Skyline Bankshares, Inc. - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

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, 2016

Commission File Number: 333-209052

PARKWAY ACQUISITION CORP.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(540) 745-4191

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

None

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

None

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

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  ☐    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.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

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

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

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

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

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. $37,919,936. The registrant was not a public company as of the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter. The aggregate market value of its voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates is calculated as of August 31, 2016, the date that the registrant’s common stock began trading.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date. 5,021,376 shares of Common Stock as of March 21, 2017

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

Table of Contents

PART I

General

Parkway Acquisition Corp. (“Parkway,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us”) was incorporated as a Virginia corporation on November 2, 2015. Parkway was formed as a business combination shell for the purpose of completing a business combination transaction between Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (“Grayson”) and Cardinal Bankshares Corporation (“Cardinal”). On November 6, 2015, Grayson, Cardinal and Parkway entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “merger agreement”), providing for the combination of the three companies. Terms of the merger agreement called for Grayson and Cardinal to merge with and into Parkway, with Parkway as the surviving corporation (the “merger”). The merger agreement established exchange ratios under which each share of Grayson common stock was converted to the right to receive 1.76 shares of common stock of Parkway, while each share of Cardinal common stock was converted to the right to receive 1.30 shares of common stock of Parkway. The exchange ratios resulted in Grayson shareholders receiving approximately 60% of the newly issued Parkway shares and Cardinal shareholders receiving approximately 40% of the newly issued Parkway shares. The merger was completed on July 1, 2016. Grayson is considered the acquiror and Cardinal is considered the acquiree in the transaction for accounting purposes.

Upon completion of the merger, the Bank of Floyd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cardinal, was merged with and into Grayson National Bank (the “Bank’), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Grayson. The Bank was organized under the laws of the United States in 1900 and now serves the Virginia counties of Grayson, Floyd, Carroll, Wythe, Montgomery and Roanoke, and the surrounding areas through seventeen full-service banking offices and one loan production office. Effective March 13, 2017, the Bank changed its name to Skyline National Bank.

As an FDIC-insured national banking association, the Bank is subject to regulation by the Comptroller of the Currency and the FDIC. Parkway is regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

For purposes of this annual report on Form 10-K, all information contained herein as of and for periods prior to July 1, 2016 reflects the operations of Grayson prior to the merger. Unless this report otherwise indicates or the context otherwise requires, all references to “Parkway” or the “Company” as of and for periods subsequent to July 1, 2016 refer to the combined company and its subsidiary as a combined entity after the merger, and all references to the “Company” as of and for periods prior to July 1, 2016 are references to Grayson and its subsidiary as a combined entity prior to the merger.

Lending Activities

The Bank’s lending services include real estate, commercial, agricultural, and consumer loans. The loan portfolio constituted 81.68% of the interest earning assets of the Bank at December 31, 2016, and has historically produced the highest interest rate spread above the cost of funds. The Bank’s loan personnel have the authority to extend credit under guidelines established and approved by the Bank’s Board of Directors. The Directors’ Loan Committee has the authority to approve loans up to $2.0 million of total indebtedness to a single customer. All loans in excess of that amount must be presented to the full Board of Directors of the Bank for ultimate approval or denial.

The Bank has in the past and intends to continue to make most types of real estate loans, including, but not limited to, single and multi-family housing, farm loans, residential and commercial construction loans, and loans for commercial real estate. At December 31, 2016, the Bank had 45.44% of the loan portfolio in single and multi-family housing, 31.20% in non-farm, non-residential real estate loans, 8.14% in farm related real estate loans, and 6.42% in real estate construction and development loans.

The Bank’s loan portfolio includes commercial and agricultural production loans totaling 6.33% of the portfolio at December 31, 2016. Consumer and other loans make up approximately 2.47% of the total loan portfolio. Consumer loans include loans for household expenditures, car loans, and other loans to individuals. While this category has historically experienced a greater percentage of charge-offs than the other classifications, the Bank is committed to continue to make this type of loan to fill the needs of the Bank’s customer base.

1

Table of Contents

All loans in the Bank’s portfolio are subject to risk from the state of the economy in the Bank’s service area and also that of the nation. The Bank has used and continues to use conservative loan-to-value ratios and thorough credit evaluation to lessen the risk on all types of loans. The use of conservative appraisals has also reduced exposure on real estate loans. Thorough credit checks and evaluation of past internal credit history has helped reduce the amount of risk related to consumer loans. Government guarantees of loans are used when appropriate, but apply to a minimal percentage of the portfolio. Commercial loans are evaluated by collateral value and ability to service debt. Businesses seeking loans must have a good product line and sales, responsible management, and demonstrated cash flows sufficient to service the debt.

Investments

The Bank invests a portion of its assets in U.S. Treasury, U.S. Government agency, and U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprise securities, state, county and local obligations, corporate and equity securities. The Bank’s investments are managed in relation to loan demand and deposit growth, and are generally used to provide for the investment of excess funds at reduced yields and risks relative to increases in loan demand or to offset fluctuations in deposits.

Deposit Activities

Deposits are the major source of funds for lending and other investment activities. The Bank considers the majority of its regular savings, demand, NOW, money market deposits, individual retirement accounts and small denomination certificates of deposit to be core deposits. These accounts comprised approximately 89.22% of the Bank’s total deposits at December 31, 2016. Certificates of deposit in denominations of $100,000 or more represented the remaining 10.78% of deposits at December 31, 2016.

Market Area

The Bank’s primary market area consists of:

Grayson, Carroll, and Alleghany Counties, as well as the City of Galax, are rural in nature and employment in these areas was once dominated by furniture and textile manufacturing. As those industries have declined employment has shifted to healthcare, retail and service, light manufacturing, tourism, and agriculture. Median household income in these markets ranged from a low of $28,892 in Grayson County, to a high of $35,319 in Alleghany County, based upon 2014 census data. Montgomery, Pulaski, Floyd and Wythe counties, while largely rural, are more economically diverse. Montgomery County is home to two major universities, Virginia Tech and Radford University, while community colleges are located in both Wythe County and Pulaski County. The university presence has led to the development of several technology related companies in the region. Manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, retail, healthcare and service industries are also prevalent in these markets. The increased economic diversity of these markets is reflected in the median household incomes which range from a low of $40,185 in Wythe County, to a high of $47,543 in Floyd County, according to the 2014 census data. The Bank has a lesser presence in Roanoke County and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem where median household incomes ranged from a low of $39,530 in Roanoke City, to a high of $60,950 in Roanoke County.

2

Table of Contents

Competition

The Bank encounters strong competition both in making loans and attracting deposits. The deregulation of the banking industry and the widespread enactment of state laws that permit multi-bank holding companies as well as an increasing level of interstate banking have created a highly competitive environment for commercial banking. In one or more aspects of its business, the Bank competes with other commercial banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage and investment banking companies, and other financial intermediaries. Many of these competitors have substantially greater resources and lending limits and may offer certain services that the Bank does not currently provide. In addition, many of the Bank’s competitors are not subject to the same extensive federal regulations that govern bank holding companies and federally insured banks. Recent federal and state legislation has heightened the competitive environment in which financial institutions must conduct their business, and the potential for competition among financial institutions of all types has increased significantly.

To compete, the Bank relies upon specialized services, responsive handling of customer needs, and personal contacts by its officers, directors, and staff. Large multi-branch banking competitors tend to compete primarily by rate and the number and location of branches, while smaller, independent financial institutions tend to compete primarily by rate and personal service.

Employees

At December 31, 2016, the Company had 176 total employees representing 175 full time equivalents, none of whom are represented by a union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The Company’s management considers employee relations to be good.

Government Supervision and Regulation

The Company and the Bank are extensively regulated under federal and state law. The following information describes certain aspects of that regulation applicable to the Company and the Bank and does not purport to be complete. Proposals to change the laws and regulations governing the banking industry are frequently raised in U.S. Congress, in state legislatures, and before the various bank regulatory agencies. The likelihood and timing of any changes and the impact such changes might have on the Company and the Bank are impossible to determine with any certainty. A change in applicable laws or regulations, or a change in the way such laws or regulations are interpreted by regulatory agencies or courts, may have a material impact on the business, operations, and earnings of the Company and the Bank.

Parkway Acquisition Corp.

The Company is qualified as a bank holding company (“BHC”) within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”), and is registered as such with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”). As a bank holding company, the Company is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the FRB and is required to file various reports and additional information with the FRB. The Company is also registered under the bank holding company laws of Virginia and is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (the “SCC”).

Skyline National Bank

The Bank is a federally chartered national bank. It is subject to federal regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”).

The OCC conducts regular examinations of the Bank, reviewing such matters as the adequacy of loan loss reserves, quality of loans and investments, management practices, compliance with laws, and other aspects of its operations. In addition to these regular examinations, the Bank must furnish the OCC with periodic reports containing a full and accurate statement of its affairs. Supervision, regulation and examination of banks by these agencies are intended primarily for the protection of depositors rather than shareholders.

3

Table of Contents

The regulations of the OCC, the FDIC and the FRB govern most aspects of the Company’s and the Bank’s business, including deposit reserve requirements, investments, loans, certain check clearing activities, issuance of securities, payment of dividends, branching, deposit interest rate ceilings, and numerous other matters. The OCC, the FDIC and the FRB have adopted guidelines and released interpretative materials that establish operational and managerial standards to promote the safe and sound operation of banks and bank holding companies. These standards relate to the institution’s key operating functions, including but not limited to capital management, internal controls, internal audit system, information systems and data and cybersecurity, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure and risk management, vendor management, executive management and its compensation, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, liquidity and risk management.

The Dodd-Frank Act

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). The Dodd-Frank Act significantly restructures the financial regulatory regime in the United States and has a broad impact on the financial services industry as a result of the significant regulatory and compliance changes required under the act. While significant rulemaking under the Dodd-Frank Act has occurred, certain of the act’s provisions require additional rulemaking by the federal bank regulatory agencies, a process which will take years to fully implement. The Company believes that short- and long-term compliance costs for the Company will be greater because of the Dodd-Frank Act. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that could impact the Company are set forth below:

Creation of a new agency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), that has rulemaking authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that would apply to all banks and have broad powers to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws.

Changes in standards for Federal preemption of state laws related to federally chartered institutions, such as the Bank, and their subsidiaries.

Permanent increase of deposit insurance coverage to $250 thousand and permission for depository institutions to pay interest on business checking accounts.

Changes in the assessment base for federal deposit insurance from the amount of insured deposits to consolidated assets less tangible capital, eliminates the ceiling on the size of the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF’), and increases the floor of the size of the DIF.

Prohibition on banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment companies (the “Volker Rule”).

Deposit Insurance

The deposits of the Bank are insured by the DIF up to applicable limits and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. On April 1, 2011, the deposit insurance assessment base changed from total deposits to average total assets minus average tangible equity, pursuant to a rule issued by the FDIC as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDIA”), as amended by the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, requires the FDIC to set a ratio of deposit insurance reserves to estimated insured deposits of at least 1.35%. The FDIC uses a risk-based system to calculate assessment rates and revised its methodology in April 2016 to calculate assessment rates for banks with under $10 billion in assets based upon certain financial measures of the bank and its supervisory ratings. Initial base assessment rates currently range from 3 to 30 basis points, subject to a decrease for certain unsecured debt. Once the reserve ratio reaches 2.0% or greater, initial base assessment rates will range from 2 to 28 basis points and, once the reserve ratio reaches 2.5% or greater, the initial base assessment rates will range from 1 to 25 basis points.

4

Table of Contents

Capital Requirements

The FRB, the OCC and the FDIC have issued substantially similar risk-based and leverage capital guidelines applicable to all banks and bank holding companies. In addition, those regulatory agencies may from time to time require that a banking organization maintain capital above the minimum levels because of its financial condition or actual or anticipated growth.

Effective January 1, 2015, the federal banking regulators adopted rules to implement the Basel III regulatory capital reforms from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rules required the Bank to comply with the following new minimum capital ratios: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5% of risk-weighted assets; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% of risk-weighted assets (increased from the prior requirement of 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% of risk-weighted assets (unchanged from the prior requirement); and (iv) a leverage ratio of 4% of total assets (unchanged from the prior requirement). When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the rules will require the Company and the Bank to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer” (which is added to the 4.5% common equity Tier 1 ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7% upon full implementation), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 6.0% Tier 1 capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% upon full implementation), (iii) a minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 8.0% total capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5% upon full implementation), and (iv) a minimum leverage ratio of 4%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average assets.

The capital conservation buffer requirement will be phased in beginning January 1, 2016, at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets, increasing by the same amount each year until fully implemented at 2.5% on January 1, 2019. The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases, and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

The rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA by (i) introducing a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio requirement at each level (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum ratio for well-capitalized status being 8.0% (as compared to the prior ratio of 6.0%); and (iii) eliminating the current provision that provides that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3.0% Tier 1 leverage ratio and still be well-capitalized. These new thresholds were effective for the Bank as of January 1, 2015. The minimum total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (10.0%) and minimum leverage ratio (5.0%) for well-capitalized status were unchanged by the final rules.

The new capital requirements also included changes in the risk weights of assets to better reflect credit risk and other risk exposures. These include a 150% risk weight (up from 100%) for certain high volatility commercial real estate acquisition, development and construction loans and nonresidential mortgage loans that are 90 days past due or otherwise on nonaccrual status, a 20% (up from 0%) credit conversion factor for the unused portion of a commitment with an original maturity of one year or less that is not unconditionally cancelable, a 250% risk weight (up from 100%) for mortgage servicing rights and deferred tax assets that are not deducted from capital, and increased risk-weights (from 0% to up to 600%) for equity exposures.

Based on management’s understanding and interpretation of the new capital rules, it believes that, as of December 31, 2016, the Banks meet all capital adequacy requirements under such rules on a fully phased-in basis as if such requirements were in effect as of such date.

5

Table of Contents

Dividends

The Company’s ability to distribute cash dividends depends primarily on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to it. The Company is a legal entity, separate and distinct from its subsidiaries. A significant portion of the Company’s revenues result from dividends paid to it by the Bank. There are various legal limitations applicable to the payment of dividends by the Bank to the Company and to the payment of dividends by the Company to its shareholders. As a national bank, the Bank is subject to certain restrictions on its reserves and capital imposed by federal banking statutes and regulations. Under OCC regulations, a national bank may not declare a dividend in excess of its undivided profits. Additionally, a national bank may not declare a dividend if the total amount of all dividends, including the proposed dividend, declared by the national bank in any calendar year exceeds the total of the national bank’s retained net income of that year to date, combined with its retained net income of the two preceding years, unless the dividend is approved by the OCC. A national bank may not declare or pay any dividend if, after making the dividend, the national bank would be “undercapitalized,” as defined in regulations of the OCC.

In addition, under the current supervisory practices of the FRB, the Company should inform and consult with its regulators reasonably in advance of declaring or paying a dividend that exceeds earnings for the period (e.g., quarter) for which the dividend is being paid or that could result in a material adverse change to the Company’s capital structure.

Permitted Activities

As a bank holding company, the Company is limited to managing or controlling banks, furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiaries, and engaging in other activities that the FRB determines by regulation or order to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. In determining whether a particular activity is permissible, the FRB must consider whether the performance of such an activity reasonably can be expected to produce benefits to the public that outweigh possible adverse effects. Possible benefits include greater convenience, increased competition, and gains in efficiency. Possible adverse effects include undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, and unsound banking practices. Despite prior approval, the FRB may order a bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any activity or to terminate ownership or control of any subsidiary when the FRB has reasonable cause to believe that a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of any bank subsidiary of that bank holding company may result from such an activity.

Banking Acquisitions; Changes in Control

The BHC Act requires, among other things, the prior approval of the FRB in any case where a bank holding company proposes to (i) acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the outstanding voting stock of any bank or bank holding company (unless it already owns a majority of such voting shares), (ii) acquire all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (iii) merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, the FRB will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the public benefits expected to be received from the acquisition, the projected capital ratios and levels on a post-acquisition basis, and the acquiring institution’s performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the “CRA”) and its compliance with fair housing and other consumer protection laws.

Subject to certain exceptions, the BHC Act and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with the applicable regulations, require FRB approval (or, depending on the circumstances, no notice of disapproval) prior to any person or company acquiring “control” of a bank or bank holding company. A conclusive presumption of control exists if an individual or company acquires the power, directly or indirectly, to direct the management or policies of an insured depository institution or to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities of any insured depository institution. A rebuttable presumption of control exists if a person or company acquires 10% or more but less than 25% of any class of voting securities of an insured depository institution and either the institution has registered its securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or no other person will own a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the acquisition. The Company’s common stock currently is not registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

6

Table of Contents

In addition, Virginia law requires the prior approval of the SCC for (i) the acquisition of more than 5% of the voting shares of a Virginia bank or any holding company that controls a Virginia bank, or (ii) the acquisition by a Virginia bank holding company of a bank or its holding company domiciled outside Virginia.

Source of Strength

FRB policy has historically required bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement, the Company is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including at times when the Company may not be in a financial position to provide such resources. Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to depositors and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary banks. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.

Safety and Soundness

There are a number of obligations and restrictions imposed on bank holding companies and their subsidiary banks by law and regulatory policy that are designed to minimize potential loss to the depositors of such depository institutions and the FDIC insurance fund in the event of a depository institution default. For example, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, to avoid receivership of an insured depository institution subsidiary, a bank holding company is required to guarantee the compliance of any subsidiary bank that may become “undercapitalized” with the terms of any capital restoration plan filed by such subsidiary with its appropriate federal bank regulatory agency up to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5% of the institution’s total assets at the time the institution became undercapitalized or (ii) the amount that is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all applicable capital standards as of the time the institution fails to comply with such capital restoration plan.

Under the FDIA, the federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted guidelines prescribing safety and soundness standards. These guidelines establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), the federal bank regulatory agencies possess broad powers to take prompt corrective action to resolve problems of insured depository institutions. The extent of these powers depends upon whether the institution is “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” or “critically undercapitalized,” as defined by the law.

Reflecting changes under the new Basel III capital requirements, the relevant capital measures that became effective on January 1, 2015 for prompt corrective action are the total capital ratio, the common equity Tier 1 capital ratio, the Tier 1 capital ratio and the leverage ratio. A bank will be (i) well capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater, and is not subject to any capital directive order; (ii) “adequately capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 4.0% or greater and is not “well capitalized” (iii) “undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%, a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio less than 4.5%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%; (iv) “significantly undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio less than 3.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%; and (v) “critically undercapitalized” if the institution’s tangible equity is equal to or less than 2.0% of average quarterly tangible assets. An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is

7

Table of Contents

lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes. Management believes, as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company met the requirements for being classified as “well capitalized.”

As required by FDICIA, the federal bank regulatory agencies also have adopted guidelines prescribing safety and soundness standards relating to, among other things, internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, and interest rate exposure. In general, the guidelines require appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risks and exposures specified in the guidelines. In addition, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an institution which has been notified that it is not in compliance with safety and soundness standard to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution is subject under the prompt corrective action provisions described above.

Branching

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, as amended (the “Interstate Banking Act”), generally permits well capitalized bank holding companies to acquire banks in any state, and preempts all state laws restricting the ownership by a bank holding company of banks in more than one state. The Interstate Banking Act also permits a bank to merge with an out-of-state bank and convert any offices into branches of the resulting bank if both states have not opted out of interstate branching; and permits a bank to acquire branches from an out-of-state bank if the law of the state where the branches are located permits the interstate branch acquisition. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, a bank holding company or bank must be well capitalized and well managed to engage in an interstate acquisition. Bank holding companies and banks are required to obtain prior FRB approval to acquire more than 5% of a class of voting securities, or substantially all of the assets, of a bank holding company, bank or savings association. The Interstate Banking Act and the Dodd-Frank Act permit banks to establish and operate de novo interstate branches to the same extent a bank chartered by the host state may establish branches.

Transactions with Affiliates

Pursuant to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W, the authority of the Bank to engage in transactions with related parties or “affiliates” or to make loans to insiders is limited. Loan transactions with an affiliate generally must be collateralized and certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates, including the sale of assets, the payment of money or the provision of services, must be on terms and conditions that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing for comparable nonaffiliated transactions. In addition, the Bank generally may not purchase securities issued or underwritten by affiliates.

Loans to executive officers, directors or to any person who directly or indirectly, or acting through or in concert with one or more persons, owns, controls or has the power to vote more than 10% of any class of voting securities of a bank (a “10% Shareholders”), are subject to Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and their corresponding regulations (Regulation O) and Section 13(k) of the Exchange Act relating to the prohibition on personal loans to executives (which exempts financial institutions in compliance with the insider lending restrictions of Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act). Among other things, these loans must be made on terms substantially the same as those prevailing on transactions made to unaffiliated individuals and certain extensions of credit to those persons must first be approved in advance by a disinterested majority of the entire board of directors. Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act prohibits loans to any of those individuals where the aggregate amount exceeds an amount equal to 15% of an institution’s unimpaired capital and surplus plus an additional 10% of unimpaired capital and surplus in the case of loans that are fully secured by readily marketable collateral, or when the aggregate amount on all of the extensions of credit outstanding to all of these persons would exceed the Bank’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. Section 22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act identifies limited circumstances in which the Bank is permitted to extend credit to executive officers.

8

Table of Contents

Consumer Financial Protection

The Company is subject to a number of 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 Service Members Civil Relief Act, laws governing flood insurance, federal and state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive business practices, foreclosure laws ,and various regulations that implement some or all of the foregoing. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits, making loans, collecting loans and providing other services. If the Company fails to comply with these laws and regulations, it may be subject to various penalties. Failure to comply with consumer protection requirements may also result in failure to obtain any required bank regulatory approval for merger or acquisition transactions the Company may wish to pursue or being prohibited from engaging in such transactions even if approval is not required.

The Dodd-Frank Act centralized responsibility for consumer financial protection by creating a new agency, the CFPB, and giving it responsibility for implementing, examining, and enforcing compliance with federal consumer protection laws. The CFPB focuses on (i) risks to consumers and compliance with the federal consumer financial laws, (ii) the markets in which firms operate and risks to consumers posed by activities in those markets, (iii) depository institutions that offer a wide variety of consumer financial products and services, and (iv) non-depository companies that offer one or more consumer financial products or services. The CFPB has broad rule making 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 CFPB can issue cease-and-desist orders against banks and other entities that violate consumer financial laws. The CFPB may also institute a civil action against an entity in violation of federal consumer financial law in order to impose a civil penalty or injunction.

Community Reinvestment Act

The CRA requires the appropriate federal banking agency, in connection with its examination of a bank, to assess the bank’s record in meeting the credit needs of the communities served by the bank, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. Furthermore, such assessment is also required of banks that have applied, among other things, to merge or consolidate with or acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of an insured depository institution, or to open or relocate a branch. In the case of a BHC applying for approval to acquire a bank or BHC, the record of each subsidiary bank of the applicant BHC is subject to assessment in considering the application. Under the CRA, institutions are assigned a rating of “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve,” or “substantial non-compliance.” The Company was rated “outstanding” in its most recent CRA evaluation.

Anti-Money Laundering Legislation

The Company is subject to the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering laws and regulations, including the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Among other things, these laws and regulations require the Company to take steps to prevent the use of the Company for facilitating the flow of illegal or illicit money, to report large currency transactions, and to file suspicious activity reports. The Company is also required to carry out a comprehensive anti-money laundering compliance program. Violations can result in substantial civil and criminal sanctions. In addition, provisions of the USA Patriot Act require the federal bank regulatory agencies to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution’s anti-money laundering activities when reviewing bank mergers and BHC acquisitions.

Privacy Legislation

Several recent laws, including the Right to Financial Privacy Act, and related regulations issued by the federal bank regulatory agencies, also provide new protections against the transfer and use of customer information by financial institutions. A financial institution must provide to its customers information regarding its policies and procedures with

9

Table of Contents

respect to the handling of customers’ personal information. Each institution must conduct an internal risk assessment of its ability to protect customer information. These privacy provisions generally prohibit a financial institution from providing a customer’s personal financial information to unaffiliated parties without prior notice and approval from the customer.

Incentive Compensation

In June 2010, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of financial institutions do not undermine the safety and soundness of such institutions by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The Interagency Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of a financial institutions, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a financial institution’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the institution’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 financial institution’s board of directors.

The FRB will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of financial institutions, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each financial institution based on the scope and complexity of the institution’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the institution’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the institution’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a financial institution if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the institution’s safety and soundness and the financial institution is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies. At December 31, 2016, the Company had not been made aware of any instances of non-compliance with the final guidance.

Volcker Rule

The Volcker Rule under the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds. The Volcker Rule, which became effective in July 2015, does not significantly impact the operations of the Company or the Bank, as they do not have any significant engagement in the businesses prohibited by the Volcker Rule.

Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Rule

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a final rule on January 10, 2013 (effective on January 10, 2014), amending Regulation Z as implemented by the Truth in Lending Act, requiring mortgage lenders to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Mortgage lenders are required to determine consumers’ ability to repay in one of two ways. The first alternative requires the mortgage lender to consider the following eight underwriting factors when making the credit decision: (i) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (ii) current employment status; (iii) the monthly payment on the covered transaction; (iv) the monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (v) the monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations; (vi) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (vii) the monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (viii) credit history. Alternatively, the mortgage lender can originate “qualified mortgages,” which are entitled to a presumption that the creditor making the loan satisfied the ability-to-repay requirements. In general, a “qualified mortgage” is a mortgage loan without negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, or terms exceeding 30 years. In addition, to be a qualified mortgage the points and fees paid by a consumer cannot exceed 3% of the total loan amount. Qualified mortgages that are “higher-priced” (e.g. subprime loans) garner a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ability-to-repay rules, while qualified mortgages that are not “higher-priced” (e.g. prime loans) are given a safe harbor of compliance.

10

Table of Contents

Cybersecurity

In March 2015, federal regulators issued two related statements regarding cybersecurity. One statement indicates that financial institutions should design multiple layers of security controls to establish lines of defense and to ensure that their risk management processes also address the risk posed by compromised customer credentials, including security measures to reliably authenticate customers accessing internet-based services of the financial institution. The other statement indicates that a financial institution’s management is expected to maintain sufficient business continuity planning processes to ensure the rapid recovery, resumption and maintenance of the institution’s operations after a cyber-attack involving destructive malware. A financial institution is also expected to develop appropriate processes to enable recovery of data and business operations and address rebuilding network capabilities and restoring data if the institution or its critical service providers fall victim to this type of cyber-attack. If the Company fails to observe the regulatory guidance, it could be subject to various regulatory sanctions, including financial penalties.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies

The Company’s operations are affected not only by general economic conditions, but also by the policies of various regulatory authorities. In particular, the FRB regulates money and credit conditions and interest rates to influence general economic conditions. These policies have a significant impact on overall growth and distribution of loans, investments and deposits; they affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for time and savings deposits. FRB monetary policies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks, including the Company, in the past and are expected to do so in the future. As a result, it is difficult for the Company to predict the potential effects of possible changes in monetary policies upon its future operating results.

We may be adversely affected by economic conditions in our market area.

We are located in southwestern Virginia, and our local economy is heavily influenced by the furniture and textile industries, both of which have been in decline in recent years. Further changes in the economy may influence the growth rate of our loans and deposits, the quality of the loan portfolio and loan and deposit pricing. Higher unemployment rates may lead to future increases in past-due and nonperforming loans thus having a negative impact on the earnings of the Bank. An additional, significant decline in general economic conditions caused by inflation, recession, unemployment or other factors beyond our control, would impact these local economic conditions and the demand for banking products and services generally, which could negatively affect our financial condition and performance.

Our concentration in loans secured by real estate may increase our credit losses, which would negatively affect our financial results.

We offer a variety of secured loans, including commercial lines of credit, commercial term loans, real estate, construction, home equity, consumer and other loans. Many of our loans are secured by real estate (both residential and commercial) in our market area. At December 31, 2016, the Company had $375.7 million of such loans outstanding, or 91.20% of its total loans. A major change in the real estate market, such as deterioration in the value of this collateral, or in the local or national economy, could adversely affect our customers’ ability to pay these loans, which in turn could impact us. Risk of loan defaults and foreclosures are unavoidable in the banking industry, and we try to limit our exposure to this risk by monitoring our extensions of credit carefully. We cannot fully eliminate credit risk, and as a result credit losses may occur in the future.

Should our loan quality deteriorate, and our allowance for loan losses becomes inadequate, our results of operations may be adversely affected.

Our earnings are significantly affected by our ability to properly originate, underwrite and service loans. In addition, we maintain an allowance for loan losses that we believe is a reasonable estimate of known and inherent losses within our

11

Table of Contents

loan portfolio. We could sustain losses if we incorrectly assess the creditworthiness of our borrowers or fail to detect or respond to deterioration in asset quality in a timely manner. Through a periodic review and consideration of the loan portfolio, management determines the amount of the allowance for loan losses by considering general market conditions, credit quality of the loan portfolio, the collateral supporting the loans and performance of customers relative to their financial obligations.

The amount of future loan losses will be influenced by changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates, which may be beyond our control, and these losses may exceed current estimates. Although we believe the allowance for loan losses is a reasonable estimate of known and inherent losses in the loan portfolio, we cannot precisely predict such losses or be certain that the loan loss allowance will be adequate in the future. While the risk of nonpayment is inherent in banking, we could experience greater nonpayment levels than we anticipate. Further deterioration in the quality of our loan portfolio could cause our interest income and net interest margin to decrease and our provisions for loan losses to increase further, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Federal and state regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of management. Any increase in the amount of the provision or loans charged-off as required by these regulatory agencies could have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition.

An inability to maintain our regulatory capital position could adversely affect our operations.

As of December 31, 2016, the Bank was classified as well capitalized for regulatory capital purposes. If we do not maintain the expected levels of regulatory capital in the future, it could increase the regulatory scrutiny on Parkway and the Bank, and the OCC could establish individual minimum capital ratios or take other regulatory actions against us. Further, if the Bank were no longer “well capitalized” for regulatory capital purposes, it would not be able to offer interest rates on deposit accounts that are significantly higher than the average rates in its market area. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to increase deposits. If we are not able to attract new deposits, our ability to fund our loan portfolio may be adversely affected. In addition, we would pay higher insurance premiums to the FDIC, which would reduce our earnings.

Our ability to maintain adequate sources of liquidity may be negatively impacted by the economic environment which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In managing our consolidated balance sheet, we depend on cash and due from banks, federal funds sold, loan and investment security payments, core deposits, lines of credit with correspondent banks and lines of credit with the Federal Home Loan Bank to provide sufficient liquidity to meet our commitments and business needs, and to accommodate the transaction and cash management needs of clients. The availability of these funding sources is highly dependent upon the perception of the liquidity and creditworthiness of the financial institution, and such perception can change quickly in response to market conditions or circumstances unique to a particular company. Any event that limits our access to these sources, such as a decline in the confidence of debt purchasers, or our depositors or counterparties, may adversely affect our liquidity, financial position, and results of operations.

We may incur losses if we are unable to successfully manage interest rate risk.

Our profitability will depend in substantial part upon the spread between the interest rates earned on investments and loans and interest rates paid on deposits and other interest-bearing liabilities. Changes in interest rates will affect our operating performance and financial condition in diverse ways including the pricing of securities, loans and deposits and the volume of loan originations in our mortgage-origination office. We attempt to minimize our exposure to interest rate risk, but we will be unable to eliminate it. Our net interest spread will depend on many factors that are partly or entirely outside our control, including competition, federal economic, monetary and fiscal policies, and economic conditions generally.

12

Table of Contents

We may be adversely impacted by changes in market conditions.

We are directly and indirectly affected by changes in market conditions. Market risk generally represents the risk that values of assets and liabilities or revenues will be adversely affected by changes in market conditions. As a financial institution, market risk is inherent in the financial instruments associated with our operations and activities, including loans, deposits, securities, short-term borrowings, long-term debt and trading account assets and liabilities. A few of the market conditions that may shift from time to time, thereby exposing us to market risk, include fluctuations in interest rates, equity and futures prices, and price deterioration or changes in value due to changes in market perception or actual credit quality of issuers. Our investment securities portfolio, in particular, may be impacted by market conditions beyond our control, including rating agency downgrades of the securities, defaults of the issuers of the securities, lack of market pricing of the securities, and inactivity or instability in the credit markets. Any changes in these conditions, in current accounting principles or interpretations of these principles could impact our assessment of fair value and thus the determination of other-than-temporary impairment of the securities in the investment securities portfolio.

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

We target our business development and marketing strategy primarily to serve the banking and financial services needs of small and medium sized businesses. These businesses generally have less capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities. If general economic conditions adversely affect this major economic sector in our markets, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Our future success is dependent on our ability to compete effectively in the highly competitive banking industry.

We face vigorous competition from other banks and other financial institutions, including savings and loan associations, savings banks, finance companies and credit unions for deposits, loans and other financial services in our market area. A number of these banks and other financial institutions are significantly larger than we are and have substantially greater access to capital and other resources, as well as larger lending limits and branch systems, and offer a wider array of banking services. To a limited extent, we also compete with other providers of financial services, such as money market mutual funds, brokerage firms, consumer finance companies, insurance companies and governmental organizations which may offer more favorable financing than we can. Many of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern us. As a result, these non-bank competitors have advantages over us in providing certain services. This competition may reduce or limit our margins and our market share and may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our ability to operate profitably may be dependent on our ability to implement various technologies into our operations.

The market for financial services, including banking and consumer finance services, is increasingly affected by advances in technology, including developments in telecommunications, data processing, computers, automation, online banking and tele-banking. Our ability to compete successfully in our market may depend on the extent to which we are able to exploit such technological changes. If we are not able to afford such technologies, properly or timely anticipate or implement such technologies, or effectively train our staff to use such technologies, our business, financial condition or operating results could be adversely affected.

Our operations depend upon third party vendors that perform services for us.

We are reliant upon certain external vendors to provide products and services necessary to maintain our day-to-day operations, including data processing and interchange and transmission services for the ATM network. Accordingly, our success depends on the services provided by these vendors, and our operations are exposed to risk that these vendors will not perform in accordance with the contracted service agreements. Although we maintain a system of policies and procedures designed to monitor and mitigate vendor risks, the failure of an external vendor to perform in accordance with the contracted arrangements under service agreements could disrupt our operations, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

13

Table of Contents

Our operations may be adversely affected by cybersecurity risks.

In the ordinary course of business, we collect and store sensitive data, including proprietary business information and personally identifiable information of our customers and employees, in systems and on networks. The secure processing, maintenance and use of this information is critical to our operations and business strategy. We have invested in accepted technologies and review processes and practices that are designed to protect our networks, computers and data from damage or unauthorized access. Despite these security measures, our computer systems and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. A breach of any kind could compromise systems and the information stored there could be accessed, damaged or disclosed. A breach in security could result in legal claims, regulatory penalties, disruption in operations and damage to our reputation, which could adversely affect our business.

Our inability to successfully manage growth or implement our growth strategy may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

A key aspect of our long-term business strategy is our continued growth and expansion. We may not be able to successfully implement this strategy if we are unable to identify attractive expansion locations or opportunities in the future. In addition, our successful implementation and management of growth will be contingent upon whether we can maintain appropriate levels of capital to support our growth, maintain control over expenses, maintain adequate asset quality, attract talented bankers and successfully integrate into the organization, any branches or businesses acquired. As we continue to implement our growth strategy, we expect to incur increased personnel, occupancy and other operating expenses. In many cases, our expenses will increase prior to the income we expect to generate from the growth. For instance, in the case of new branches, we must absorb these expenses prior to or as we begin to generate new deposits, and there is a further time lag involved in redeploying the new deposits into attractively priced loans and other higher yielding earning assets. Thus, our plans to branch or expand loan or mortgage operations could depress earnings in the short run, even if we are able to efficiently execute our strategy.

Our profitability may suffer because of rapid and unpredictable changes in the highly regulated environment in which we operate.

We are subject to extensive supervision by several governmental regulatory agencies at the federal and state levels. Recently enacted, proposed and future banking legislation and regulations have had, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the financial services industry. These regulations, which are intended to protect depositors and not our shareholders, and the interpretation and application of them by federal and state regulators, are beyond our control, may change rapidly and unpredictably and can be expected to influence our earnings and growth. Our success depends on our continued ability to comply with these regulations.

We may be subject to more stringent capital requirements, which could adversely affect our results of operations and future growth.

In 2013, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC approved a new rule that substantially amends the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to us. The final rule implements the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The final rule included new minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratios that became effective for us on January 1, 2015, and refined the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating these ratios. The new minimum capital requirements are: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 (“CET1”) capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 6%, which is increased from 4%; (iii) a total capital ratio of 8%, which is unchanged from the current rules; and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%. The final rule also establishes a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% above the new regulatory minimum capital ratios, and when fully effective in 2019, will result in the following minimum ratios: (a) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%; (b) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 8.5%; and (c) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement will be phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and would increase each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution will be subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital level falls below the buffer amount. These limitations will establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that can be utilized for such activities. In addition, the final rule provides for a number of new deductions from and adjustments to capital and prescribes a revised approach for risk weightings that could result in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories. In February 2015, the agencies increased the filing threshold to exempt holding companies under $1 billion concerning computing and reporting consolidated capital ratios. Therefore, currently, the new BASEL III ratios will be applicable to the Bank.

14

Table of Contents

The application of these more stringent capital requirements for us could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, adversely affect our future growth opportunities, and result in regulatory actions such as a prohibition on the payment of dividends or on the repurchase shares if we were unable to comply with such requirements.

Government measures to regulate the financial industry could materially affect our businesses, financial condition or results of operations.

As a financial institution, we are heavily regulated at the state and federal levels. Banking regulations generally are intended to protect depositors, not investors, and regulators have broad interpretive and enforcement powers beyond our control that may change rapidly and unpredictably and could influence our earnings and growth. Future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations or enforcement could be materially adverse to us and our shareholders.

Further, as a result of the financial crisis and related global economic downturn that began in 2008, we have faced, and expect to continue to face, increased public and legislative scrutiny as well as stricter and more comprehensive regulation of our financial services practices. In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. Many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have begun to be or will be phased in over the next several months or years and will be subject both to further rulemaking and the discretion of applicable regulatory bodies. Although we cannot predict the full effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on our operations, it, as well as the future rules implementing its reforms, could impose significant additional costs on us, limit the products we offer, limit our ability to pursue business opportunities in an efficient manner, require us to increase our regulatory capital, impact the values of assets that we hold, significantly reduce our revenues or otherwise materially and adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, or results of operations. The ultimate impact of the final rules on our businesses and results of operations, however, will depend on regulatory interpretation and rulemaking, as well as the success of our actions to mitigate the negative earnings impact of certain provisions.

None.

The Company is headquartered at 101 Jacksonville Circle, Floyd, Virginia. The Bank is headquartered in the Main Office at 113 West Main Street, Independence, Virginia. The Bank operates branches at the following locations, all of which are owned by the Bank, except for the offices in Salem and Willis, which are leased facilities:

15

Table of Contents

The Bank has two conference centers located at 558 East Main Street, Independence, Virginia, and 203 E. Oxford Street, Floyd, Virginia, which are used for various board and committee meetings, as well as continuing education and training programs for bank employees. The Bank also owns an operations center adjacent to the main office in Independence, Virginia and operates a loan production office in a leased facility in the town of Blacksburg, Virginia. The Bank anticipates closing the office at 185 South Main Street, Hillsville, Virginia, sometime in 2017.

There are no material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which the Company is a party or of which any of its property is subject.

Not applicable.

PART II

The Company’s common stock is quoted on the OTC Markets Group’s OTCQX tier under the symbol “PKKW.” As of March 28, 2017, there were 5,021,376 shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding, held by 1,543 shareholders of record.

The Company’s common stock began quotation on the OTC Market on or about August 31, 2016, before which there was no trading market and no market price for the Company’s common stock. The company was incorporated under Virginia law on November 2, 2015, solely to facilitate the merger between Cardinal and Grayson that was completed on July 1, 2016.

Following are the high and low prices of sales of common stock known to the Company, along with the dividends that were paid quarterly (per share).

Dividend Policy

The final determination of the timing, amount and payment of dividends on the Company’s common stock is at the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors and will depend upon the earnings of the Company and its subsidiaries, principally the Bank, the financial condition of the Company and other factors, including general economic conditions and applicable governmental regulations and policies as discussed in Item 1., “Business – Government Supervision and Regulation – Dividends,” above.

The Company’s ability to distribute cash dividends will depend primarily on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to it. As a national bank, the Bank is subject to certain restrictions on our reserves and capital imposed by federal banking statutes and regulations. Furthermore, under Virginia law, the Company may not declare or pay a cash dividend on its capital stock if it is insolvent or if the payment of the dividend would render it insolvent or unable to pay its obligations as they become due in the ordinary course of business. For additional information on these limitations, see “Item 1. Business – Government Supervision and Regulation – Dividends,” above.

16

Table of Contents

Stock Repurchases

The Company did not repurchase any shares of its common stock during 2016.

Not applicable.

17

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview

Management’s Discussion and Analysis is provided to assist in the understanding and evaluation of Parkway Acquisition Corp’s. financial condition and its results of operations. The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Parkway Acquisition Corp. (“Parkway”) was incorporated as a Virginia corporation on November 2, 2015. Parkway was formed as a business combination shell for the purpose of completing a business combination transaction between Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (“Grayson”) and Cardinal Bankshares Corporation (“Cardinal”). On November 6, 2015, Grayson, Cardinal and Parkway entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “merger agreement”), providing for the combination of the three companies. Terms of the merger agreement called for Grayson and Cardinal to merge with and into Parkway, with Parkway as the surviving corporation (the “merger”). The merger agreement established exchange ratios under which each share of Grayson common stock was converted to the right to receive 1.76 shares of common stock of Parkway, while each share of Cardinal common stock was converted to the right to receive 1.30 shares of common stock of Parkway. The exchange ratios resulted in Grayson shareholders receiving approximately 60% of the newly issued Parkway shares and Cardinal shareholders receiving approximately 40% of the newly issued Parkway shares. The merger was completed on July 1, 2016. Grayson is considered the acquiror and Cardinal is considered the acquiree in the transaction for accounting purposes.

Upon completion of the merger, the Bank of Floyd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cardinal, was merged with and into Grayson National Bank (the “Bank’), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Grayson. The Bank was organized under the laws of the United States in 1900 and now serves the Virginia counties of Grayson, Floyd, Carroll, Wythe, Montgomery and Roanoke, and the surrounding areas through seventeen full-service banking offices and one loan production office. Effective March 13, 2017, the Bank changed its name to Skyline National Bank. As an FDIC-insured national banking association, the Bank is subject to regulation by the Comptroller of the Currency and the FDIC. Parkway is regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

For purposes of this annual report on Form 10-K, all information contained herein as of and for periods prior to July 1, 2016 reflects the operations of Grayson prior to the merger. Unless this report otherwise indicates or the context otherwise requires, all references to “Parkway” or the “Company” as of and for periods subsequent to July 1, 2016 refer to the combined company and its subsidiary as a combined entity after the merger, and all references to the “Company” as of and for periods prior to July 1, 2016 are references to Grayson and its subsidiary as a combined entity prior to the merger.

Parkway Acquisition Corp. had net earnings of $2.4 million for 2016 compared to $997 thousand for 2015 and $866 thousand for 2014. Earnings in 2016 were impacted significantly by the above mentioned merger activity. Interest income and interest expense increased due to the acquired loans and deposits. Also in 2016, the Company recognized non-recurring merger related expenses of approximately $1.5 million, most of which were not tax deductible.

Forwarding Looking Statements

From time to time, the Company and its senior managers have made and will make forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements may be contained in this report and in other documents that the Company files with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such statements may also be made by the Company and its senior managers in oral or written presentations to analysts, investors, the media and others. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Also, forward-looking statements can generally be identified by words such as “may,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “seek,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan” and similar expressions.

18

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Forward-looking statements provide management’s expectations or predictions of future conditions, events or results. They are not guarantees of future performance. By their nature, forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. These statements speak only as of the date they are made. The Company does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statements were made. There are a number of factors, many of which are beyond the Company’s control that could cause actual conditions, events or results to differ significantly from those described in the forward-looking statements. These factors, some of which are discussed elsewhere in this report, include:

Critical Accounting Policies

The Company’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). The notes to the audited consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2016 contain a summary of its significant accounting policies. Management believes the Company’s policies with respect to the methodology for the determination of the allowance for loan losses, and asset impairment judgments, such as the recoverability of intangible assets and other-than-temporary impairment of investment securities, involve a higher degree of complexity and require management to make difficult and subjective judgments that often require assumptions or estimates about highly uncertain matters. Accordingly, management considers the policies related to those areas as critical.

The allowance for loan losses is an estimate of the losses that may be sustained in the loan portfolio. The allowance is based on two basic principles of accounting: the first of which requires that losses be accrued when they are probable of occurring and estimable, and the second, which requires that losses be accrued based on the differences between the value of collateral, present value of future cash flows or values that are observable in the secondary market, and the loan balance.

The allowance for loan losses has three basic components: (i) the formula allowance, (ii) the specific allowance, and (iii) the unallocated allowance. Each of these components is determined based upon estimates that can and do change when the actual events occur. The formula allowance uses a historical loss view as an indicator of future losses and, as a result, could differ from the loss incurred in the future. However, since this history is updated with the most recent loss information, the errors that might otherwise occur are mitigated. The specific allowance uses various techniques to arrive at an estimate of loss. Historical loss information, expected cash flows and fair market value of collateral are used to estimate these losses. The use of these values is inherently subjective and our actual losses could be greater or less than the estimates. The unallocated allowance captures losses that are attributable to various economic events, industry or geographic sectors whose impact on the portfolio have occurred but have yet to be recognized in either the formula or specific allowance.

19

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 1. Net Interest Income and Average Balances (dollars in thousands)

20

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 2. Rate/Volume Variance Analysis (thousands)

Net Interest Income

Net interest income, the principal source of Company earnings, is the amount of income generated by earning assets (primarily loans and investment securities) less the interest expense incurred on interest-bearing liabilities (primarily deposits used to fund earning assets). Table 1 summarizes the major components of net interest income for the past three years and also provides yields and average balances.

Total interest income in 2016 increased by 38.24% to $17.6 million from $12.7 million in 2015 after a decrease from $13.0 million in 2014. The increase in total interest income in 2016 was due primarily to the merger with Cardinal, which added approximately $157.9 million in loans and $16.0 million in investment securities to the Company’s earning assets. Competitive pressure in our markets continues to place downward pressure on new loan rates; however, overall loan yields increased slightly from 2015 to 2016 due to accretion of purchase discounts applied through the purchase accounting marks. Average yields on investment securities decreased slightly; however, the overall decrease in interest income on securities was due to the overall reduction in average balances from 2015 to 2016. The total yield on average interest-earning assets increased from 4.24% in 2015 to 4.43% in 2016. The overall increase in yield was due to the aforementioned increase in loan yields as well as to increases in yields on interest-bearing deposits in banks and federal funds sold, which came as a result of recent increases in overnight borrowing rates from the Federal Reserve. Total interest expense decreased by $498 thousand in 2016 and $373 thousand in 2015. The decrease in 2016 was due primarily to a reduction in higher-rate borrowings, while the decrease in 2015 came primarily as a result of lower interest rates combined with a decrease in average time deposits outstanding during the year. The effects of changes in volumes and rates on net interest income in 2016 compared to 2015, and 2015 compared to 2014 are shown in Table 2.

The aforementioned factors led to an increase in net interest income of $5.4 million or 51.12% for 2016 as compared to 2015. The net yield on interest-earning assets increased by 49 basis points to 3.99% in 2016 compared to 3.50% in 2015.

21

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Provision for Credit Losses

The allowance for credit losses is established to provide for expected losses in the Company’s loan portfolio. Management determines the provision for credit losses required to maintain an allowance adequate to provide for probable losses. Some of the factors considered in making this decision are the levels and collectability of past due loans, volume of new loans, composition of the loan portfolio, and general economic outlook.

The provision for loan losses was a negative $5 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2016, compared to a negative $187 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2015. The reserve for loan losses at December 31, 2016 was approximately 0.83% of total loans, compared to 1.42% at December 31, 2015. The decrease in the reserve percentage was due to the Cardinal acquisition and the application of purchase accounting guidance which required the elimination of Cardinal’s loan loss reserves. Management’s estimate of probable credit losses inherent in the acquired Cardinal loan portfolio was reflected as a purchase discount which will be accreted into income over the remaining life of the acquired loans. Management believes the provision and the resulting allowance for loan losses are adequate.

Additional information is contained in Tables 12 and 13, and is discussed in Nonperforming and Problem Assets.

Other Income

Noninterest income consists of revenues generated from a broad range of financial services and activities. The majority of noninterest income is traditionally a result of service charges on deposit accounts including charges for overdrafts and fees charged for non-deposit services. Noninterest income increased by $2.1 million, or 82.00%, to $4.6 million in 2016 from $2.5 million in 2015. The increase was due primarily to the Cardinal merger, as service charges and other account-based fees increased along with the increase in the number of accounts and greater overall deposit balances. The merger also resulted in the recognition of a non-recurring bargain purchase gain of $891 thousand, which is included in other income for the year ended December 31, 2016. The decrease in noninterest income from 2014 to 2015 was due to a higher level of securities gains in 2014.

Table 3. Sources of Noninterest Income (thousands)

22

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Other Expense

The major components of noninterest expense for the past three years are illustrated at Table 4.

Total noninterest expense increased by $5.2 million or 45.22% in 2016 after decreasing by $322 thousand, or 2.70% in 2015. The increase in 2016 was due primarily to the Cardinal merger. Personnel expense increased by $2.1 million from 2015 to 2016 as the number of employees increased from approximately 110 prior to the combination to 185 after the combination. Data processing expense increased by $327 thousand as the consolidation of the data processing systems of the two banks did not occur until early in 2017. Merger related expenses totaled $1.5 million in 2016, compared to $498 thousand in 2015, representing an increase of $985 thousand. The decrease in noninterest expense in 2015, compared to 2014, was due to a significant decrease in foreclosure related expenses.

Table 4. Sources of Noninterest Expense (thousands)

The overhead efficiency ratio of noninterest expense to adjusted total revenue (net interest income plus noninterest income) was 82.42% in 2016, 89.16% in 2015, and 89.11% in 2014. The ratios for 2016 and 2015, without the effect of nonrecurring merger related costs, would have been 75.14% was 85.32%, respectively.

Income Taxes

Income tax expense is based on amounts reported in the statements of income (after adjustments for non-taxable income and non-deductible expenses) and consists of taxes currently due plus deferred taxes on temporary differences in the recognition of income and expense for tax and financial statement purposes. The deferred tax assets and liabilities represent the future Federal income tax return consequences of those differences, which will either be taxable or deductible when the assets and liabilities are recovered or settled.

23

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Income tax expense (substantially all Federal) was $1.2 million in 2016, $598 thousand in 2015, and $295 thousand in 2014, resulting in effective tax rates of 32.7%, 37.5%, and 25.4% respectively. The increase in the effective rates in 2016 and 2015 was due to merger related costs, the majority of which are not deductible for tax purposes.

The Company’s deferred income tax benefits and liabilities result primarily from net operating loss carryforwards and other temporary differences (discussed above), such as the provisions for credit losses, valuation reserves, non-accrual interest income, depreciation, deferred compensation, deferred income, pension expense and investment security discount accretion.

Net deferred tax benefits of $5.9 million and $1.8 million are included in other assets at December 31, 2016 and 2015 respectively. At December 31, 2016, net deferred tax benefits included $295 thousand of deferred tax assets applicable to unrealized losses on investment securities available for sale, and $402 thousand of deferred tax assets applicable to unfunded projected pension benefit obligations. Accordingly, these amounts were not charged to income but recorded directly to the related stockholders’ equity account.

Analysis of Financial Condition

Average earning assets increased 32.19% from 2015 to 2016 due primarily to the Cardinal merger. Total earning assets represented 90.09% of total average assets in 2016 and 90.32% in 2015. The mix of average earning assets changed from 2015 to 2016 as average loans increased by $98.1 million, or 43.08% and average investment securities decreased by $11.5 million, or 18.34%.

Table 5. Average Asset Mix (dollars in thousands)

Average loans for 2016 represented 74.09% of total average assets compared to 68.63% in 2015. Average federal funds sold decreased from 2.67% to 2.12% of total average assets while average investment securities decreased from 18.84% to 11.61% of total average assets over the same time period. The balances of nonearning assets increased from 9.68% in 2015 to 9.91% in 2016.

24

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Loans

Average loans totaled $325.7 million over the year ended December 31, 2016. This represents an increase of 43.1% from the average of $227.7 million for 2015. The increase in 2016 was due primarily to loans acquired from Cardinal. Average loans increased by 5.28% from 2014 to 2015.

The loan portfolio consists primarily of real estate and commercial loans. These loans accounted for 96.86% of the total loan portfolio at December 31, 2016. This is down slightly from the 97.37% that the two categories maintained at December 31, 2015. The amount of loans outstanding by type at December 31 of each of the past five years and the maturity distribution for variable and fixed rate loans as of December 31, 2016 are presented in Tables 6 & 7 respectively.

Table 6. Loan Portfolio Summary (dollars in thousands)

25

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 7. Maturity Schedule of Loans (dollars in thousands), as of December 31, 2016

Interest rates charged on loans vary with the degree of risk, maturity and amount of the loan. Competitive pressures, money market rates, availability of funds, and government regulations also influence interest rates. On average, loans yielded 5.00% in 2016 compared to an average yield of 4.92% in 2015.

Investment Securities

The Company uses its investment portfolio to provide liquidity for unexpected deposit decreases or loan generation, to meet the Bank’s interest rate sensitivity goals, and to generate income.

Management of the investment portfolio has always been conservative with the majority of investments taking the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury, U.S. Government Agencies, U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprises and State and Municipal bonds, as well as investment grade corporate bond issues. Management views the investment portfolio as a source of income, and purchases securities with the intent of retaining them until maturity. However, adjustments are necessary in the portfolio to provide an adequate source of liquidity which can be used to meet funding requirements for loan demand and deposit fluctuations and to control interest rate risk. Therefore, from time to time, management may sell certain securities prior to their maturity. Table 8 presents the investment portfolio at the end of 2016 by major types of investments and contractual maturity ranges. Investment securities in Table 8 may have repricing or call options that are earlier than the contractual maturity date. Yields on tax exempt obligations are not computed on a tax-equivalent basis in Table 8.

The total amortized cost of investment securities increased by approximately $7.2 million from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, while the average balance of investment securities carried throughout the year decreased by approximately $11.5 million from 2015 to 2016. The decrease came as cash generated from liquidating investment securities was used to repay borrowings. The average yield of the investment portfolio decreased to 2.34% for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to 2.39% for 2015.

26

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 8. Investment Securities - Maturity/Yield Schedule (dollars in thousands)

Deposits

The Company relies on deposits generated in its market area to provide the majority of funds needed to support lending activities and for investments in liquid assets. More specifically, core deposits (total deposits less certificates of deposit in denominations of $100,000 or more) are the primary funding source. The Company’s balance sheet growth is largely determined by the availability of deposits in its markets, the cost of attracting the deposits, and the prospects of profitably utilizing the available deposits by increasing the loan or investment portfolios. Market conditions have resulted in depositors shopping for deposit rates more than in the past. An increased customer awareness of interest rates adds to the importance of rate management. The Company’s management must continuously monitor market pricing, competitor’s rates, and the internal interest rate spreads to maintain the Company’s growth and profitability. The Company attempts to structure rates so as to promote deposit and asset growth while at the same time increasing overall profitability of the Company. Management has reduced deposit rates in recent years due to relatively weak loan demand and the historically low returns available on alternative investments.

Average total deposits for the year ended December 31, 2016 amounted to $384.2 million, which was an increase of $104.5 million, or 37.38% from 2015. The increase was due to the Cardinal merger. Average core deposits totaled $343.2 million in 2016 representing a 37.71% increase over the $249.2 million in 2015. The percentage of the Company’s average deposits that are interest-bearing decreased from 73.8% in 2015 to 73.7% in 2016 as the acquired deposits had a similar mix to those of the Company. Average demand deposits, which earn no interest, increased 37.25% from $73.2 million in 2015 to $100.4 million in 2016. Average deposits for the periods ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014 are summarized in Table 9.

27

Table of Contents

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 9. Deposit Mix (dollars in thousands)