed appropriate in view of opportunities or circumstances at the time.

The BHC Act requires the prior approval of the FRB for the direct or indirect acquisition of more than five percent of the voting shares of a commercial bank or its parent holding company. Acquisitions by the Bank are subject instead to the Bank Merger Act, which requires the prior approval of an acquiring bank’s primary federal regulator for any merger with or acquisition of another bank.

The Company and the Bank are deemed to be “affiliates” of each other and thus are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act as well as related Federal Reserve Regulation W which impose both quantitative and qualitative restrictions and limitations on transactions between affiliates. The Bank is also subject to laws and regulations requiring that all loans and extensions of credit to our executive officers, directors, principal shareholders and related parties must, among other things, be made on substantially the same terms and follow credit underwriting procedures no less stringent than those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not related to the Bank.

Under certain conditions, the Federal Reserve has the authority to restrict the payment of cash dividends by a bank holding company as an unsafe and unsound banking practice, and may require a bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve prior to purchasing or redeeming its own equity securities, unless certain conditions are met. The Federal Reserve also has the authority to regulate the debt of bank holding companies.

A bank holding company is required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength for its subsidiary banks and must commit resources as necessary to support such subsidiaries. In this connection, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to contribute additional capital to an undercapitalized subsidiary bank and may disapprove of the payment of dividends to the shareholders if the Federal Reserve Board believes the payment of such dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice.

Regulation of the Bank Generally

As a state chartered bank, the Bank is subject to broad federal regulation and oversight extending to all its operations by the FDIC and to state regulation by the California Department of Business Oversight (the “DBO”). The Bank is also subject to certain regulations of the Federal Reserve Board.

Capital Adequacy Requirements

The Company and the Bank are subject to the regulations of the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, respectively, governing capital adequacy. These agencies have adopted risk-based capital guidelines to provide a systematic analytical framework which makes regulatory capital requirements sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banking organizations, considers off-balance sheet exposures in evaluating capital adequacy, and minimizes disincentives to holding liquid, low-risk assets. Capital levels, as measured by these standards, are also used to categorize financial institutions for purposes of certain prompt corrective action regulatory provisions.

Prior to January 1, 2015, the guidelines included a minimum required ratio of qualifying Tier 1 plus Tier 2 capital to total risk weighted assets of 8% (“Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio”), and a minimum required ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk weighted assets of 4% (“Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio”). The guidelines also provided for a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to average assets, or “leverage ratio,” of 3% for institutions having the highest regulatory rating, and 4% for all other institutions. Tier 1 capital is generally defined as the sum of core capital elements, less goodwill and other intangible assets, accumulated other comprehensive income, disallowed deferred tax assets, and certain other deductions. The following items are defined as core capital elements: (i) common shareholders’ equity; (ii) qualifying non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus (and, in the case of holding companies, senior perpetual preferred stock issued to the U.S. Treasury Department pursuant to the Troubled Asset Relief Program); (iii) minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries; and (iv) “restricted” core capital elements (which include qualifying trust preferred securities) up to 25% of all core capital elements. Tier 2 capital includes the following supplemental capital elements: (i) allowance for loan and lease losses (but not more than 1.25% of an institution’s risk-weighted assets); (ii) perpetual preferred stock and related surplus not qualifying as core capital; (iii) hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt instruments; and, (iv) term subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock and related surplus. The maximum amount of Tier 2 capital is capped at 100% of Tier 1 capital.

As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Bank’s and the consolidated Company’s regulatory capital ratios all far exceeded regulatory requirements. See Part II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Capital Resources.

In July 2013, the Federal Reserve and other federal banking agencies approved final rules implementing the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s capital guidelines for all U.S. banks and bank holding companies with greater than $500 million in assets. Under these final rules, minimum requirements for both the quantity and quality of capital held by the Company and the Bank increased effective January 1, 2015. The rules include a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%, a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.0%, a total capital ratio of 8.0%, and a minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%. The final rules also require a common equity Tier 1 capital conservation buffer of 2.5% of risk-weighted assets which is in addition to the other minimum risk-based capital standards in the rule. The capital buffer requirement will be phased in over three years beginning in 2016, and will effectively raise the minimum required common equity Tier 1 capital ratio to 7.0%, the Tier 1 capital ratio to 8.5%, and the total capital ratio to 10.5% on a fully phased-in basis. Institutions that do not maintain the required capital buffer will become subject to progressively more stringent limitations on the percentage of earnings that can be paid out in dividends or used for stock repurchases, and on the payment of discretionary bonuses to executive management.

The final rules also increase the required capital for certain categories of assets, including higher-risk construction real estate loans, certain past-due or nonaccrual loans, and certain exposures related to securitizations. The final rules adopt the same risk weightings for residential mortgages that existed under previous risk-based capital rules. Similarly, the final rules permanently grandfather non-qualifying capital instruments (such as trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock) issued before May 19, 2010 for inclusion in the Tier 1 capital of banking organizations with total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion at December 31, 2009, subject to a limit of 25% of Tier 1 capital. As all of the Company’s trust preferred securities were issued prior to that date, they will continue to qualify as Tier 1 capital under the new rules.

These new minimum capital ratios became effective for us on January 1, 2015, and the capital buffers will be fully phased in by January 1, 2019. Based on existing capital levels at December 31, 2014, the Company and the Bank meet all capital adequacy requirements under the Basel III Capital Rules on a fully phased-in basis.

For more information on the Company’s capital, see Part II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Capital Resources. Risk-based capital ratio requirements are discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Prompt Corrective Action Provisions

Federal law requires each federal banking agency to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured financial institutions, including but not limited to those that fall below one or more prescribed minimum capital ratios. The federal banking agencies have by regulation defined the following five capital categories: “well capitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 10%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 6%; and Leverage Ratio of 5%); “adequately capitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 8%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 4%; and Leverage Ratio of 4%, or 3% if the institution receives the highest rating from its primary regulator); “undercapitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 8%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 4%; or Leverage Ratio of less than 4%, or 3% if the institution receives the highest rating from its primary regulator); “significantly undercapitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 6%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 3%; or Leverage Ratio less than 3%); and “critically undercapitalized” (tangible equity to total assets less than 2%). A bank may be treated as though it were in the next lower capital category if, after notice and the opportunity for a hearing, the appropriate federal agency finds an unsafe or unsound condition or practice so warrants, but no bank may be treated as “critically undercapitalized” unless its actual capital ratio warrants such treatment. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, both the Company and the Bank were deemed to be well capitalized for regulatory capital purposes.

At each successively lower capital category, an insured bank is subject to increased restrictions on its operations. For example, a bank is generally prohibited from paying management fees to any controlling persons or from making capital distributions if to do so would make the bank “undercapitalized.” Asset growth and branching restrictions apply to undercapitalized banks, which are required to submit written capital restoration plans meeting specified requirements (including a guarantee by the parent holding company, if any). “Significantly undercapitalized” banks are subject to broad regulatory authority, including among other things capital directives, forced mergers, restrictions on the rates of interest they may pay on deposits, restrictions on asset growth and activities, and prohibitions on paying bonuses or increasing compensation to senior executive officers without FDIC approval. Even more severe restrictions apply to “critically undercapitalized” banks. Most importantly, except under limited circumstances, not later than 90 days after an insured bank becomes critically undercapitalized the appropriate federal banking agency is required to appoint a conservator or receiver for the bank.

In addition to measures taken under the prompt corrective action provisions, insured banks may be subject to potential actions by the federal regulators for unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their businesses or for violations of any law, rule, regulation or any condition imposed in writing by the agency or any written agreement with the agency. Enforcement actions may include the issuance of cease and desist orders, termination of insurance of deposits (in the case of a bank), the imposition of civil money penalties, the issuance of directives to increase capital, formal and informal agreements, or removal and prohibition orders against “institution-affiliated” parties.

Safety and Soundness Standards

The federal banking agencies have also adopted guidelines establishing safety and soundness standards for all insured depository institutions. Those guidelines relate to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan underwriting and documentation, compensation, and liquidity and interest rate exposure. In general, the standards are designed to assist the federal banking agencies in identifying and addressing problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. If an institution fails to meet the requisite standards, the appropriate federal banking agency may require the institution to submit a compliance plan and could institute enforcement proceedings if an acceptable compliance plan is not submitted or adhered to.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The implementation and impact of legislation and regulations enacted since 2008 in response to the U.S. economic downturn and financial industry instability continued in 2013 and 2014 as modest recovery returned to many institutions in the banking sector. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), which was enacted in 2010, are now effective and have been fully implemented, including revisions in the deposit insurance assessment base for FDIC insurance and a permanent increase in coverage to $250,000; the permissibility of paying interest on business checking accounts; the removal of barriers to interstate branching and required disclosure and shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation. Action in 2013 to implement the final Dodd-Frank provisions included (i) final new capital rules, (ii) a final rule to implement the so called Volcker rule restrictions on certain proprietary trading and investment activities and (iii) final rules and increased enforcement action by the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (discussed further below in connection with consumer protection).

Many aspects of Dodd-Frank are still subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on the Company, its customers or the financial services industry more generally. However, certain provisions of Dodd-Frank will significantly impact, or already are affecting, our operations and expenses, including but not limited to changes in FDIC assessments, the permitted payment of interest on demand deposits, and enhanced compliance requirements. Some of the rules and regulations promulgated or yet to be promulgated under Dodd-Frank will apply directly only to institutions much larger than ours, but could indirectly impact smaller banks, either due to competitive influences or because certain required practices for larger institutions may subsequently become expected “best practices” for smaller institutions. We expect that we may need to devote even more management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements under Dodd-Frank.

Deposit Insurance

The Bank’s deposits are insured up to maximum applicable limits under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and the Bank is subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”). In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a revised restoration plan to ensure that the DIF’s designated reserve ratio (“DRR”) reaches 1.35% of insured deposits by September 30, 2020, the deadline mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. However, financial institutions like Bank of the Sierra with assets of less than $10 billion are exempted from the cost of this increase. Furthermore, the restoration plan proposed an increase in the DRR to 2% of estimated insured deposits as a long-term goal for the fund. The FDIC also proposed future assessment rate reductions in lieu of dividends, when the DRR reaches 1.5% or greater.

As noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act provided for a permanent increase in FDIC deposit insurance per depositor from $100,000 to $250,000 retroactive to January 1, 2008. Furthermore, the FDIC redefined its deposit insurance premium assessment base from an institution’s total domestic deposits to its total assets less tangible equity, effective in the second quarter of 2011. The changes to the assessment base necessitated changes to assessment rates, which became effective April 1, 2011. The revised assessment rates are lower than prior rates but the assessment base is larger, so approximately the same amount of assessment revenue is being collected by the FDIC. We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures or if the FDIC otherwise determines, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums, which may have a material adverse effect on our earnings and could have a material adverse effect on the value of, or market for, our common stock.

In addition to DIF assessments, banks must pay quarterly assessments that are applied to the retirement of Financing Corporation bonds issued in the 1980’s to assist in the recovery of the savings and loan industry. The assessment amount fluctuates, but was 0.62 basis points of insured deposits for the fourth quarter of 2014. Those assessments will continue until the Financing Corporation bonds mature in 2019.

Community Reinvestment Act

The Bank is subject to certain requirements and reporting obligations involving Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) activities. The CRA generally requires federal banking agencies to evaluate the record of a financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. The CRA further requires the agencies to consider a financial institution’s efforts in meeting its community credit needs when evaluating applications for, among other things, domestic branches, mergers or acquisitions, or the formation of holding companies. In measuring a bank’s compliance with its CRA obligations, the regulators utilize a performance-based evaluation system under which CRA ratings are determined by the bank’s actual lending, service, and investment performance, rather than on the extent to which the institution conducts needs assessments, documents community outreach activities or complies with other procedural requirements. In connection with its assessment of CRA performance, the FDIC assigns a rating of “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve” or “substantial noncompliance.” The Bank most recently received a “satisfactory” CRA assessment rating in August 2013.

Privacy and Data Security

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (the “Financial Modernization Act”), imposed requirements on financial institutions with respect to consumer privacy. Financial institutions, however, are required to comply with state law if it is more protective of consumer privacy than the Financial Modernization Act. The Financial Modernization Act generally prohibits disclosure of consumer information to non-affiliated third parties unless the consumer has been given the opportunity to object and has not objected to such disclosure. The statute also directed federal regulators, including the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, to establish standards for the security of consumer information, and requires financial institutions to disclose their privacy policies to consumers annually.

Overdrafts

The Electronic Funds Transfer Act, as implemented by the Federal Reserve’s Regulation E, governs transfers initiated through automated teller machines (“ATMs”), point-of-sale terminals, and other electronic banking services. Regulation E prohibits financial institutions from assessing an overdraft fee for paying ATM and one-time point-of-sale debit card transactions, unless the customer affirmatively opts in to the overdraft service for those types of transactions. The opt-in provision establishes requirements for clear disclosure of fees and terms of overdraft services for ATM and one-time debit card transactions. The rule does not apply to other types of transactions, such as check, automated clearinghouse (“ACH”) and recurring debit card transactions. Additionally, in November 2010, the FDIC issued its Overdraft Guidance on automated overdraft service programs to ensure that a bank mitigates the risks associated with offering automated overdraft payment programs and complies with all consumer protection laws and regulations. The procedural changes and fee adjustments necessitated by those regulatory changes resulted in lower overdraft income for the Company, and could further adversely impact non-interest income in the future.

Consumer Financial Protection and Financial Privacy

Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) as an independent entity with broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards. The CFPB’s functions include investigating consumer complaints, conducting market research, rulemaking, supervising and examining bank consumer transactions, and enforcing rules related to consumer financial products and services. CFPB regulations and guidance apply to all financial institutions, including the Bank, although only banks with $10 billion or more in assets are subject to examination by the CFPB. Banks with less than $10 billion in assets, including the Bank, will continue to be examined for compliance by their primary federal banking agency.

In January 2013, the CFPB issued final regulations governing primarily consumer mortgage lending. One rule imposes additional requirements on lenders, including rules designed to require lenders to ensure borrowers’ ability to repay their mortgages. The CFPB also finalized a rule on escrow accounts for higher priced mortgage loans and a rule expanding the scope of the high-cost mortgage provision in the Truth in Lending Act. The CFPB also issued final rules implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that relate to mortgage servicing. In November 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule on integrated mortgage disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, compliance with which is required by August 1, 2015.

The CFPB also has broad rulemaking authority for a wide range of consumer financial laws that apply to all banks, including, among other things, the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. Abusive acts or practices are defined as those that materially interfere with a consumer’s ability to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service or take unreasonable advantage of a consumer’s: (i) lack of financial savvy, (ii) inability to protect himself in the selection or use of consumer financial products or services, or (iii) reasonable reliance on a covered entity to act in the consumer’s interests.

The Bank continues to be subject to numerous other federal and state consumer protection laws that extensively govern its relationship with its customers. These laws include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, the Service Members Civil Relief Act, and respective state-law counterparts to these laws, as well as state usury laws and laws regarding unfair and deceptive acts and practices. These and other federal laws, among other things, require disclosures of the cost of credit and terms of deposit accounts, provide substantive consumer rights, prohibit discrimination in credit transactions, regulate the use of credit report information, provide financial privacy protections, prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive practices, restrict the Company’s ability to raise interest rates and subject the Company to substantial regulatory oversight.

In addition, the Bank, like all other financial institutions, is required to maintain the privacy of its customers’ non-public, personal information. Such privacy requirements direct financial institutions to: (i) provide notice to customers regarding privacy policies and practices; (ii) inform customers regarding the conditions under which their non-public personal information may be disclosed to non-affiliated third parties; and (iii) give customers an option to prevent disclosure of such information to non-affiliated third parties.

Interstate Banking and Branching

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (the “Interstate Act”) together with Dodd-Frank relaxed prior interstate branching restrictions under federal law by permitting, subject to regulatory approval, state and federally chartered commercial banks to establish branches in states where the laws permit banks chartered in such states to establish branches. The Interstate Act requires regulators to consult with community organizations before permitting an interstate institution to close a branch in a low-income area. Federal banking agency regulations prohibit banks from using their interstate branches primarily for deposit production and the federal banking agencies have implemented a loan-to-deposit ratio screen to ensure compliance with this prohibition. Dodd-Frank effectively eliminated the prohibition under California law against interstate branching through de novo establishment of California branches. Interstate branches are subject to certain laws of the states in which they are located. The Bank presently does not have any interstate branches.

USA Patriot Act of 2001

The impact of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”) on financial institutions of all kinds has been significant and wide ranging. The Patriot Act substantially enhanced existing anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws, and required certain regulatory authorities to adopt rules that promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering. Under the Patriot Act, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions regarding specified financial transactions and account relationships, as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with foreign financial institutions and foreign customers. The Patriot Act also requires all financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs. The Bank expanded its Bank Secrecy Act compliance staff and intensified due diligence procedures concerning the opening of new accounts to fulfill the anti-money laundering requirements of the Patriot Act, and also implemented systems and procedures to identify suspicious banking activity and report any such activity to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the FRB and the FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization's incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization's ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization's board of directors. These three principles are incorporated into proposed joint compensation regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act that would prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities having at least $1 billion in total assets that encourage inappropriate risks. The FRB will review, as part of its regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” While the final regulations have not yet been adopted, the Company believes it is in compliance with the regulations as currently proposed.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Company is subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley”) which addresses, among other issues, corporate governance, auditing and accounting, executive compensation, and enhanced and timely disclosure of corporate information. Among other things, Sarbanes-Oxley mandates chief executive and chief financial officer certifications of periodic financial reports, additional financial disclosures concerning off-balance sheet items, and accelerated share transaction reporting for executive officers, directors and 10% shareholders. In addition, Sarbanes-Oxley increased penalties for non-compliance with the Exchange Act. SEC rules promulgated pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley impose obligations and restrictions on auditors and audit committees intended to enhance their independence from management, and include extensive additional disclosure, corporate governance and other related rules.

Commercial Real Estate Lending Concentrations

As a part of their regulatory oversight, the federal regulators have issued guidelines on sound risk management practices with respect to a financial institution’s concentrations in commercial real estate (“CRE”) lending activities. These guidelines were issued in response to the agencies’ concerns that rising CRE concentrations might expose institutions to unanticipated earnings and capital volatility in the event of adverse changes in the commercial real estate market. The guidelines identify certain concentration levels that, if exceeded, will expose the institution to additional supervisory analysis with regard to the institution’s CRE concentration risk. The guidelines are designed to promote appropriate levels of capital and sound loan and risk management practices for institutions with a concentration of CRE loans. In general, the guidelines establish two concentration levels: first, if the institution’s total construction, land development and other land loans represent 100 percent or more of total risk-based capital; and second, if total loans for construction, land development and other land and loans secured by multifamily and non-owner occupied non-farm residential properties (excluding loans secured by owner-occupied properties) represent 300 percent or more of total risk-based capital and the institution’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50 percent or more during the prior 36 month period. The Bank believes that the guidelines are applicable to it, as it has a relatively high concentration in CRE loans. The Bank and its board of directors have discussed the guidelines and believe that the Bank’s underwriting policies, management information systems, independent credit administration process, and monitoring of real estate loan concentrations are sufficient to address the guidelines.

Other Pending and Proposed Legislation

Other legislative and regulatory initiatives which could affect the Company, the Bank and the banking industry in general are pending, and additional initiatives may be proposed or introduced before the United States Congress, the California legislature and other governmental bodies in the future. Such proposals, if enacted, may further alter the structure, regulation and competitive relationship among financial institutions, and may subject the Bank to increased regulation, disclosure and reporting requirements. In addition, the various banking regulatory agencies often adopt new rules and regulations to implement and enforce existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether, or in what form, any such legislation or regulations may be enacted or the extent to which the business of the Company or the Bank would be affected thereby.

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the following risk factors and all other information contained in this Annual Report before making investment decisions concerning the Company’s common stock. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones the Company faces. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to the Company, or that the Company currently believes are immaterial, may also adversely impact the Company’s business. If any of the events described in the following risk factors occur, the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. In addition, the trading price of the Company’s common stock could decline due to any of the events described in these risks.

Risks Relating to the Bank and to the Business of Banking in General

Our business has been and may in the future be adversely affected by volatile conditions in the financial markets and unfavorable economic conditions generally. From December 2007 through June 2009, the U.S. economy was officially in recession. Business activity across a wide range of industries and regions in the U.S. was greatly reduced during the recession and in the ensuing years, and remains at subdued levels in many parts of the Country today. The financial markets and the financial services industry in particular suffered unprecedented disruption, causing a large number of institutions to fail or to require government intervention to avoid failure.

As a result of the adverse financial and economic conditions noted in the previous paragraph, many lending institutions, including our Company, experienced significant declines in the performance of their loans, particularly construction, development and land loans, and unsecured commercial and consumer loans. Our nonperforming assets and credit costs (primarily our loan loss provision, net costs associated with other real estate owned, legal expense, and appraisal costs) increased significantly during and after the recession. We achieved material improvement in credit quality during 2013 and 2014, but nonperforming assets still totaled $24.7 million, or 2.53% of total loans plus foreclosed assets at the end of 2014, relative to only $689,000, or 0.08% of total loans and foreclosed assets at the end of 2006, prior to the recession. California’s San Joaquin Valley, where the Company is headquartered and has most of its branch locations, was particularly hard hit by the recession. Unemployment levels have always been relatively high in the San Joaquin Valley, including Tulare County which is our geographic center, but recessionary conditions pushed unemployment rates to exceptionally high levels. The unemployment rate for Tulare County reached a high of 19.3% during the most recent economic cycle, in March 2010. It reflects a steady downward trend since 2010 and had declined to 12.7% by December 2014, but is still well above the 6.7% aggregate unemployment rate reported for California in December 2014. In addition, as discussed below in connection with challenges to the agricultural industry, if the current drought in California continues it could have a significant negative impact on unemployment rates in our market areas. Furthermore, the recent precipitous drop in oil prices could also negatively impact unemployment rates, particularly in Kern County.

There are indications of improving economic conditions, and the real estate sector appears to have stabilized in many of our local markets. However unemployment remains relatively high, as noted above, and many local governments and businesses are still experiencing difficulties due to reduced consumer spending and a drop in tax revenues. Additional adverse market developments could further depress consumer confidence levels and payment patterns, which could cause real estate values to resume their unfavorable trends and lead to additional loan delinquencies and increased default rates.

If business and economic conditions deteriorate, the ensuing economic weakness could have one or more of the following undesirable effects on our business:

Challenges in the agricultural industry could have an adverse effect on our customers and their ability to make payments to us, particularly in view of the current drought in California. While the Company’s nonperforming assets are currently comprised mainly of loans secured by non-agricultural real estate and other real estate owned (“OREO”), the drivers behind high levels of nonperforming assets in previous economic cycles include difficulties experienced by the agricultural industry. This is due to the fact that a considerable portion of our borrowers are involved in, or are impacted to some extent by, the agricultural industry. While a great number of our borrowers are not directly involved in agriculture, they would likely be impacted by difficulties in the agricultural industry since many jobs in our market areas are ancillary to the regular production, processing, marketing and sale of agricultural commodities.

The markets for agricultural products can be adversely impacted by increased supply from overseas competition, a drop in consumer demand, and numerous other factors. The ripple effect of any resulting drop in commodity prices could lower borrower income and depress collateral values. Weather patterns are also of critical importance to row crop, tree fruit, and citrus production. A degenerative cycle of weather has the potential to adversely affect agricultural industries as well as consumer purchasing power, and could lead to further unemployment throughout the San Joaquin Valley. The state of California is currently experiencing the worst drought in recorded history, and it is not possible to predict at present how long the drought may last. Another looming issue that could have a major impact on the agricultural industry involves water availability and distribution rights. If the amount of water available to agriculture becomes increasingly scarce due to drought and/or diversion to other uses, farmers may not be able to continue to produce agricultural products at a reasonable profit, which has the potential to force many out of business. Such conditions have affected and may continue to adversely affect our borrowers and, by extension, our business, and if general agricultural conditions decline our level of nonperforming assets could increase.

The recent drop in oil prices could have an adverse impact on our customers and their ability to make payments to us, particularly in areas such as Kern County where oil production is a significant economic driver. Kern County, which is home to about three quarters of California’s oil production, declared a fiscal emergency in January 2015 after projecting a material budget gap resulting from declining oil prices. With oil prices down substantially over the past year, County officials expect a related decline in oil property values and a material decline in property taxes. Kern County currently has ample reserves that it can access and it also plans to cut expenses to help address the issue, thus industry observers do not expect the County to file bankruptcy. However, economic multipliers to a contracting oil industry include the prospects of a depressed residential housing market and a drop in commercial real estate values. The Company’s direct exposure to the oil industry is not material, but if our borrowers are indirectly impacted and/or non-oil property values decline, our level of nonperforming assets and loan charge-offs could increase.

Concentrations of real estate loans have negatively impacted our performance in the past, and could subject us further risks in the event of another real estate recession or natural disaster. Our loan portfolio is heavily concentrated in real estate loans, particularly commercial real estate. At December 31, 2014, 73% of our loan portfolio consisted of real estate loans, and a sizeable portion of the remaining loan portfolio has real estate collateral as a secondary source of repayment or as an abundance of caution. Real estate loans on commercial buildings represented approximately 50% of all real estate loans, while construction/development and land loans were 4%, loans secured by residential properties accounted for 26%, and loans secured by farmland were 21% of real estate loans. The Company’s $24.7 million balance of nonperforming assets at December 31, 2014 includes nonperforming real estate loans totaling $19.0 million, and $4.0 million in foreclosed assets comprised primarily of OREO.

The Central Valley residential real estate market experienced significant deflation in property values during 2008 and 2009, and foreclosures occurred at relatively high rates during and after the recession. While residential real estate values in our market areas currently appear to be stabilized or slightly increasing, if they were to slide further, or if commercial real estate values decline materially, the Company could experience additional migration into nonperforming assets. An increase in nonperforming assets could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations by reducing our income and increasing our expenses. Deterioration in real estate values might also further reduce the amount of loans the Company makes to businesses in the construction and real estate industry, which could negatively impact our organic growth prospects. Similarly, the occurrence of a natural disaster like those California has experienced in the past, including earthquakes, fires, and flooding, could impair the value of the collateral we hold for real estate secured loans and negatively impact our results of operations.

In addition, banking regulators give commercial real estate loans extremely close scrutiny due to risks relating to the cyclical nature of the real estate market and related risks for lenders with high concentrations of such loans. The regulators have required banks with relatively high levels of CRE loans to implement enhanced underwriting standards, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, which has resulted in higher allowances for possible loan losses. Expectations for higher capital levels have also materialized. Any required increase in our allowance for loan losses could adversely affect our net income, and any requirement that we maintain higher capital levels could adversely impact financial performance measures such as earnings per share.

Our concentration of commercial real estate, construction and land development, and commercial and industrial loans exposes us to increased lending risks. Commercial real estate, construction and land development, and commercial and industrial loans and leases (including agricultural production loans), which comprised approximately 53% of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2014, expose the Company to a greater risk of loss than residential real estate and consumer loans, which comprised a smaller percentage of the total loan portfolio. Commercial real estate and land development loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers compared to residential loans. Consequently, an adverse development with respect to one commercial loan or credit relationship exposes us to greater risk of loss than an adverse development with respect to one residential mortgage loan.

Repayment of our commercial loans is often dependent on the cash flows of the borrowers, which may be unpredictable, and the collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value. At December 31, 2014, we had $142 million or 15% of total loans in commercial loans and leases (including agricultural production loans). Commercial lending involves risks that are different from those associated with real estate lending. Real estate lending is generally considered to be collateral based lending with loan amounts based on predetermined loan to collateral values and liquidation of the underlying real estate collateral being viewed as the primary source of repayment in the event of borrower default. Our commercial loans are primarily made based on the cash flows of the borrowers and secondarily on any underlying collateral provided by the borrowers. A borrower’s cash flows may be unpredictable, and collateral securing those loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use, among other things.

Nonperforming assets adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, and can take significant time to resolve. Our nonperforming loans may remain at current elevated levels or could increase, which will negatively impact earnings and could have a substantial adverse impact if conditions deteriorate. We do not record interest income on non-accrual loans, thereby adversely affecting our level of interest income. Furthermore, when we receive collateral through foreclosures and similar proceedings, we are required to record the collateral at its fair market value less estimated selling costs, which may result in write-downs or losses. Additionally, while 2014 was favorably impacted by significant gains on the sale of OREO, our non-interest expense was relatively high in prior years due to the costs of reappraising adversely classified assets, write-downs on foreclosed assets incidental to declining property values, operating costs related to foreclosed assets, legal and other costs associated with loan collections, and various other expenses that would not typically be incurred in a more normal operating environment. A relatively high level of nonperforming assets also increases our risk profile and may impact the capital levels our regulators believe is appropriate in light of such risks. We utilize various techniques such as loan sales, workouts and restructurings to manage our problem assets. Deterioration in the value of these problem assets, the underlying collateral, or in the borrowers’ performance or financial condition, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires a significant commitment of time from management and staff, which can be detrimental to their performance of other responsibilities. There can be no assurance that we will avoid further increases in nonperforming loans in the future.

We may experience loan and lease losses in excess of our allowance for such losses. We endeavor to limit the risk that borrowers might fail to repay; nevertheless, losses can and do occur. We have established an allowance for estimated loan and lease losses in our accounting records based on estimates of:

We maintain our allowance for loan and lease losses at a level that we believe is adequate to absorb specifically identified probable losses as well as any other losses inherent in our loan portfolio at a given date. While we strive to carefully monitor credit quality and to identify loans that may become nonperforming, at any given time there are loans in the portfolio that could result in losses but have not been identified as nonperforming or potential problem loans. We cannot be sure that we will identify deteriorating loans before they become nonperforming assets, or that we will be able to limit losses on those loans that have been so identified. Changes in economic, operating and other conditions which are beyond our control, including interest rate fluctuations, deteriorating values in underlying collateral, and changes in the financial condition of borrowers, may lead to an increase in our estimate of probable losses or cause actual loan losses to exceed our current allowance. In addition, the FDIC and the DBO, as part of their supervisory functions, periodically review our allowance for loan and lease losses. Such agencies may require us to increase our provision for loan and lease losses or to recognize further losses based on their judgment, which may be different from that of our management. Any such increase in the allowance required by the FDIC or the DBO could also hurt our business.

Our use of appraisals in deciding whether to make a loan on or secured by real property does not ensure the value of the collateral. In considering whether to make a loan secured by real property, we generally require an appraisal of the property. However, an appraisal is only an estimate of the value of the property at the time the appraisal is made, and an error in fact or judgment could adversely affect the reliability of an appraisal. In addition, events occurring after the initial appraisal may cause the value of the real estate to decrease. As a result of any of these factors the value of collateral backing a loan may be less than supposed, and if a default occurs we may not recover the entire outstanding balance of the loan.

Our expenses could increase as a result of increases in FDIC insurance premiums or other regulatory assessments. The FDIC, absent extraordinary circumstances, must establish and implement a plan to restore the deposit insurance reserve ratio to 1.35% of estimated insured deposits or the comparable percentage of the assessment base at any time the reserve ratio falls below that level. Bank failures during and after the recent recession depleted the deposit insurance fund balance, which was in a negative position from the end of 2009 through the first quarter of 2011. The balance had increased to $54.3 billion with a resulting reserve ratio of 0.89% as of September 30, 2014. The FDIC currently has until September 30, 2020 to bring the reserve ratio back to the statutory minimum. As noted above under “Regulation and Supervision – Deposit Insurance”, the FDIC has implemented a restoration plan that adopted a new assessment base and established new assessment rates starting with the second quarter of 2011. The FDIC also imposed a special assessment in 2009, and required the prepayment of three years of estimated FDIC insurance premiums at the end of 2009. It is generally expected that assessment rates will remain relatively high in the near term due to the significant cost of bank failures in recent years. Any further premium increases or special assessments could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to continue to attract and retain banking customers, and our efforts to compete may reduce our profitability. The banking business in our current and intended future market areas is highly competitive with respect to virtually all products and services, which may limit our ability to attract and retain banking customers. In California generally, and in our service areas specifically, branches of major banks dominate the commercial banking industry. Such banks have substantially greater lending limits than we have, offer certain services we cannot offer directly, and often operate with economies of scale that result in relatively low operating costs. We also compete with numerous financial and quasi-financial institutions for deposits and loans, including providers of financial services over the internet. Recent technology advances and other changes have allowed parties to effectuate financial transactions that previously required the involvement of banks. For example, consumers can maintain funds in brokerage accounts or mutual funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits. Consumers can also complete transactions such as paying bills and transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the income generated by those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and access to lower cost deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Furthermore, with the large number of bank failures in the past decade, customers have become more concerned about the extent to which their deposits are insured by the FDIC. Customers may withdraw deposits in an effort to ensure that the amount they have on deposit with their bank is fully insured. Decreases in deposits may adversely affect our funding costs and net income. Ultimately, competition can and does increase our cost of funds, reduce loan yields and drive down our net interest margin, thereby reducing profitability. It can also make it more difficult for us to continue to increase the size of our loan portfolio and deposit base, and could cause us to rely more heavily on wholesale borrowings which are generally more expensive than deposits.

If we are not able to successfully keep pace with technological changes affecting the industry, our business could be hurt. The financial services industry is constantly undergoing technological change, with the frequent introduction of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better service clients and reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to respond to the needs of our clients by using technology to provide desired products and services and create additional operating efficiencies. Some of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our clients. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change in the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, on our financial condition and results of operations.

Unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or confidential customer information, whether through a cyber-attack, other breach of our computer systems or otherwise, could severely harm our business. In the normal course of business we collect, process and retain sensitive and confidential customer information. Despite the security measures we have in place, our facilities and systems may be vulnerable to cyber-attacks, security breaches, acts of vandalism, computer viruses, misplaced or lost data, programming and/or human errors, or other similar events.

Information security risks for financial institutions have increased recently in part because of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies (including mobile devices) to conduct financial and other business transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, perpetrators of fraud, hackers, terrorists and others. In addition to cyber-attacks or other security breaches involving the theft of sensitive and confidential information, hackers recently have also engaged in denial of service attacks, designed to disrupt key business services such as customer-facing web sites. While to date such attacks have primarily involved very large financial institutions, insurance companies and other huge corporations, it is impossible to predict whether smaller institutions such as our bank could become a target. Although we employ detection and response mechanisms designed to identify, contain and mitigate security incidents, early detection may be thwarted by sophisticated attacks and malware designed to avoid detection.

We also face risks related to cyber-attacks and other security breaches in connection with debit card transactions that typically involve the transmission of sensitive information regarding our customers through various third parties. Some of these parties have in the past been the target of security breaches and cyber-attacks, and because the transactions involve third parties and environments that we do not control or secure, future security breaches or cyber-attacks affecting any of these third parties could impact us through no fault of our own, and in some cases we may have exposure and suffer losses for breaches or attacks relating to them. We also rely on third party service providers to conduct certain other aspects of our business operations, and face similar risks relating to them. While we regularly conduct security assessments on these third parties, we cannot be sure that their information security protocols are sufficient to withstand a cyber-attack or security breach.

Any cyber-attack or other security breach involving the misappropriation, loss or other unauthorized disclosure of confidential customer information could severely damage our reputation, erode confidence in the security of our systems, products and services, expose us to the risk of litigation and liability, disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business.

If our information systems were to experience a system failure, our business and reputation could suffer. We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. The computer systems and network infrastructure we use could be vulnerable to unforeseen problems. Our operations are dependent upon our ability to minimize service disruptions by protecting our computer equipment, systems, and network infrastructure from physical damage due to fire, power loss, telecommunications failure or a similar catastrophic event. We have protective measures in place to prevent or limit the effect of the failure or interruption of our information systems, and will continue to upgrade our security technology and update procedures to help prevent such events. However, if such failures or interruptions were to occur, they could result in damage to our reputation, a loss of customers, increased regulatory scrutiny, or possible exposure to financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to a variety of operational risks, including reputational risk, legal risk, compliance risk, the risk of fraud or theft by employees or outsiders, and the risk of clerical or record-keeping errors, which may adversely affect our business and results of operations. If personal, non-public, confidential or proprietary customer information in our possession were to be mishandled or misused, we could suffer significant regulatory consequences, reputational damage and financial loss. This could occur, for example, if information was erroneously provided to parties who are not permitted to have the information, either by fault of our systems, employees, or counterparties, or where such information is intercepted or otherwise inappropriately taken by third parties.

Because the nature of the financial services business involves a high volume of transactions, certain errors may be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and successfully remediated. Our necessary dependence upon automated systems to record and process transactions and our large transaction volume may further increase the risk that technical flaws or employee tampering or manipulation of those systems could result in losses that are difficult to detect. We also may be subject to disruptions of our operating systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages, or natural disasters, disease pandemics or other damage to property or physical assets) which may give rise to disruption of service to customers and to financial loss or liability. We are further exposed to the risk that our external vendors may be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations (or will be subject to the same risk of fraud or operational errors by their employees) and to the risk that our (or our vendors’) business continuity and data security systems prove to be inadequate. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in a diminished ability to operate our business (for example, by requiring us to expend significant resources to correct the defect), as well as potential liability to clients, reputational damage and regulatory intervention, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, perhaps materially.

Previously enacted and potential future financial regulatory reforms could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was enacted in July 2010. Dodd-Frank is having a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes. Many of the requirements called for in Dodd-Frank will be implemented over time, and most will be facilitated by the enactment of regulations over the course of several years. Given the uncertainty associated with the manner in which the provisions of Dodd-Frank will be implemented, the full extent to which they will impact our operations is unclear. The changes resulting from Dodd-Frank may impact the profitability of business activities, require changes to certain business practices, impose more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. In particular, the potential impact of Dodd-Frank on our operations and activities, both currently and prospectively, include, among others:

Further, we may be required to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, which may negatively impact results of operations and financial condition. We cannot predict whether there will be additional laws or reforms that would affect the U.S. financial system or financial institutions, when such changes may be adopted, how such changes may be interpreted and enforced or how such changes may affect us. However, the costs of complying with any additional laws or regulations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be adversely affected by the financial stability of other financial institutions. Our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and liquidity of other financial institutions. Financial institutions are often interconnected as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, or other business relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. Even if the transactions are collateralized, credit risk could exist if the collateral held by us cannot be liquidated at prices sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to us. Any such losses could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Changes in interest rates could adversely affect our profitability, business and prospects. Net interest income, and therefore earnings, can be adversely affected by differences or changes in the interest rates on, or the re-pricing frequency of, our financial instruments. In addition, fluctuations in interest rates can affect the demand of customers for products and services, and an increase in the general level of interest rates may adversely affect the ability of certain borrowers to make variable-rate loan payments. Accordingly, changes in market interest rates could materially and adversely affect the Company’s asset quality, loan origination volume, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. This interest rate risk can arise from Federal Reserve Board monetary policies, as well as other economic, regulatory and competitive factors that are beyond our control.

We depend on our executive officers and key personnel to implement our business strategy, and could be harmed by the loss of their services. We believe that our continued growth and success depends in large part upon the skills of our management team and other key personnel. The competition for qualified personnel in the financial services industry is intense, and the loss of key personnel or an inability to attract, retain or motivate key personnel could adversely affect our business. If we are not able to retain our existing key personnel or attract additional qualified personnel, our business operations would be hurt. None of our executive officers have employment agreements.

The value of the securities in our investment portfolio may be negatively affected by disruptions in securities markets. The market for some of the investment securities held in our portfolio has experienced volatility and disruption in recent years. Market conditions may have a detrimental effect on the value of our securities, such as reduced valuations because of the perception of heightened credit risks or illiquid markets. There can be no assurance that any declines in market value associated with these disruptions will not result in other-than-temporary impairments of these investments, which would lead to accounting charges that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and capital levels.

We are exposed to the risk of environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we obtain title. Approximately 73% of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2014 consisted of real estate loans. In the normal course of business we may foreclose and take title to real estate collateral, and could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to those properties. We may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. In addition, if we are the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property. These costs and claims could adversely affect our business and prospects.

Risks Related to our Common Stock

You may not be able to sell your shares at the times and in the amounts you want if the price of our stock fluctuates significantly or the trading market for our stock is not active. The trading price of our common stock could be impacted by a number of factors, many of which are outside our control. Although our stock has been listed on NASDAQ for many years, trading in our stock does not consistently occur in high volumes and the market for our stock cannot always be characterized as active. Thin trading in our common stock may exaggerate fluctuations in the stock’s value, leading to price volatility in excess of that which would occur in a more active trading market. In addition, the stock market in general is subject to fluctuations that affect the share prices and trading volumes of many companies, and these broad market fluctuations could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Factors that could affect our common stock price in the future include but are not necessarily limited to the following:

The stock market and, in particular, the market for financial institution stocks, has experienced significant volatility in the past. As a result, the market price of our common stock has at times been volatile, and could be in the future, as well. The capital and credit markets have also experienced volatility and disruption over the past several years, at times reaching unprecedented levels. In some cases, the markets have produced downward pressure on stock prices and credit availability for certain issuers without regard to the issuers’ underlying financial strength.

We may pursue additional capital in the future, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all, could dilute the holders of our outstanding common stock, and may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at the time, which are outside of our control, and our financial performance. Furthermore, any capital raising activity could dilute the holders of our outstanding common stock, and may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our performance measures such as return on equity and earnings per share.

The Company relies heavily on the payment of dividends from the Bank. Other than $2.8 million in cash available at the holding company level at December 31, 2014, the Company’s ability to meet debt service requirements and to pay dividends depends on the Bank’s ability to pay dividends to the Company, as the Company has no other source of significant income. However, the Bank is subject to regulations limiting the amount of dividends it may pay. For example, the payment of dividends by the Bank is affected by the requirement to maintain adequate capital pursuant to the capital adequacy guidelines issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. If (i) any capital ratio requirements are increased; (ii) the total risk-weighted assets of the Bank increase significantly; and/or (iii) the Bank’s income declines significantly, the Bank’s Board of Directors may decide or be required to retain a greater portion of the Bank’s earnings to achieve and maintain the required capital or asset ratios. This would reduce the amount of funds available for the payment of dividends by the Bank to the Company. Further, one or more of the Bank’s regulators could prohibit the Bank from paying dividends if, in their view, such payments would constitute unsafe or unsound banking practices. The Bank’s ability to pay dividends to the Company is also limited by the California Financial Code. Whether dividends are paid, and the frequency and amount of such dividends will also depend on the financial condition and performance of the Bank and the decision of the Bank’s Board of Directors. Information concerning the Company’s dividend policy and historical dividend practices is set forth in Item 5 below under “Dividends.” However, no assurance can be given that our future performance will justify the payment of dividends in any particular year.

Your investment may be diluted because of our ability to offer stock to others, and from the exercise of stock options. The shares of our common stock do not have preemptive rights. This means that you may not be entitled to buy additional shares if shares are offered to others in the future. We are authorized to issue 24,000,000 shares of common stock, and as of December 31, 2014 we had 13,689,181 shares of our common stock outstanding. Except for certain limitations imposed by NASDAQ, nothing restricts our ability to offer additional shares of stock for fair value to others in the future. Any issuances of common stock would dilute our shareholders’ ownership interests and may dilute the per share book value of our common stock. In addition, when our directors and officers exercise in-the-money stock options your ownership in the Company is diluted. As of December 31, 2014, there were outstanding options to purchase an aggregate of 631,800 shares of our common stock with an average exercise price of $15.34 per share. At the same date there were an additional 788,620 shares available for grant under our 2007 Stock Incentive Plan.

Shares of our preferred stock issued in the future could have dilutive and other effects on our common stock. Our Articles of Incorporation authorize us to issue 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, none of which is presently outstanding. Although our Board of Directors has no present intent to authorize the issuance of shares of preferred stock, such shares could be authorized in the future. If such shares of preferred stock are made convertible into shares of common stock, there could be a dilutive effect on the shares of common stock then outstanding. In addition, shares of preferred stock may be provided a preference over holders of common stock upon our liquidation or with respect to the payment of dividends, in respect of voting rights or in the redemption of our common stock. The rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions applicable to any series or preferred stock would be determined by resolution of our Board of Directors.

The holders of our debentures have rights that are senior to those of our shareholders. In 2004 we issued $15,464,000 of junior subordinated debt securities due March 17, 2034, and in 2006 we issued an additional $15,464,000 of junior subordinated debt securities due September 23, 2036 in order to supplement regulatory capital. These junior subordinated debt securities are senior to the shares of our common stock. As a result, we must make interest payments on the debentures before any dividends can be paid on our common stock, and in the event of our bankruptcy, dissolution or liquidation, the holders of debt securities must be paid in full before any distributions may be made to the holders of our common stock. In addition, we have the right to defer interest payments on the junior subordinated debt securities for up to five years, during which time no dividends may be paid to holders of our common stock. In the event that the Bank is unable to pay dividends to us, then we may be unable to pay the amounts due to the holders of the junior subordinated debt securities and, thus, we would be unable to declare and pay any dividends on our common stock.

Provisions in our articles of incorporation could delay or prevent changes in control of our corporation or our management. Our articles of incorporation contain provisions for staggered terms of office for members of the board of directors; no cumulative voting in the election of directors; and the requirement that our board of directors consider the potential social and economic effects on our employees, depositors, customers and the communities we serve as well as certain other factors, when evaluating a possible tender offer, merger or other acquisition of the Company. These provisions make it more difficult for another company to acquire us, which could cause our shareholders to lose an opportunity to be paid a premium for their shares in an acquisition transaction, and reduce the current and future market price of our common stock.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties

The Company’s administrative headquarters is in a 37,000 square foot, three-story office building located at 86 North Main Street, Porterville, California, and our main office consists of a one-story brick building located at 90 N. Main Street, Porterville, California, adjacent to our administrative headquarters. Both of those buildings are situated on unencumbered property owned by the Company. The Company also owns unencumbered property on which 15 of our other offices are located, namely the following branches: Porterville West Olive, Bakersfield Ming, California City, Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Fresno Shaw, Hanford, Lindsay, Santa Paula, Tehachapi Downtown, Tehachapi Old Town, Three Rivers, Tulare, and Visalia Mooney. The remaining branches, as well as our technology center in Porterville and our six remote ATM locations, are leased from unrelated parties. While limited branch expansion is planned, management believes that existing back-office facilities are adequate to accommodate the Company’s operations for the immediately foreseeable future.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time the Company is a party to claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. After taking into consideration information furnished by counsel to the Company as to the current status of these claims or proceedings to which the Company is a party, management is of the opinion that the ultimate aggregate liability represented thereby, if any, will not have a material adverse affect on the financial condition of the Company.

Item 4. RESERVED

PART II

Item 5. Market for REGISTRANT’S Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

(a) Market Information

Sierra Bancorp’s Common Stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol BSRR, and the CUSIP number for our stock is #82620P102. Trading in the Company’s Common Stock has not consistently occurred in high volumes, and such trading activity cannot always be characterized as constituting an active trading market. The following table summarizes trades of the Company’s Common Stock, setting forth the approximate high and low sales prices and volume of trading for the periods indicated, based upon information available via public sources.

(b) Holders

As of January 31, 2015 there were an estimated 4,375 shareholders of the Company’s Common Stock. There were 543 registered holders of record on that date, and per Broadridge, an investor communication company, there were also 3,832 beneficial holders with shares held under a street name, including “objecting beneficial owners” whose names and addresses are unavailable.

(c) Dividends

The Company paid cash dividends totaling $4.8 million, or $0.34 per share in 2014, and $3.7 million, or $0.26 per share in 2013. This represents 31% of annual net earnings for dividends paid in 2014 and 28% in 2013. The Company’s general dividend policy is to pay cash dividends within the range of typical peer payout ratios, provided that such payments do not adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and are not overly restrictive to its growth capacity. However, in the recent past when many of our peers elected to suspend dividend payments, the Company’s Board concluded that we should maintain the payment of a certain level of dividend as long as our core operating performance was adequate and policy or regulatory restrictions did not preclude such payments, without regard to peer payout ratios. While we have paid a consistent level of quarterly dividends in the past few years, no assurance can be given that our financial performance in any given year will justify the continued payment of a certain level of cash dividend, or any cash dividend at all.

As a bank holding company that currently has no significant assets other than its equity interest in the Bank, the Company’s ability to declare dividends depends upon cash on hand as supplemented by dividends from the Bank. The Bank’s dividend practices in turn depend upon the Bank’s earnings, financial position, regulatory standing, current and anticipated capital requirements, and other factors deemed relevant by the Bank’s Board of Directors. The power of the Bank’s Board of Directors to declare cash dividends is also subject to statutory and regulatory restrictions. Under California banking law, the Bank may declare dividends in an amount not exceeding the lesser of its retained earnings or its net income for the last three years (reduced by dividends paid during such period) or, with the prior approval of the California Commissioner of Business Oversight, in an amount not exceeding the greatest of (i) the retained earnings of the Bank, (ii) the net income of the Bank for its last fiscal year, or (iii) the net income of the Bank for its current fiscal year. The payment of any cash dividends by the Bank will depend not only upon the Bank’s earnings during a specified period, but also on the Bank meeting certain regulatory capital requirements.

The Company’s ability to pay dividends is also limited by state law. The California General Corporation Law allows a California corporation to pay dividends if the company’s retained earnings equal at least the amount of the proposed dividend. If a California corporation does not have sufficient retained earnings available for the proposed dividend, it may still pay a dividend to its shareholders if immediately after the dividend the sum of the company’s assets (exclusive of goodwill and deferred charges) would be at least equal to 125% of its liabilities (not including deferred taxes, deferred income and other deferred liabilities) and the current assets of the company would be at least equal to its current liabilities, or, if the average of its earnings before income taxes and before interest expense for the two preceding fiscal years was less than the average of its interest expense for the two preceding fiscal years, at least equal to 125% of its current liabilities. In addition, during any period in which the Company has deferred payment of interest otherwise due and payable on its subordinated debt securities, it may not make any dividends or distributions with respect to its capital stock (see “Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Capital Resources”).

(d) Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2014 with respect to options outstanding and available under our 2007 Stock Incentive Plan and the now-terminated 1998 Stock Option Plan, which are our only equity compensation plans other than an employee benefit plan meeting the qualification requirements of Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code:

(e) Performance Graph

Below is a five-year performance graph comparing the cumulative total return on the Company’s common stock to the cumulative total returns of the NASDAQ Composite Index (a broad equity market index), the SNL Bank Index, and the SNL $1 billion to $5 billion Bank Index (the latter two qualifying as peer bank indices), assuming a $100 investment on December 31, 2009 and the reinvestment of dividends.

Source: SNL Financial LC, Charlottesville, VA

(f) Stock Repurchases

The Company’s current stock repurchase plan became effective July 1, 2003 and has no expiration date. The plan was effectively dormant from April 2008 until January 2013, at which time the Company’s Board decided to reactivate the stock repurchase plan and increase the number of shares authorized and available for repurchase to a total of 700,000 shares. The reactivation does not provide assurance that a specific quantity of shares will be repurchased.

While the Company generally has ultimate discretion with regard to potential share repurchases based upon market conditions and any other relevant considerations, all of the Company’s repurchases of its common stock during 2014 were executed pursuant to plans established by the Company in accordance with SEC Rule 10b5-1. This has enabled us to continue to repurchase stock through the trading blackout for insiders, but imposed volume restrictions and limited our ability to change pricing and other parameters outlined in our 10b5-1 plans. The following table provides information concerning the Company’s stock repurchase transactions during the fourth quarter of 2014:

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following table presents selected historical financial information concerning the Company, which should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements, including the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” included elsewhere herein. The selected financial data as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2014, is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes which are included in this Annual Report. The selected financial data presented for earlier years is derived from our audited financial statements which are not included in this Annual Report. Throughout this Annual Report, information is for the consolidated Company unless otherwise stated.

Selected Financial Data

(dollars in thousands, except per share data)

⁽¹⁾ Net income divided by average shareholders' equity.

⁽²⁾ Net income divided by average total assets.

⁽³⁾ Represents the average rate earned on interest-earning assets less the average rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities.

⁽⁴⁾ Total dividends paid divided by net income.

⁽⁵⁾ Average equity divided by average total assets.

This discussion presents Management’s analysis of the Company’s financial condition as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the results of operations for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and the notes related thereto presented elsewhere in this Form 10-K Annual Report (see Item 8 below).

Statements contained in this report or incorporated by reference that are not purely historical are forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, including the Company’s expectations, intentions, beliefs, or strategies regarding the future. All forward-looking statements concerning economic conditions, growth rates, income, expenses, or other values which are included in this document are based on information available to the Company on the date noted, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. It is important to note that the Company’s actual results could materially differ from those in such forward-looking statements. Risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include but are not limited to those outlined previously in Item 1A.

Critical Accounting Policies

The Company’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The financial information and disclosures contained within those statements are significantly impacted by Management’s estimates and judgments, which are based on historical experience and incorporate various assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under current circumstances. Actual results may differ from those estimates under divergent conditions.

Critical accounting policies are those that involve the most complex and subjective decisions and assessments, and have the greatest potential impact on the Company’s stated results of operations. In Management’s opinion, the Company’s critical accounting policies deal with the following areas: the establishment of the allowance for loan and lease losses, as explained in detail in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements and in the “Provision for Loan Losses” and “Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses” sections of this discussion and analysis; the valuation of impaired loans and foreclosed assets, as discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements; income taxes and deferred tax assets and liabilities, especially with regard to the ability of the Company to recover deferred tax assets as discussed in the “Provision for Income Taxes” and “Other Assets” sections of this discussion and analysis; and goodwill and other intangible assets, which are evaluated annually for impairment and for which we have determined that no impairment exists, as discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements and in the “Other Assets” section of this discussion and analysis. Critical accounting areas are evaluated on an ongoing basis to ensure that the Company’s financial statements incorporate the most recent expectations with regard to those areas.

Summary of Performance

The Company recognized net income of $15.240 million in 2014, relative to $13.369 million in 2013 and $8.185 million in 2012. Net income per diluted share was $1.08 in 2014, as compared to $0.94 in 2013 and $0.58 for 2012. The Company’s return on average assets and return on average equity were 1.03% and 8.18%, respectively, in 2014, as compared to 0.96% and 7.56%, respectively, in 2013, and 0.59% and 4.74%, respectively, for 2012. The Company’s financial performance improved in 2014 relative to recent years, due in part to better economic conditions that contributed to reductions in nonperforming assets, lower credit costs, increased lending activity, and strong core deposit growth. Those trends were evident to a lesser extent in 2013, but for several years prior to that our financial performance was materially impacted by adverse economic conditions. Certain regions of California, including Kern County, have shown strong economic improvement over the past couple of years, although the recovery has been slower to take hold in many of our other markets. Despite the improvement in 2014, net income remains well below levels achieved in pre-recession years as competitive pressures continue to take their toll on loan rates and net interest income, and certain elements of non-interest income are also lower in response to industry-wide regulatory pressures.

The following are some of the major factors impacting the Company’s results of operations for the years presented in the consolidated financial statements.

The Company’s assets totaled $1.637 billion at December 31, 2014, relative to total assets of $1.410 billion at December 31, 2013. Total liabilities were $1.450 billion at the end of 2014 compared to $1.229 billion at the end of 2013, and shareholders’ equity totaled $187 million at December 31, 2014 relative to $182 million at December 31, 2013. The acquisition of Santa Clara Valley Bank (“SCVB”) in November 2014 had a significant impact on balance sheet growth for the year, including increases in loans, investments, and deposits as noted below, as well as the addition of a $1.064 million core deposit intangible and an increase of $1.364 million in goodwill. The following is a summary of key balance sheet changes during 2014.

Results of Operations

Net income was $15.240 million in 2014, an increase of $1.871 million, or 14%, relative to 2013. The Company earns income from two primary sources. The first is net interest income, which is interest income generated by earning assets less interest expense on deposits and other borrowed money. The second is non-interest income, which primarily consists of customer service charges and fees but also comes from non-customer sources such as bank-owned life insurance. The majority of the Company’s non-interest expense is comprised of operating costs that relate to providing a full range of banking services to our customers.

Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin

Net interest income was $52.325 million in 2014, compared to $48.564 million in 2013 and $50.581 million in 2012. This represents an increase of 8% in 2014, but a decline of 4% in 2013. The level of net interest income recognized in any given period depends on a combination of factors including the average volume and yield for interest-earning assets, the average volume and cost of interest-bearing liabilities, and the mix of products which comprise the Company’s earning assets, deposits, and other interest-bearing liabilities. Net interest income is also impacted by the reversal of interest for loans placed on non-accrual status during the reporting period, and the recovery of interest on loans that had been on non-accrual and were paid off, sold or returned to accrual status.

The following table shows, for each of the past three years, average balances for significant balance sheet categories and the amount of interest income or interest expense associated with each applicable category for the noted periods. The table also displays calculated yields on each major component of the Company’s investment and loan portfolios, average rates paid on each key segment of the Company’s interest-bearing liabilities, and our net interest margin.

The Volume and Rate Variances table below sets forth the dollar difference for the comparative periods in interest earned or paid for each major category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, and the amount of such change attributable to fluctuations in average balances (volume) or differences in average interest rates. Volume variances are equal to the increase or decrease in average balance multiplied by prior period rates, and rate variances are equal to the increase or decrease in rate times the prior period’s average balances. Variances attributable to both rate and volume changes, calculated by multiplying the change in rate by the change in average balance, have been allocated to the rate variance.