SOUTHERN FIRST BANCSHARES INC - Annual Report: 2022 (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 December 31, 2022.

Or

☐ Transition Report Pursuant To Section 13 Or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the Transition Period from ___________ to ________________

Commission file number 000-27719

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

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

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

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

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 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 whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer ☐   Accelerated filer ☒   Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐   Emerging growth company☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. Yes ☒ No ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2022 (based on the average bid and ask price of the Common Stock as quoted on the NASDAQ Global Market on June 30, 2022), was $327,641,105.

8,048,025 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding as of February 7, 2023.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

Southern First Bancshares, Inc.

Index to Form 10-K

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains statements which constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Forward-looking statements may relate to our financial condition, results of operation, plans, business strategy, objectives, or future performance. These statements are based on many assumptions and estimates and are not guarantees of future performance. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, as they will depend on many factors about which we are unsure, including many factors which are beyond our control. The words “may,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “will,” “seek to,” “strive,” “focus,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “predict,” “project,” “potential,” “believe,” “continue,” “assume,” “intend,” “plan,” and “estimate,” as well as similar expressions, are meant to identify such forward-looking statements. Potential risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, those described below under Item 1A. Risk Factors and the following:

If any of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or if any of the assumptions underlying such forward-looking statements proves to be incorrect, our results could differ materially from those expressed in, implied or projected by, such forward-looking statements. For information with respect to factors that could cause actual results to differ from the expectations stated in the forward-looking statements, see “Risk Factors” under Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We urge investors to consider all of these factors carefully in evaluating the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We make these forward-looking as of the date of this document and we do not intend, and assume no obligation, to update the forward-looking statements or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those expressed in, or implied or projected by, the forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable law.

PART I

Item 1. Business

General

Southern First Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) was incorporated in March 1999 under the laws of South Carolina and is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “BHCA”). Our primary business is to serve as the holding company for Southern First Bank (the “Bank”), a South Carolina state bank. The Bank is a commercial bank with eight retail offices located in the Greenville, Columbia, and Charleston markets of South Carolina, three retail offices in the Raleigh, Greensboro, and Charlotte markets of North Carolina and one retail office in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Bank is primarily engaged in the business of accepting demand deposits and savings deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), and providing commercial, consumer and mortgage loans to the general public.

Unless the context requires otherwise, references to the “Company,” “we,” “us,” “our,” or similar references mean Southern First Bancshares, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that the following business strengths have been instrumental to the success of our core operations. We believe these attributes will enable us to continue profitable growth, while remaining fundamentally sound and driving value to our shareholders.

Simple and Efficient ClientFIRST Model. We operate our Bank using a simple and efficient style of banking that is focused on providing core banking products and services to our clients through a team of talented and experienced bankers. We refer to this model as “ClientFIRST” and it is structured to deliver superior client service via “relationship teams,” which provide each client with a specific banker contact and a consistent support team responsible for all of the client’s banking needs. We believe this model results in a consistent and superior level of professional service that provides us with a distinct competitive advantage by enabling us to build and maintain long-term relationships with desirable clients, enhancing the quality and stability of our funding and lending operations and positioning us to take advantage of future growth opportunities in our existing markets. We also believe that this client focused culture has led to our successful expansion into new markets in the past, and will enable us to be successful if we seek to expand into new markets in the future.

Our ClientFIRST model focuses on achieving cost efficiencies by diligently managing the growth of our number of employees and banking offices. We believe that the identification of talented bankers will drive our growth strategy, as opposed to a more general desire to enter a specific geography or market. This strategy translates into a smaller number of brick and mortar offices relative to our size and compared to peer banks, but larger overall deposit balances in our offices as compared to peers. As a result, our offices average approximately $241.5 million in total deposits. We believe this style of banking allows us to deliver exceptional client service, while achieving lower efficiency ratios relative to certain of our local competitors, as evidenced by our 58.7% efficiency ratio for the year ended December 31, 2022.

We continue to make significant investments in our IT systems and technology offerings to our clients that we believe will continue to drive low-cost deposit growth. We believe that our current mobile banking, on-line banking and cash management offerings are industry-leading solutions amongst community banks, and we plan to continue to invest in the latest technology solutions to enable us to meet the evolving needs of our clients and maintain this competitive advantage over other community banks.

Attractive South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia Markets. We have eight banking offices located in Greenville, Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina, which are the three largest markets in South Carolina; three banking offices located in Charlotte, Raleigh and Greensboro, North Carolina, which are the three largest markets in North Carolina; and one banking office located in Atlanta, Georgia, which is the largest market in Georgia. The following table illustrates our market share, by insured deposits as of the dates indicated, in these seven markets:

Greenville. The city of Greenville is located in Greenville County, South Carolina approximately midway between Atlanta and Charlotte on the heavily traveled I-85 business corridor. The Greenville-Anderson MSA is the most populous market in South Carolina with an estimated 940,774 residents as reported in March 2022. The median household income for the Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin MSA was $62,265 for 2021. A large and diverse metropolitan area, the Greenville-Anderson MSA is one of the southeast region’s premier areas for business, serving as headquarters for Michelin and Current Lighting (formerly Hubbell Lighting) as well as hosting significant operations for BMW and Lockheed Martin.

Charleston. The city of Charleston is located in Charleston County, South Carolina. The Charleston-North Charleston MSA is the third most populous market in the state with an estimated population of 813,052 residents as reported in March 2022. Charleston is home to the deepest port in the Southeast and boasts top companies in the aerospace, biomedical and technology fields such as Boeing, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) and Blackbaud. The median household income for the Charleston-North Charleston MSA was approximately $72,719 for 2021. One of our retail offices in the Charleston market is located in the city of Mount Pleasant, which is located just north of Charleston in Charleston County and ranks as the fourth largest city in South Carolina.

Columbia. The city of Columbia is located in Richland County, South Carolina and its surrounding suburban areas expand into adjoining Lexington County. Columbia is the state capital, the largest city in the state and the home of the University of South Carolina and Fort Jackson, the Army’s largest Initial Entry Training Center. The Columbia MSA is the second most populous market in the state with an estimated population of 836,324 residents as reported in March 2022. The median household income for the Columbia MSA was $58,213 for 2021.

Raleigh. The city of Raleigh is the second largest city in the state of North Carolina and is located in Wake County, North Carolina. The Raleigh-Cary MSA is one of the most populous markets in the state with an estimated population of 1.45 million residents as reported in March 2022. Raleigh is the state capital and is home to North Carolina State University and is part of the Research Triangle area, together with Durham, North Carolina (home of Duke University) and Chapel Hill, North Carolina (home of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). The median household income for the Raleigh-Cary MSA was approximately $85,303 for 2021.

Greensboro. The city of Greensboro is the third largest city in North Carolina and is located in Guilford County, North Carolina. The Greensboro-High Point MSA is one of the most populous markets in the state of North Carolina with an estimated population of 778,848 thousand residents as reported in March 2022. Greensboro has traditionally been a fixture in the textiles, tobacco and furniture industries while also moving towards an increased presence of high-tech, aviation and transportation/logistics sectors. Greensboro, along with Winston-Salem and High Point, is commonly referred to as the Triad region of North Carolina and is home to companies such as Honda Aircraft, Lincoln Financial Group and Volvo Trucks of North America. The median household income for the Greensboro-High Point MSA was approximately $57,908 for 2021.

Charlotte. The city of Charlotte is the largest city in the state and is located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia MSA is the most populous market in the state of North Carolina with an estimated population of 2.7 million residents as reported in March 2022. Charlotte is the second largest banking city in the United States after New York and is home to the corporate headquarters of Bank of America, Truist Financial, and the east coast headquarters of Wells Fargo. Charlotte is also home to many Fortune 500 companies including Duke Energy, Honeywell and Lowe’s. The median household income for the Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia MSA was approximately $71,041 for 2021.

Atlanta. The Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta MSA has the eighth largest population in the U.S. with 6.14 million residents as reported in March 2022. Atlanta is the state capital of, and largest city in, Georgia and is the world headquarters of corporations such as Coca-Cola, Home Depot, UPS, Delta Airlines and Turner Broadcasting. The median household income for the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta MSA is $77,589 for 2021.

We believe that the demographics and growth characteristics of these seven markets will provide us with significant opportunities to further develop existing client relationships and expand our client base.

Data related to the estimated population and median household income for each of the markets presented above is from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (“FRED”) online database.

Experienced Management Team, Dedicated Board of Directors and Talented Employees. Our senior management team is led by R. Arthur Seaver, Jr., Calvin C. Hurst, Michael D. Dowling, William M. Aiken, and Silvia T. King, and whose biographies are included below. These executives lead a team of 26 additional senior team members which we believe compares favorably to any community bank management team assembled in South Carolina.

R. Arthur “Art” Seaver, Jr. has served as the Chief Executive Officer of our Company and our Bank since 1999. He has over 35 years of banking experience. From 1986 until 1992, Mr. Seaver held various positions with The Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina. From 1992 until February 1999, he was with Greenville National Bank, which was acquired by Regions Bank in 1998. He was the Senior Vice President in lending and was also responsible for managing Greenville National Bank’s deposit strategies prior to leaving to form the Bank. Mr. Seaver is a 1986 graduate of Clemson University with a bachelor’s degree in Financial Management and a 1999 graduate of the BAI Graduate School of Community Bank Management.

Calvin C. Hurst has served as Chief Banking Officer of our Company and our Bank since March 2019 and as President since August 2022. Mr. Hurst has over 15 years of banking experience. From 2006 to 2008, Mr. Hurst served as a commercial underwriter for RBC Bank, and from 2008 to 2015 he served as commercial relationship manager for PNC Bank. Before joining Southern First, Mr. Hurst served as regional vice president for TD Bank. Mr. Hurst is a 2005 graduate of Furman University, with a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and Economics.

Michael D. Dowling has served as an Executive Vice President and the Chief Financial Officer of our Company and our Bank since 2011 and as Chief Operating Officer since July 2019. He has over 25 years of experience in the banking industry. Mr. Dowling was previously employed with KPMG LLP from 1994 until 2011, including most recently as an Audit Partner (2005-2011) and a member of KPMG’s Financial Services practice. Mr. Dowling has extensive experience working with public companies and financial institutions. He is a 1993 graduate of Clemson University, with a degree in Accounting and is a CPA in South Carolina and North Carolina. On January 25, 2023, the Company announced Mr. Dowling was resigning effective February 15, 2023, to lead a large sophisticated medical group, which is a long-standing client of the Bank.

William M. Aiken, III has served as a Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Risk officer of our Company and our Bank since 2021 and previously served as an executive credit risk officer since 2020.  He has over 25 years in the banking industry.  Mr. Aiken has served in various roles at several banks during his career including most recently as a Chief Commercial Credit officer at a regional bank.  He is a 1996 graduate of Clemson University, with a degree in Financial Management.

Silvia T. King has served as Chief Human Resources Officer of our Company and our Bank since March 2018. Ms. King has over 20 years of Human Resources leadership experience. From 2003 to 2009, Ms. King served in various human resource and senior management roles with Monsanto Company and Select Comfort Corporation. From 2009 to 2016, Ms. King served as senior human resources consultant for FGP International, a professional staffing firm in Greenville, South Carolina, and most recently as a human resources instructor with e-Cornell University. Ms. King holds degrees in Psychology and International Marketing from Clemson University and a Master of Human Resources degree from the University of South Carolina.

In addition to Messrs. Seaver, Hurst, Dowling, Aiken and Ms. King, our executive management team consists of 15 individuals who bring an average of 28 years of experience in the banking industry.

The management team is complemented by our dedicated board of directors with extensive local market knowledge and a wide range of experience including accounting, business, banking, manufacturing, insurance, management and finance. We believe that our management’s and board’s incentives are closely aligned with our shareholders through the ownership of a substantial amount of our stock. As of December 31, 2022, our executive officers and board of directors

owned an aggregate of 612,503 shares of our common stock, including options to purchase shares of our common stock, which represented approximately 7.59% of the fully-diluted amount of our common stock outstanding. We believe that our officers’ and directors’ experience and local market knowledge are valuable assets and will enable them to guide us successfully in the future.

In addition, we believe that we have assembled a group of highly talented employees by being an employer of choice in the markets we serve. We employed a total of 293 FTE employees as of December 31, 2022. Our employees are skilled in the areas of banking, information technology, management, sales, advertising and marketing, among others. We strive to provide an “umbrella for great talent,” characterized by a culture of transparency and collaboration which permeates all levels of the organization. To drive our culture of transparency and collaboration, our employees engage in a series of weekly meetings to understand the goals and plan for each week. These meetings are intended to remind our employees of our vision, strategy and ClientFIRST service, and provide our employees with information regarding monthly and quarterly goals and client or prospect needs. In addition, each week is started with a meeting of all Senior and Executive Vice Presidents so that all team members are informed on the latest developments of our Company. Our employees and their ClientFIRST approach to service have been instrumental to our success.

Our Business Strategy

We are focused on growing business relationships and building core deposits, profitable loans and noninterest income. We believe that we have built a dynamic franchise that meets the financial needs of our clients by providing an array of personalized products and services delivered by seasoned banking professionals with knowledge of our local markets. Our overall strategic goal is to provide the highest level of service to our clients while achieving high-performance metrics within the community banking market that drive franchise and shareholder value. Our specific business strategies include:

Focus on Profitable and Efficient Growth. Our executive management team and board of directors are dedicated to producing profits and returns for our shareholders. We actively manage the mix of assets and liabilities on our balance sheet to optimize our net interest margin while also maintaining expense controls and developing noninterest income streams. By continually striving to build a well-structured balance sheet, we seek to increase profitability and improve our return on average assets, return on average equity and efficiency ratio. We believe that, as the economy continues to improve, our focus on maximizing our net interest margin and minimizing our efficiency ratio while maintaining credit quality controls will translate into continued and improved profitability and shareholder returns. We are committed to enhancing these levels of profitability by focusing on our core competencies of commercial lending and core deposit gathering. We believe that we have the infrastructure currently in place, such as technology, support staff and administration, to support expansion with limited associated noninterest expense increases.

Provide a Distinctive Client Experience. Our markets have been subject to consolidation of local community banks primarily by larger, out-of-state financial institutions. We believe there is a large client base in our markets that prefers doing business with a local institution and may be dissatisfied with the service offered by national and larger regional banks. We believe that the exceptional level of professional service provided to our clients as a result of our ClientFIRST model provides us with a distinct competitive advantage over our local competitors. We also believe that technology innovation will continue to play a critical role in retaining clients and winning new business. We believe that our current mobile banking, on-line banking and cash management offerings are industry-leading solutions amongst community banks. During 2022, 71% of deposits were acquired through our office network, 23% came through the commercial remote deposit capture channel and the remaining 6% came through consumer mobile deposits. We believe that the volume in remote deposit capture and mobile deposit channels will continue to increase over time as more clients become acquainted with the convenience these services provide. By delivering superior professional service through our ClientFIRST model, coupled with our deep understanding of our markets and our commitment to providing the latest technology solutions to meet our clients’ banking needs, we believe that we can attract new clients and expand our total loans and deposits.

Maintain a Rigorous Risk Management Infrastructure. As we grow, one of our top priorities is to continue to build a robust enterprise risk management infrastructure. We believe effective risk management requires a culture of risk management and governance throughout the Company. The legislative and regulatory landscape continues to quickly evolve, so we are continually performing risk assessments throughout the organization and re-allocating resources where appropriate. We will continue to add new resources and technology investments to help enhance all of our risk management processes throughout the Bank. Our risk management success is exemplified by our historic credit risk management and disciplined underwriting practices, which have enabled us to successfully grow our balance sheet while maintaining strong credit quality metrics. We do not reduce our credit standards or pricing discipline to generate new loans. In addition, we are heavily focused on compliance risk and cybersecurity risk, as both of these risks have increased since our inception. Our management team continually analyzes emerging fraud and security risks and utilizes tools, strategies and policies to manage risk while delivering an optimal and appropriate client experience. We believe our risk

management structure allows our board and senior management to maintain effective oversight of our risks to ensure that our personnel are following prudent and appropriate risk management practices resulting in strong loan quality and minimal credit losses.

Attract Talented Banking Professionals With A “ClientFIRST” Focus. We believe that our ability to attract and retain banking professionals with strong community relationships and significant knowledge of our markets will continue to drive our success and grow our business in an efficient manner. By focusing on experienced, established bankers who deliver exceptional client service through our ClientFIRST model, we believe we can enhance our market position and add profitable growth opportunities. We believe that the strength of our exceptional client service and relationship banking approach will continue to help us attract these established bankers. In recent years, we have invested in our internal infrastructure, including support and back office personnel, and we believe that we can continue to add experienced frontline bankers to our existing markets, which will drive our efficient growth.

We will continue to expand our franchise, but only in a controlled manner and as permitted by our regulators. We may choose to open new locations, but only after rigorous due diligence and substantial quantitative analysis regarding the financial and capital impacts of such investments. We may also seek to enter new metropolitan markets contiguous to, or nearby, our current South Carolina footprint, such as our recently opened expansions in Greensboro and Charlotte, North Carolina, but only after careful study and the identification and vetting of a local, senior level banking team with significant experience and reputational strength in that market and receipt of any applicable regulatory approvals. We have not yet supplemented our historic strategy of organic deposit and loan growth with traditional mergers or acquisitions. We evaluate potential acquisition opportunities that we believe would be complementary to our business as part of our growth strategy. However, we have not yet identified any specific acquisition opportunity that meets our strict requirements and do not have any immediate plans, arrangements or understandings relating to any acquisition. Furthermore, we do not believe an acquisition is necessary to successfully drive our growth and execute our ClientFIRST model.

Lending Activities

General. We emphasize a range of lending services, including real estate, commercial, and equity-line consumer loans to individuals and small- to medium-sized businesses and professional firms that are located in or conduct a substantial portion of their business in our market area. Our underwriting standards vary for each type of loan, as described below. Because loans typically provide higher interest yields than other types of interest-earning assets, we invest a substantial percentage of our earning assets in our loan portfolio. At December 31, 2022, we had net loans of $3.23 billion, representing 87.6% of our total assets.

We have focused our lending activities primarily on the professional sector in each of our markets including doctors, dentists, and small business owners. By focusing on this client base and by serving each client with a consistent relationship team of bankers, we have generated a loan portfolio with larger average loan amounts than we believe is typical for a community bank. As of December 31, 2022, our average loan size was approximately $350,000. At the same time, we have strived to maintain a diversified loan portfolio and limit the amount of our loans to any single client. As of December 31, 2022, our ten largest client loan relationships represented approximately $299.6 million, or 9.15%, of our loan portfolio.

Loan Approval. Certain credit risks are inherent in making loans. These include prepayment risks, risks resulting from uncertainties in the future value of collateral, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions, and risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers. We attempt to mitigate repayment risks by adhering to internal credit policies and procedures. These policies and procedures include officer and client lending limits, a multi-layered approval process for larger loans, documentation examination, and follow-up procedures for any exceptions to credit policies. Our loan approval policies provide for various levels of officer lending authority. When the amount of aggregate loans to a single borrower exceeds an individual officer’s lending authority, the loan request will be considered for approval by a team of officers led by a senior lender, or by the voting members of the Credit Approval Support Team (“CAST”) committee, based on the loan amount. The CAST committee, which is comprised of a group of our senior commercial lenders, chief banking officer, and chief executive officer, has pre-determined lending limits, and any loans in excess of this lending limit will be submitted for approval by the finance committee of our board or by the full board. We do not make any loans to any director or executive officer of the Bank unless the loan is approved by the board of directors of the Bank and all loans to directors, officers and employees are on terms not more favorable to such person than would be available to a person not affiliated with the Bank, consistent with federal banking regulations.

Management monitors exposure to credit risk from potential concentrations of loans to particular borrowers or groups of borrowers, industries and geographic regions, as well as concentrations of lending products and practices such as loans that subject borrowers to substantial payment increases (e.g. principal deferral periods, loans with initial interest-only

periods, etc.), and loans with high loan-to-value ratios. These types of loans are subject to strict underwriting standards and are more closely monitored than a loan with a low loan-to-value ratio. Furthermore, there are industry practices that could subject us to increased credit risk should economic conditions change over the course of a loan’s life. For example, we make variable rate loans and fixed rate principal-amortizing loans with maturities prior to the loan being fully paid (i.e. balloon payment loans). The various types of loans are individually underwritten and monitored to manage the associated risks.

Credit Administration and Loan Review. We maintain a continuous loan review system. We also apply a credit grading system to each loan, and we use an independent process to review the loan files on a test basis to assess the grading of each loan. We periodically review performance benchmarks established by management in the areas of nonperforming assets, charge-offs, past dues, and loan documentation. Each loan officer is responsible for each loan he or she makes, regardless of whether other individuals or committees joined in the approval. This responsibility continues until the loan is repaid or until the loan is officially assigned to another officer.

Lending Limits. Our lending activities are subject to a variety of lending limits imposed by federal and state laws and regulations. In general, the Bank is subject to a legal limit on loans to a single borrower equal to 15% of the Bank’s capital and unimpaired surplus. Based upon the capitalization of the Bank at December 31, 2022, the maximum amount we could lend to one borrower was $55.0 million. However, to mitigate concentration risk, our internal lending limit at December 31, 2022 was $38.5 million and may vary based on our assessment of the lending relationship. The board of directors will adjust the internal lending limit as deemed necessary to continue to mitigate risk and serve our clients. The Bank’s legal lending limit will increase or decrease in response to increases or decreases in the Bank’s level of capital. We are able to sell participations in our larger loans to other financial institutions, which allow us to manage the risk involved in these loans and to meet the lending needs of our clients requiring extensions of credit in excess of these limits.

Loan Portfolio Segments. Our loan portfolio is comprised of commercial and consumer loans made to small businesses and individuals for various business and personal purposes. While our loan portfolio is not concentrated in loans to any single borrower or a relatively small number of borrowers, the principal component of our loan portfolio is loans secured by real estate mortgages on either commercial or residential property. These loans will generally fall into one of the following six categories: commercial owner occupied real estate, commercial non-owner occupied real estate, commercial construction, consumer real estate, consumer construction, and home equity loans. We obtain a security interest in real estate whenever possible, in addition to any other available collateral, in order to increase the likelihood of the ultimate repayment of the loan. At December 31, 2022, loans secured by first or second mortgages on commercial and consumer real estate made up approximately 84.8% of our loan portfolio. In addition to loans secured by real estate, our loan portfolio includes commercial business loans and other consumer loans which comprised 14.3% and 0.9%, respectively, of our total loan portfolio at December 31, 2022.

Interest rates for all real estate loan categories may be fixed or adjustable, and will more likely be fixed for shorter-term loans. We generally charge an origination fee for each loan which is taken into income over the life of the loan as an adjustment to the loan yield. Other loan fees consist primarily of late charge fees. Real estate loans are subject to the same general risks as other loans and are particularly sensitive to fluctuations in the value of real estate. Fluctuations in the value of real estate, as well as other factors arising after a loan has been made, could negatively affect a borrower’s cash flow, creditworthiness, and ability to repay the loan. Although, the loans are collateralized by real estate, the primary source of repayment may not be the sale of real estate.

The following describes the types of loans in our loan portfolio.

We attempt to reduce the risk associated with construction loans by obtaining personal guarantees where possible and by keeping the loan-to-value ratio of the completed project at or below 80%.

We are eligible to offer small business loans utilizing government enhancements such as the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) 7(a) program and SBA’s 504 programs. These loans typically are partially guaranteed by the government, which helps to reduce their risk. Government guarantees of SBA loans do not exceed, and are generally less than, 80% of the loan. As of December 31, 2022, we had originated three loans utilizing government enhancements and over 20 loans engaged in state-based small business partnerships.

Deposit Services

Our principal source of funds is core deposits. We offer a full range of deposit services, including checking accounts, commercial checking accounts, savings accounts, and other time deposits of various types, ranging from daily money market accounts to long-term certificates of deposit. At December 31, 2022, we had $236.2 million in out-of-market, or wholesale, certificates of deposits. In an effort to obtain lower cost deposits, we have focused on expanding our retail deposit program. We currently have 12 retail offices which assist us in obtaining low cost transaction accounts that are less affected by rising rates. Deposit rates are reviewed regularly by our senior management. We believe that the rates we offer are competitive with those offered by other financial institutions in our area. We focus on client service and our ClientFIRST culture to attract and retain deposits.

Other Banking Services

In addition to deposit and  loan services, we offer other bank services such as internet banking, cash management, safe deposit boxes, direct deposit, automatic drafts, bill payment and mobile banking services. We earn fees for most of these services, including debit and credit card transactions, sales of checks, and wire transfers. We also receive ATM transaction fees from transactions performed by our clients. We are associated with the NYCE, Pulse, STAR, and Cirrus networks, which are available to our clients throughout the country. Since we outsource our ATM services, we are charged related transaction fees from our ATM service provider. We have contracted with Fidelity National Information Systems, an outside computer service company, to provide our core data processing services and our ATM processing. By outsourcing these services, we believe we are able to reduce our overhead by matching the expense in each period to the transaction volume that occurs during the period, as a significant portion of the fee charged is directly related to the number of loan and deposit accounts and the related number of transactions we have during the period. We believe that by being associated with a shared network of ATMs, we are better able to serve our clients and are able to attract clients who are accustomed to the convenience of using ATMs, although we do not believe that maintaining this association is critical to our success. We also offer Internet banking services, bill payment services, and cash management and mobile banking services.

Competition

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

As of June 30, 2022, the most recent date for which market data is available, there were 36 financial institutions in our primary market of Greenville County, 26 financial institutions in the Columbia market, 34 financial institutions in the Charleston market, 37 financial institutions in the Raleigh market, 25 financial institutions in the Greensboro market, 46 financial institutions in the Charlotte market, and 83 financial institutions in the Atlanta market. We compete with other financial institutions in our market areas both in attracting deposits and in making loans. In addition, we have to attract our client base from other existing financial institutions and from new residents. Many of our competitors are well-established, larger financial institutions with substantially greater resources and lending limits, such as, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Truist. These institutions offer some services, such as extensive and established branch networks and trust services that we do not provide. In addition, many of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive federal regulations that govern bank holding companies and federally insured banks. We believe the financial services industry will likely continue to become more competitive as further technological advances enable more financial institutions to provide expanded financial services without having a physical presence in our markets. Because larger competitors have advantages in attracting business from larger corporations, we do not generally compete for that

business. Instead, we concentrate our efforts on attracting the business of individuals and small and medium-size businesses. With regard to such accounts, we generally compete on the basis of client service and responsiveness to client needs, the convenience of our offices and hours, and the availability and pricing of our products and services.

We believe our commitment to quality and personalized banking services through our ClientFIRST culture is a factor that contributes to our competitiveness and success.

Employees

At December 31, 2022, we employed a total of 293 FTE employees. We provide our full-time employees and certain part-time employees with a comprehensive program of benefits, including medical benefits, life insurance, long-term disability coverage and a 401(k) plan. Our employees are not represented by a collective bargaining agreement. Management considers its employee relations to be excellent.

Available Information

We file Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K with the SEC which are accessible electronically at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.  We maintain an Internet website at www.southernfirst.com where these reports can also be accessed free of charge. No information contained on our website is intended to be included as part of, or incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

Both the Company and the Bank are subject to extensive state and federal banking laws and regulations that impose specific requirements or restrictions on and provide for general regulatory oversight of virtually all aspects of our operations. These laws and regulations are generally intended to protect depositors, not shareholders. Changes in applicable laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and prospects.

The following discussion is not intended to be a complete list of all the activities regulated by the banking laws or of the impact of such laws and regulations on our operations. It is intended only to briefly summarize some material provisions. The following summary is qualified by reference to the statutory and regulatory provisions discussed.

Legislative and Regulatory Developments

Although the 2008 financial crisis has now passed, two legislative and regulatory responses – the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and the Basel III-based capital rules – will continue to have an impact on our operations.

In addition, newer regulatory developments implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which enhanced and expanded certain provisions of the CARES Act, have had and will continue to have an impact on our operations.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law in July 2010 and impacts financial institutions in numerous ways, including:

There are many provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act mandating regulators to adopt new regulations and conduct studies upon which future regulation may be based. While some have been issued, many remain to be issued. Governmental

intervention and new regulations could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the first major financial services reform bill since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act.  The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “Reform Law”) modified or eliminated certain requirements on community and regional banks and nonbank financial institutions.  For instance, under the Reform Act and related rule making:

Basel Capital Standards

Regulatory capital rules known as Basel III impose minimum capital requirements for bank holding companies and banks. The Basel III rules apply to all national and state banks and savings and loan associations regardless of size and bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies other than “small bank holding companies,” generally holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $3 billion. More stringent requirements are imposed on “advanced approaches” banking organizations-those organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets, $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures, or that have opted in to the Basel II capital regime.

The Basel III rules require the Company and the Bank to maintain the following minimum capital requirements:

Under Basel III, Tier 1 capital includes two components: CET1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The highest form of capital, CET1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income, otherwise referred to as AOCI, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital is primarily comprised of noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, Tier 1 minority interests and grandfathered trust preferred securities (as discussed below). Tier 2 capital generally includes the allowance for credit losses up to 1.25% of risk-weighted assets, qualifying preferred stock, subordinated debt and qualifying tier 2 minority interests, less any deductions in Tier 2 instruments of an unconsolidated financial institution. Cumulative perpetual preferred stock is included only in Tier 2 capital, except that the Basel III rules permit bank holding companies with less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets to continue to include trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued before May 19, 2010 in Tier 1 Capital (but not in CET1 capital), subject to certain restrictions. AOCI is presumptively included in CET1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. When implemented, Basel III provided a one-time opportunity at the end of the first quarter of 2015 for covered banking organizations to opt out of much of this treatment of AOCI. We made this opt-out election and, as a result, retained our pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

In addition, in order to avoid restrictions on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments to executives, under Basel III, a banking organization must maintain a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer” on top of its minimum risk-based capital requirements. This buffer must consist solely of CET1 capital, but the buffer applies to all three risk-based measurements (CET1, Tier 1 capital and total capital). The 2.5% capital conservation buffer effectively results in the following minimum capital ratios (taking into account the capital conservation buffer): (i) a CET1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%.

As part of its response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the first quarter of 2020, U.S. federal regulatory authorities issued an interim final rule that provided banking organizations that adopted the credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL, during the 2020 calendar year with the option to delay for two years the estimated impact of CECL on regulatory capital relative to regulatory capital determined under the prior incurred loss methodology, followed by a three-year transition period to phase out the aggregate amount of the capital benefit provided during the initial two-year delay (i.e., a five-year transition in total). In connection with our adoption of CECL on January 1, 2022, we did not elect to utilize the five-year CECL transition.

In November 2019, the federal banking regulators published final rules under the Reform Law (discussed above) implementing a simplified measure of capital adequacy for certain banking organizations that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. Under the final rules, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, depository institutions and depository institution holding companies that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets and meet other qualifying criteria, including a leverage ratio of greater than 9%, off-balance-sheet exposures of 25% or less of total consolidated assets and trading assets plus trading liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets, are deemed “qualifying community banking organizations” and are eligible to opt into the “community bank leverage ratio framework.” A qualifying community banking organization that elects to use the community bank leverage ratio framework and that maintains a leverage ratio of greater than 9% is considered to have satisfied the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital requirements under the Basel III rules and, if applicable, is considered to have met the “well capitalized” ratio requirements for purposes of its primary federal regulator’s prompt corrective action rules, discussed below. We do not have any immediate plans to elect to use the community bank leverage ratio framework but may make such an election in the future.

As of December 31, 2022, the Bank was well-capitalized, as defined by FDIC regulations. As of December 31, 2022, the Company had regulatory capital in excess of the Federal Reserve’s requirements and met the Basel III rule requirements to be well-capitalized.

Acquisition Activity

The primary purpose of a bank holding company is to control and manage banks. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company or any acquisition by a bank holding company of another bank or bank holding company. In addition, the prior approval of the FDIC is required for a bank to merge with another bank or purchase the assets or assume the deposits of another bank. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, federal bank regulators 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 record of addressing the credit needs of the communities it serves, including the needs of low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the bank, under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”).

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. Among other initiatives, the Executive Order encouraged the federal banking agencies to review their current merger oversight practices under the BHCA and the Bank Merger Act and adopt a plan for revitalization of such practices. In December 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (in consultation with the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), and FDIC announced that it was seeking additional public comments on whether and how the DOJ should revise the 1995 Bank Merger Competitive Review Guidelines. The comment period closed on February 15, 2022. In March 2022, the FDIC published a Request for Information seeking information and comments regarding the laws, practices, rules, regulations, guidance, and statements of policy that apply to merger transactions involving one or more insured depository institutions, including the merger between an insured depository institution and a noninsured institution. In a May 2022 speech, the acting head of the OCC announced that he had asked his staff to work with DOJ and other federal banking agencies to review the agency’s frameworks to analyze bank mergers. In May 2022, the CFPB announced the establishment of an Office of Competition and Innovation.

There are many steps that must be taken by the agencies before any final changes to the framework for evaluating bank mergers can be implemented and the prospects for such action continue to be uncertain at this time; however, the adoption of more expansive or prescriptive standards may have an impact on any acquisition activities.

Legislative and Regulatory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to cause extensive disruptions to the global economy, to businesses, and to the lives of individuals throughout the world. On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill that was intended to provide relief in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. There

have also been a number of regulatory actions intended to help mitigate the adverse economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on borrowers, including several mandates from the bank regulatory agencies, requiring financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although these programs generally have expired, governmental authorities may take additional actions in the future to limit the adverse impact of COVID-19 on borrowers and tenants.

The Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), originally established under the CARES Act and extended under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, authorized financial institutions to make federally-guaranteed loans to qualifying small businesses and non-profit organizations. These loans carry an interest rate of 1% per annum and a maturity of two years for loans originated prior to June 5, 2020 and five years for loans originated on or after June 5, 2020. The PPP provides that such loans may be forgiven if the borrowers meet certain requirements with respect to maintaining employee headcount and payroll and the use of the loan proceeds after the loan is originated. The initial phase of the PPP, after being extended multiple times by Congress, expired on August 8, 2020. However, on January 11, 2021, the SBA reopened the PPP for First Draw PPP loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations that did not receive a loan through the initial PPP phase. Further, on January 13, 2021, the SBA reopened the PPP for Second Draw PPP loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations that did receive a loan through the initial PPP phase. The PPP program ended in accordance with its terms on May 31, 2021. While we were a participating lender in the PPP in 2020, we sold our PPP loan portfolio in the second quarter of 2020. We did not originate any new PPP loans during 2021.

The CARES Act, as extended by certain provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, also initially permitted banks to suspend requirements under GAAP for loan modifications to borrowers affected by COVID-19 that would otherwise had been characterized as troubled debt restructurings and suspended any determination related thereto if (i) the borrower was not more than 30 days past due as of December 31, 2019, (ii) the modifications were related to COVID-19, and (iii) the modification occurred between March 1, 2020 and January 1, 2022. Federal bank regulatory authorities also issued guidance to encourage banks to make loan modifications for borrowers affected by COVID-19.

Proposed Legislation and Regulatory Action

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. We cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or the Bank could have a material effect on the business of the Company.

Southern First Bancshares, Inc.

We own 100% of the outstanding capital stock of the Bank, and therefore we are considered to be a bank holding company under the federal Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. As a result, we are primarily subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the Federal Reserve under the BHCA and its regulations promulgated thereunder. Moreover, as a bank holding company of a bank located in South Carolina, we also are subject to the South Carolina Banking and Branching Efficiency Act.

Permitted Activities. Under the BHCA, a bank holding company is generally permitted to engage in, or acquire direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company engaged in, the following activities:

Activities that the Federal Reserve has found to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking include:

As a bank holding company we also can elect to be treated as a “financial holding company,” which would allow us to engage in a broader array of activities. In summary, a financial holding company can engage in activities that are financial in nature or incidental or complimentary to financial activities, including insurance underwriting, sales and brokerage activities, providing financial and investment advisory services, underwriting services and limited merchant banking activities. We have not sought financial holding company status, but may elect such status in the future as our business matures. If we were to elect financial holding company status, each insured depository institution we control would have to be well capitalized, well managed and have at least a satisfactory rating under the CRA as discussed below.

The Federal Reserve has the authority to order a bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any of these activities or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when it has reasonable cause to believe that the Bank holding company’s continued ownership, activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of it or any of its bank subsidiaries.

Change in Control. Two statutes, the BHCA and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with regulations promulgated under them, require some form of regulatory review before any company may acquire “control” of a bank or a bank holding company. Under the BHCA, control is deemed to exist if a company acquires 25% or more of any class of voting securities of a bank holding company; controls the election of a majority of the members of the board of directors; or exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company. On January 30, 2020, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule (which became effective September 30, 2020) that clarified and codified the Federal Reserve’s standards for determining whether one company has control over another. The final rule established four categories of tiered presumptions of noncontrol that are based on the percentage of voting shares held by the investor (less than 5%, 5-9.9%, 10-14.9% and 15-24.9%) and the presence of other indicia of control. As the percentage of ownership increases, fewer indicia of control are permitted without falling outside of the presumption of noncontrol. These indicia of control include nonvoting equity ownership, director representation, management interlocks, business relationship and restrictive contractual covenants. Under the final rule, investors can hold up to 24.9% of the voting securities and up to 33% of the total equity of a company without necessarily having a controlling influence. State laws generally, including South Carolina law, require state approval before an acquirer may become the holding company of a state bank.

Under the Change in Bank Control Act, a person or company is required to file a notice with the Federal Reserve if it will, as a result of the transaction, own or control 10% or more of any class of voting securities or direct the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company and either if the bank or bank holding company has registered securities or if the acquirer would be the largest holder of that class of voting securities after the acquisition. For a change in control at the holding company level, both the Federal Reserve and the subsidiary bank’s primary federal regulator must approve the change in control; at the bank level, only the bank’s primary federal regulator is involved. Transactions subject to the BHCA are exempt from Change in Control Act requirements. For state banks, state laws, including that of South Carolina, typically require approval by the state bank regulator as well.

Source of Strength. There are a number of obligations and restrictions imposed by law and regulatory policy on bank holding companies with regard to their depository institution subsidiaries that are designed to minimize potential loss to depositors and to the FDIC insurance funds in the event that the depository institution becomes in danger of defaulting under its obligations to repay deposits. Under a policy of the Federal Reserve, a bank holding company is required to serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary depository institutions and to commit resources to support such institutions in circumstances where it might not do so absent such policy. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, to avoid receivership of its insured depository institution subsidiary, a bank holding company is required to guarantee the compliance of any insured depository institution subsidiary that may become “undercapitalized” within the terms of any capital restoration plan filed by such subsidiary with its appropriate federal

banking 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 which 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.

The Federal Reserve also has the authority under the BHCA to require a bank holding company to terminate any activity or relinquish control of a nonbank subsidiary (other than a nonbank subsidiary of a bank) upon the Federal Reserve’s determination that such activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness or stability of any subsidiary depository institution of the bank holding company. Further, federal law grants federal bank regulatory authorities’ additional discretion to require a bank holding company to divest itself of any bank or nonbank subsidiary if the agency determines that divestiture may aid the depository institution’s financial condition.

In addition, the “cross guarantee” provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDIA”) require insured depository institutions under common control to reimburse the FDIC for any loss suffered or reasonably anticipated by the FDIC as a result of the default of a commonly controlled insured depository institution or for any assistance provided by the FDIC to a commonly controlled insured depository institution in danger of default. The FDIC’s claim for damages is superior to claims of shareholders of the insured depository institution or its holding company, but is subordinate to claims of depositors, secured creditors and holders of subordinated debt (other than affiliates) of the commonly controlled insured depository institutions.

The FDIA also provides that amounts received from the liquidation or other resolution of any insured depository institution by any receiver must be distributed (after payment of secured claims) to pay the deposit liabilities of the institution prior to payment of any other general or unsecured senior liability, subordinated liability, general creditor or shareholder. This provision would give depositors a preference over general and subordinated creditors and shareholders in the event a receiver is appointed to distribute the assets of our Bank.

Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. 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 a priority of payment.

Capital Requirements. The Federal Reserve imposes certain capital requirements on the bank holding company under the BHCA, including a minimum leverage ratio and a minimum ratio of “qualifying” capital to risk-weighted assets. These requirements are essentially the same as those that apply to the Bank and are described above under “Basel III Capital Standards.” Subject to certain restrictions, we are able to borrow money to make a capital contribution to the Bank, and these loans may be repaid from dividends paid from the Bank to the Company. Our ability to pay dividends depends on, among other things, the Bank’s ability to pay dividends to us, which is subject to regulatory restrictions as described below in “Southern First Bank—Dividends.”

We are also able to raise capital for contribution to the Bank by issuing securities without having to receive regulatory approval, subject to compliance with federal and state securities laws.

Dividends.  Since the Company is a bank holding company, its ability to declare and pay dividends is dependent on certain federal and state regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies. In general, the Federal Reserve’s policies provide that dividends should be paid only out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the bank holding company appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve’s policies also require that a bank holding company serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks by standing ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to those banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and by maintaining the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks where necessary. Further, under the prompt corrective action regulations, the ability of a bank holding company to pay dividends may be restricted if a subsidiary bank becomes undercapitalized. These regulatory policies could affect the ability of the Company to pay dividends or otherwise engage in capital distributions.

In addition, since the Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and does not conduct stand-alone operations, its ability to pay dividends depends on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to it, which is also subject to regulatory restrictions as described below in “Southern First Bank – Dividends.”  

South Carolina State Regulation. As a South Carolina bank holding company under the South Carolina Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, we are subject to limitations on sale or merger and to regulation by the South Carolina Board of Financial Institutions (the “S.C. Board”). We are not required to obtain the approval of the S.C. Board prior to acquiring the capital stock of a national bank, but we must notify them at least 15 days prior to doing so. We must receive the S.C. Board’s approval prior to engaging in the acquisition of a South Carolina state chartered bank or another South Carolina bank holding company.

Southern First Bank

As a South Carolina bank, deposits in the Bank are insured by the FDIC up to a maximum amount, which is currently $250,000 per depositor. The S.C. Board and the FDIC regulate or monitor virtually all areas of the Bank’s operations, including;

These agencies, and the federal and state laws applicable to the Bank’s operations, extensively regulate various aspects of our banking business, including, among other things, permissible types and amounts of loans, investments and other activities, capital adequacy, branching, interest rates on loans and on deposits, the maintenance of reserves on demand deposit liabilities, and the safety and soundness of our banking practices.

All insured institutions must undergo regular on-site examinations by their appropriate banking agency. The cost of examinations of insured depository institutions and any affiliates may be assessed by the appropriate federal banking agency against each institution or affiliate as it deems necessary or appropriate. Insured institutions are required to submit annual reports to the FDIC, their federal regulatory agency, and state supervisor when applicable. The FDIC has developed a method for insured depository institutions to provide supplemental disclosure of the estimated fair market value of assets and liabilities, to the extent feasible and practicable, in any balance sheet, financial statement, report of condition or any other report of any insured depository institution. The FDIC and the other federal banking regulatory agencies also have issued standards for all insured depository institutions relating, among other things, to the following:

Prompt Corrective Action. As an insured depository institution, the Bank is required to comply with the capital requirements promulgated under the FDIA and the prompt corrective action regulations thereunder, which set forth five capital categories, each with specific regulatory consequences. Under these regulations, the categories are:

If the FDIC determines, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, that the Bank is in an unsafe or unsound condition, the regulator is authorized to reclassify the Bank to the next lower capital category (other than critically undercapitalized) and require the submission of a plan to correct the unsafe or unsound condition.

If a bank is not well capitalized, it cannot accept brokered deposits without prior regulatory approval. Even if approved, rate restrictions will govern the rate a bank may pay on brokered deposits. In addition, a bank that is not well capitalized cannot offer an effective yield in excess of 75 basis points over interest paid on deposits of comparable size and maturity in such institution’s normal market area for deposits accepted from within its normal market area, or national rate paid on deposits of comparable size and maturity for deposits accepted outside the bank’s normal market area. Moreover, the FDIC generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be categorized as undercapitalized. Undercapitalized institutions are subject to growth limitations (an undercapitalized institution may not acquire another institution, establish additional branch offices or engage in any new line of business unless determined by the appropriate federal banking agency to be consistent with an accepted capital restoration plan, or unless the FDIC determines that the proposed action will further the purpose of prompt corrective action) and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The agencies may not accept a capital restoration plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with the capital restoration plan. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of an amount equal to 5.0% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became categorized as undercapitalized or the amount that is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards applicable with respect to such institution as of the time it fails to comply with the plan. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is categorized as significantly undercapitalized.

Significantly undercapitalized categorized depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become categorized as adequately capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. The appropriate federal banking agency may take any action authorized for a significantly undercapitalized institution if an undercapitalized institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fails in any material respect to implement a plan accepted by the agency. A critically undercapitalized institution is subject to having a receiver or conservator appointed to manage its affairs and for loss of its charter to conduct banking activities.

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

As of December 31, 2022, the Bank was deemed to be “well capitalized.”

Standards for Safety and Soundness. The FDIA also requires the federal banking regulatory agencies to prescribe, by regulation or guideline, operational and managerial standards for all insured depository institutions relating to: (i) internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems; (ii) loan documentation; (iii) credit underwriting; (iv) interest rate risk exposure; and (v) asset growth. The agencies also must prescribe standards for asset quality, earnings, and stock valuation, as well as standards for compensation, fees and benefits. The federal banking agencies have adopted regulations and Interagency Guidelines Prescribing Standards for Safety and Soundness to implement these required standards. These guidelines set forth the safety and soundness standards that the federal banking agencies use to identify and address problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. Under the regulations, if the FDIC determines that the Bank fails to meet any standards prescribed by the guidelines, the agency may require the Bank to submit to the agency an acceptable plan to achieve compliance with the standard, as required by the FDIC. The final regulations establish deadlines for the submission and review of such safety and soundness compliance plans.

Insurance of Accounts and Regulation by the FDIC. The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC. The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increased the maximum amount of deposit insurance for banks to $250,000 per account. As insurer, the FDIC imposes deposit insurance premiums and is authorized to conduct examinations of and to require reporting by FDIC insured institutions. It also may prohibit any FDIC insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious risk to the insurance fund.

As an FDIC-insured bank, the Bank must pay deposit insurance assessments to the FDIC based on its average total assets minus its average tangible equity. The Bank’s assessment rates are currently based on its risk classification (i.e., the level of risk it poses to the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund). Institutions classified as higher risk pay assessments at higher rates than institutions that pose a lower risk. In addition to ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances.

In addition to the ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances. For example, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the minimum designated reserve ratio for the deposit insurance fund was increased to 1.35% of the estimated total amount of insured deposits. On September 30, 2018, the deposit insurance fund reached 1.36%, exceeding the statutorily required minimum reserve ratio of 1.35%. On reaching the minimum reserve ratio of 1.35%, FDIC regulations provided for two changes to deposit insurance assessments: (i) surcharges on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more (large institutions) ceased; and (ii) small banks received assessment credits for the portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from between 1.15% and 1.35%, to be applied when the reserve ratio is at or above 1.38%. Our final assessment credit was invoiced in December 2019. Assessment rates are expected to decrease if the reserve ratio increases such that it exceeds 2%.

The FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any insured depository institution, including the Bank, if it determines after a hearing that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC. It also may suspend deposit insurance temporarily during the hearing process for the permanent termination of insurance if the institution has no tangible capital. If insurance of accounts is terminated, the accounts at the institution at the time of the termination, less subsequent withdrawals, shall continue to be insured for a period of six months to two years, as determined by the FDIC. Management is not aware of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of the Bank’s deposit insurance.

Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders. The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and its other subsidiaries. Various legal limitations restrict the Bank from lending or otherwise supplying funds to the Company or its non-bank subsidiaries. The Company and the Bank are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve Regulation W.

Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act places limits on the amount of loans or extensions of credit by a bank to any affiliate, including its holding company, and on a bank’s investments in, or certain other transactions with, affiliates and on the amount of advances to third parties collateralized by the securities or obligations of any affiliates of the bank. Section 23A also applies to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that cause a bank to have credit exposure to an affiliate. The aggregate of all covered transactions is limited in amount, as to any one affiliate, to 10% of the Bank’s capital and surplus and, as to all affiliates combined, to 20% of the Bank’s capital and surplus. Furthermore, within the foregoing limitations as to amount, each covered transaction must meet specified collateral requirements. The Bank is forbidden to purchase low quality assets from an affiliate.

Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, among other things, prohibits an institution from engaging in certain transactions with certain affiliates unless the transactions are on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to such institution or its subsidiaries, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with nonaffiliated companies. If there are no comparable transactions, a bank’s (or one of its subsidiaries’) affiliate transaction must be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that in good faith would be offered to, or would apply to, nonaffiliated companies. These requirements apply to all transactions subject to Section 23A as well as to certain other transactions.

The affiliates of a bank include any holding company of the bank, any other company under common control with the bank (including any company controlled by the same shareholders who control the bank), any subsidiary of the bank that is itself a bank, any company in which the majority of the directors or trustees also constitute a majority of the directors or trustees of the bank or holding company of the bank, any company sponsored and advised on a contractual basis by the bank or an affiliate, and any mutual fund advised by a bank or any of the bank’s affiliates. Regulation W generally excludes all non-bank and non-savings association subsidiaries of banks from treatment as affiliates, except to the extent that the Federal Reserve decides to treat these subsidiaries as affiliates.

The Bank is also subject to certain restrictions on extensions of credit to executive officers, directors, certain principal shareholders, and their related interests. Extensions of credit include derivative transactions, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and lending transactions to the extent that such transactions cause a bank to have credit exposure to an insider. Any extension of credit to an insider (i) must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral requirements, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with unrelated third parties and (ii) must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features.

On December 22, 2020, the federal banking agencies issued an interagency statement extending the temporary relief from enforcement action against banks or asset managers, which become principal shareholders of banks, with respect to certain extensions of credit by banks that otherwise would violate Regulation O, provided the asset managers and banks satisfy certain conditions designed to ensure that there is a lack of control by the asset manager over the bank. On December 22, 2022, the federal banking agencies issued a revised interagency statement extending the temporary relief from such enforcement, which will expire on the sooner of January 1, 2024, or the effective date of a final Federal Reserve rule having a revision to Regulation O that addresses the treatment of extensions of credit by a bank to fund complex-controlled portfolio companies that are insiders of a bank.

Dividends. The Company’s principal source of cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to its shareholders, is dividends it receives from the Bank. Statutory and regulatory limitations apply to the Bank’s payment of dividends to the Company. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board. The FDIC also has the authority under federal law to enjoin a bank from engaging in what in its opinion constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting its business, including the payment of a dividend under certain circumstances. The Bank must also maintain the CET1 capital conservation buffer of 2.5% to avoid becoming subject to restrictions on capital distributions, including dividends, as described above.

Branching. Under current South Carolina law, the Bank may open branch offices throughout South Carolina with the prior approval of the S.C. Board.  In addition, with prior regulatory approval, the Bank is able to acquire existing banking operations in South Carolina.  Furthermore, federal legislation permits interstate branching, including out-of-state acquisitions by bank holding companies, interstate branching by banks, and interstate merging by banks.  The Dodd-Frank Act removes previous state law restrictions on de novo interstate branching in states such as South Carolina. This change permits out-of-state banks to open de novo branches in states where the laws of the state where the de novo branch to be opened would permit a bank chartered by that state to open a de novo branch.

Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA requires that the FDIC evaluate the record of the Bank in meeting the credit needs of its local community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. These factors are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions, and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria imposes additional requirements and limitations on our Bank. On June 1, 2022, the date of the most recent examination report, the Bank received a Needs to Improve CRA rating.

In December 2019, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to (i) clarify which activities qualify for CRA credit; (ii) update where activities count for CRA credit; (iii) create a more transparent and objective method for measuring CRA performance; and (iv) provide for more transparent, consistent, and timely CRA-related data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting. However, the Federal

Reserve did not join the proposed rulemaking. In May 2020, the OCC issued its final CRA rule, which was later rescinded in December 2021, replacing it with a rule based on the rules adopted jointly by the federal banking agencies in 1995, as amended. On the same day that the OCC announced its plans to rescind the CRA final rule, the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve announced that they are working together to “strengthen and modernize the rules implementing the CRA.” On May 5, 2022, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve released a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the CRA and invited public comment on the proposed rules. The comment period closed on August 5, 2022. The proposed rules, among other things, seek to (i) expand access to credit, investment, and basic banking services in low- and moderate-income communities, (ii) adapt to changes in the banking industry, including internet and mobile banking, (iii) provide greater clarity, consistency, and transparency, (iv) tailor CRA evaluations and data collection to bank size and type, and (v) maintain a unified approach among the bank regulatory agencies. The effects on the Bank of any potential change to the CRA rules will depend on the final form of any federal rulemaking and cannot be predicted at this time. Management will continue to evaluate any changes to the CRA’s regulations and their impact to the Bank.

Fair Lending Requirements. We are subject to certain fair lending requirements and reporting obligations involving lending operations. A number of laws and regulations provide these fair lending requirements and reporting obligations, including, at the federal level, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, and Regulation B, as well as the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and regulations implementing the FHA. ECOA and Regulation B prohibit discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction based on a number of prohibited factors, including race or color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, the applicant’s receipt of income derived from public assistance programs, and the applicant’s exercise, in good faith, of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. ECOA and Regulation B include lending acts and practices that are specifically prohibited, permitted, or required, and these laws and regulations proscribe data collection requirements, legal action statute of limitations, and disclosure of the consumer’s ability to receive a copy of any appraisal(s) and valuation(s) prepared in connection with certain loans secured by dwellings. FHA prohibits discrimination in all aspects of residential real-estate related transactions based on prohibited factors, including race or color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and handicap.

In addition to prohibiting discrimination in credit transactions on the basis of prohibited factors, these laws and regulations can cause a lender to be liable for policies that result in a disparate treatment of or have a disparate impact on a protected class of persons. If a pattern or practice of lending discrimination is alleged by a regulator, then the matter may be referred by the agency to the DOJ for investigation. In December 2012, the DOJ and CFPB entered into a Memorandum of Understanding under which the agencies have agreed to share information, coordinate investigations, and have generally committed to strengthen their coordination efforts.

In addition to substantive penalties and corrective measures that may be required for a violation of certain fair lending laws, the federal banking agencies may take compliance with fair lending requirements into account when regulating and supervising other activities of the bank, including in acting on expansionary proposals.

Consumer Protection Regulations. The activities of the Bank are subject to a variety of statutes and regulations designed to protect consumers. This includes Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”). UDAAP claims involve detecting and assessing risks to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products and services. Interest and other charges collected or contracted for by the Bank are subject to state usury laws and federal laws concerning interest rates. The loan operations of the Bank are also subject to federal laws applicable to credit transactions, such as:

The deposit operations of the Bank are also subject to federal laws, such as:

The CFPB is an independent regulatory authority housed within the Federal Reserve. The CFPB has broad authority to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products and services. The CFPB has the authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets for compliance with federal consumer laws. The authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, such as us, for compliance with federal consumer laws remains largely with those institutions’ primary regulators. However, the CFPB may participate in examinations of these smaller institutions on a “sampling basis” and may refer potential enforcement actions against such institutions to their primary regulators. As such, the CFPB may participate in examinations of the Bank. In addition, states are permitted to adopt consumer protection laws and regulations that are stricter than the regulations promulgated by the CFPB, and state attorneys general are permitted to enforce consumer protection rules adopted by the CFPB against certain institutions.

The CFPB has issued a number of significant rules that impact nearly every aspect of the lifecycle of consumer financial products and services, including rules regarding residential mortgage loans. These rules implement Dodd-Frank Act amendments to ECOA, TILA and RESPA. Among other things, the rules adopted by the CFPB require banks to: (i) develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with a “reasonable ability-to-repay” test; (ii) implement new or revised disclosures, policies and procedures for originating and servicing mortgages, including, but not limited to, pre-loan counseling, early intervention with delinquent borrowers and specific loss mitigation procedures for loans secured by a borrower’s principal residence, and mortgage origination disclosures, which integrate existing requirements under TILA and RESPA; (iii) comply with additional restrictions on mortgage loan originator hiring and compensation; and (iv) comply with new disclosure requirements and standards for appraisals and certain financial products. . In March 2022, the CFPB announced changes to its supervisory operations to scrutinize discriminatory conduct under the CFPB’s UDAAP powers to examine financial institution’s decision-making in advertising, pricing, and other areas to ensure that companies are testing for and eliminating illegal discrimination. In this supervisory notice, the CFPB expanded its UDAAP powers to create essentially a fair-lending style discrimination test outside of ECOA that applies to non-lending products. In October 2022, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2022-06 explaining that blanket policies of charging returned deposit item fees to consumers or all returned transactions irrespective of the circumstances or patterns of behavior on the account are likely

unfair under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010CFPA. The CFPB has also issued an advisory opinion prohibiting the collection of pay-to-pay fees (such as convenience fees), which ) are prohibited under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act FDCPA.

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

Anti-Money Laundering and the USA Patriot Act. Financial institutions must maintain anti-money laundering programs that include established internal policies, procedures, and controls; a designated compliance officer; an ongoing employee training program; and testing of the program by an independent audit function. The program must comply with the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). The Company and the Bank are also prohibited from entering into specified financial transactions and account relationships and must meet enhanced standards for due diligence and “knowing your customer” in their dealings with foreign financial institutions, foreign customers, and other high risk customers. Financial institutions must take reasonable steps to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and to report any suspicious transactions, and certain laws provide law enforcement authorities with increased access to financial information maintained by banks. Financial institutions must comply with requirements regarding risk-based procedures for conducing ongoing customer due diligence, which requires the institutions to take appropriate steps to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships and identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners of legal entity customers.

Anti-money laundering obligations have been substantially strengthened as a result of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (which we refer to as the “USA PATRIOT Act”). Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations and are required to consider compliance in connection with the regulatory review of applications. The regulatory authorities have been active in imposing cease and desist orders and money penalty sanctions against institutions that have not complied with these requirements.

The USA PATRIOT Act amended the Bank Secrecy Act and provides, in part, for the facilitation of information sharing among governmental entities and financial institutions for the purpose of combating terrorism and money laundering by enhancing anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws, as well as enhanced information collection tools and enforcement mechanics for the U.S. government, including: (i) requiring standards for verifying customer identification at account opening; (ii) rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering; (iii) reports by nonfinancial trades and businesses filed with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for transactions exceeding $10,000; (iv) filing suspicious activities reports if a bank believes a customer may be violating U.S. laws and regulations; and (v) requires enhanced due diligence requirements for financial institutions that administer, maintain, or manage private bank accounts or correspondent accounts for non-U.S. persons. Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations and are required to consider compliance in connection with the regulatory review of applications.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the regulators can provide lists of the names of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. The Bank can be requested, to search its records for any relationships or transactions with persons on those lists. If the Bank finds any relationships or transactions, it must file a suspicious activity report and contact the applicable governmental authorities.

On January 1, 2021, Congress overrode former President Trump’s veto and thereby enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (“NDAA”). The NDAA provides for one of the most significant overhauls of the BSA and related anti-money laundering laws since the USA Patriot Act. Notably, changes include:

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, OFAC took several sanctions related actions related to the Russian financial services sector pursuant to Executive Order 14024 beginning in February 2022 including: (i) a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the financial services sector of the Russian Federation that authorizes sanctions against persons determined to operate or to have operated in that sector; (ii) correspondent or payable-through account and payment processing prohibitions on certain Russian financial institutions; (iii) the blocking of certain Russian financial institutions; (iv) expanding sovereign debt prohibitions to apply to new issuances in the secondary market; (v) prohibitions related to new debt and equity for certain Russian entities; and (vi) a prohibition on transactions involving certain Russian government entities, including the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. In March 2022, FinCEN issued an alert advising increased vigilance for potential Russian Sanctions Evasion Attempts. The Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) continues to revise the list of high-risk jurisdictions. In October 2022, FATF removed Nicaragua and Pakistan from its lists of Jurisdictions under Increased Monitoring and added the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, and Tanzania. The FATF also added Burma to the list of High-Risk Jurisdictions Subject to a Call for Action.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the FinCEN can send our banking regulatory agencies lists of the names of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. The Bank can be requested, to search its records for any relationships or transactions with persons on those lists. If the Bank finds any relationships or transactions, it must file a suspicious activity report and contact FinCEN.

Privacy, Data Security and Credit Reporting. Under privacy protection provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (“GLBA”) and related regulations, we are limited in our ability to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. Financial institutions are required to disclose their policies for collecting and protecting confidential information. Customers generally may prevent financial institutions from sharing nonpublic personal financial information with nonaffiliated third parties except under narrow circumstances, such as the processing of transactions requested by the consumer or if the Bank is jointly sponsoring a product or service with a nonaffiliated third party. Additionally, financial institutions generally may not disclose consumer account numbers to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing or other marketing to consumers. It is the Bank’s policy not to disclose any personal information unless required by law.

Consumers must be notified in the event of a data breach under applicable state laws. Multiple states and Congress are considering laws or regulations which could create new individual privacy rights and impose increased obligations on companies handling personal data. For example, on November 18, 2021, the federal financial regulatory agencies published a final rule that will impose upon banking organizations and their service providers new notification requirements for significant cybersecurity incidents. Specifically, the final rule requires banking organizations to notify their primary federal regulator as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after the discovery of a “computer-security incident” that rises to the level of a “notification incident” within the meaning attributed to those terms by the final rule. Banks’ service providers are required under the final rule to notify any affected bank to or on behalf of which the service provider provides services “as soon as possible” after determining that it has experienced an incident that materially disrupts or degrades, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to such bank for as much as four hours. The final rule took effect on April 1, 2022 and banks and their service providers must have complied with the requirements of the rule by May 1, 2022. Effective December 9, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission’s amendments to GLBA’s Safeguards Rule went into effect requiring financial institutions to: (i) appoint a qualified individual to oversee and implement their information security programs; (ii) implement additional criteria for information security risk assessments; (iii) implement safeguards identified by assessments, including access controls, data inventory, data disposal, change management, and monitoring, among other things; (iv) implement information system monitoring in the form of either “continuous monitoring” or “periodic penetration testing;” (v) implement additional controls including training for security

personnel, periodic assessment of service providers, written incident response plans, and periodic reports from the qualified individual to the board of directors.

In addition, pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the “FACT Act”) and the implementing regulations of the federal banking agencies and Federal Trade Commission, the Bank is required to have in place an “identity theft red flags” program to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft. The Bank has implemented an identity theft red flags program designed to meet the requirements of the FACT Act and the joint final rules. Additionally, the FACT Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to generally prohibit a person from using information received from an affiliate to make a solicitation for marketing purposes to a consumer, unless the consumer is given notice and a reasonable opportunity and a reasonable and simple method to opt out of the making of such solicitations.

Federal Home Loan Bank System. The Bank is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) of Atlanta, which is one of 12 regional FHLBs that administer home financing credit for depository institutions. Each FHLB serves as a reserve or central bank for its members within its assigned region. It is funded primarily from proceeds derived from the sale of consolidated obligations of the FHLB System. It makes loans or advances to members in accordance with policies and procedures established by the Board of Directors of the FHLB, which are subject to the oversight of the Federal Housing Financing Board. All advances from the FHLB, which are subject to the oversight of the Federal Housing Finance Board. All advances from the FHLB are required to be fully secured by sufficient collateral as determined by the FHLB.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies. Our earnings are affected by domestic economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government and its agencies. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have had, and are likely to continue to have, an important impact on the operating results of commercial banks through its power to implement national monetary policy in order, among other things, to curb inflation or combat a recession. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve have major effects upon the levels of bank loans, investments and deposits through its open market operations in U.S. government securities and through its regulation of the discount rate on borrowings of member banks and the reserve requirements against member bank deposits. It is not possible to predict the nature or impact of future changes in monetary and fiscal policies. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2020, the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) reduced the targeted federal funds interest rate range to 0.0% to 0.25%; however, due in part to rising inflation, throughout 2022 the target federal funds rate increased to between 4.25% and 4.50%.

Incentive Compensation. In addition to the potential restrictions on discretionary bonus compensation under the Basel III rules, the federal bank regulatory agencies have issued guidance on incentive compensation policies (the “Incentive Compensation Guidance”) 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 Incentive Compensation Guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an institution, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a financial institution’s incentive compensation arrangements should comply with the following principles: (i) provide employees incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward; (ii) be compatible with effective controls and risk-management; and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The scope and content of federal bank regulatory agencies’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future. In 2016, federal agencies proposed regulations which could significantly change the regulation of incentive compensation programs at financial institutions. The proposal would create four tiers of institutions based on asset size. Institutions in the top two tiers would be subject to rules much more detailed and proscriptive than are currently in effect. If interpreted aggressively by the regulators, the proposed rules could be used to prevent, as a practical matter, larger institutions from engaging in certain lines of business where substantial commission and bonus pool arrangements are the norm. In the 2016 proposal, the top two tiers included institutions with more than $50 billion of assets, which would not currently apply to us. We cannot predict what final rules may be adopted, nor how they may be implemented and, therefore, it cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect our ability to hire, retain and motivate our key employees.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addressed many investor protection, corporate governance and executive compensation matters that affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd-Frank Act (i) grants stockholders of U.S. publicly traded companies an advisory vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, (ii) enhances independence requirements for compensation committee members, (iii) requires the SEC to adopt rules directing national securities exchanges to establish listing standards requiring all listed companies to adopt incentive-based compensation clawback policies for executive officers, and (iv) provides the SEC with authority to adopt proxy access rules that would allow stockholders of publicly traded companies to nominate candidates for election as a director and have those nominees included in a company’s proxy materials. The SEC has completed the bulk (although not all)

of the rulemaking necessary to implement these provisions. However, on October 14, 2021, the SEC signaled a renewed interest in this rulemaking initiative by re-opening the comment period on a proposed rule issued originally in 2015 regarding clawbacks of incentive-based executive compensation. On October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted final rules implementing the incentive-based compensation recovery (clawback) provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rules direct the stock exchanges to establish listing standards requiring listed companies to develop and implement a policy providing for the recovery of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation received by current or former executive officers and to satisfy related disclosure obligations. We are currently awaiting the final rules from The Nasdaq Stock Market, which are not expected to take effect until mid-2023 at the earliest.

Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate. Concentration risk exists when FDIC-insured institutions deploy too many assets to any one industry or segment. A concentration in commercial real estate is one example of regulatory concern. The interagency Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices guidance (“CRE Guidance”) provides supervisory criteria, including the following numerical indicators, to assist bank examiners in identifying banks with potentially significant commercial real estate loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny: (i) commercial real estate loans exceeding 300% of capital and increasing 50% or more in the preceding three years or (ii) construction and land development loans exceeding 100% of capital. The CRE Guidance does not limit banks’ levels of commercial real estate lending activities, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentrations. On December 18, 2015, the federal banking agencies issued a statement to reinforce prudent risk-management practices related to commercial real estate lending, having observed substantial growth in many commercial real estate asset and lending markets, increased competitive pressures, rising commercial real estate concentrations in banks, and an easing of commercial real estate underwriting standards. The federal bank agencies reminded FDIC-insured institutions to maintain underwriting discipline and exercise prudent risk-management practices to identify, measure, monitor and manage the risks arising from commercial real estate lending. In addition, FDIC-insured institutions must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentration risk.

Based on the Bank’s loan portfolio as of December 31, 2022, it did not exceed the 300% and 100% guidelines for commercial real estate loans or construction and land development loans. The Bank will continue to monitor its portfolio to manage this increased risk.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

The following risk factors and other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may adversely impact our business operations. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, operating results, and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

Risks Related to Economic Conditions

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

Our financial performance generally, and in particular the ability of borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, as well as demand for loans and other products and services we offer and whose success we rely on to drive our growth, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the primary markets where we operate and in the United States as a whole. Unlike larger banks that are more geographically diversified, we are a regional bank that provides banking and financial services to customers primarily in Greenville, Columbia, Charleston, and Summerville, South Carolina; Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte, North Carolina; and Atlanta, Georgia. The economic conditions in these local markets may be different from, and in some instances worse than, the economic conditions in the United States as a whole.

Some elements of the business environment that affect our financial performance include short-term and long-term interest rates, the prevailing yield curve, inflation and price levels, monetary and trade policy, unemployment and the strength of the domestic economy and the local economy in the markets in which we operate. Unfavorable market conditions can result in a deterioration in the credit quality of our borrowers and the demand for our products and services, an increase in the number of loan delinquencies, defaults, charge-offs, foreclosures, additional provisions for credit losses, adverse asset values of the collateral securing our loans and an overall material adverse effect on the quality of our loan portfolio. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence; limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and

capital; increases in inflation or interest rates; high unemployment; natural disasters; epidemics and pandemics (such as COVID-19); or a combination of these or other factors.

As economic conditions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic have improved, the Federal Reserve has shifted its focus to limiting inflationary and other potentially adverse effects of the extensive pandemic-related government stimulus, which signals the potential for a continued period of economic uncertainty even though the pandemic has subsided. In addition, there are continuing concerns related to, among other things, the level of U.S. government debt and fiscal actions that may be taken to address that debt, a potential resurgence of economic and political tensions with China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, all of which may have a destabilizing effect on financial markets and economic activity. Economic pressure on consumers and overall economic uncertainty may result in changes in consumer and business spending, borrowing and saving habits. These economic conditions and/or other negative developments in the domestic or international credit markets or economies may significantly affect the markets in which we do business, the value of our loans and investments, and our ongoing operations, costs and profitability. Declines in real estate values and sales volumes and high unemployment or underemployment may also result in higher than expected loan delinquencies, increases in our levels of nonperforming and classified assets and a decline in demand for our products and services. These negative events may cause us to incur losses and may adversely affect our capital, liquidity and financial condition.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate, and events that negatively affect the real estate market could hurt our business.

As of December 31, 2022, approximately 85% of our loans had real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. A weakening of the real estate market in our primary market areas could result in an increase in the number of borrowers who default on their loans and a reduction in the value of the collateral securing their loans, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our profitability and asset quality. Deterioration in the real estate market could cause us to adjust our opinion of the level of credit quality in our loan portfolio. If we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt during a period of reduced real estate values, our earnings and capital could be adversely affected. Acts of nature, including hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, fires and floods, which may cause uninsured damage and other loss of value to real estate that secures these loans, may also negatively affect our financial condition.

Risks Related to Lending Activities

Our loan portfolio contains a number of real estate loans with relatively large balances.

Because our loan portfolio contains a number of real estate loans with relatively large balances, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in nonperforming loans, which could result in a net loss of earnings, an increase in the provision for credit losses and an increase in loan charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Commercial real estate loans increase our exposure to credit risk.

At December 31, 2022, 48.4% of our loan portfolio was secured by commercial real estate. Loans secured by commercial real estate are generally viewed as having more risk of default than loans secured by residential real estate or consumer loans because repayment of the loans often depends on the successful operation of the property, the income stream of the borrowers, the accuracy of the estimate of the property’s value at completion of construction, and the estimated cost of construction. Such loans are generally more risky than loans secured by residential real estate or consumer loans because those loans are typically not secured by real estate collateral. An adverse development with respect to one lending relationship can expose us to a significantly greater risk of loss compared with a single-family residential mortgage loan because we typically have more than one loan with such borrowers. Additionally, these loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers compared with single-family residential mortgage loans. Therefore, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant decline in the related asset quality. A return of recessionary conditions could result in a sharp increase in loans charged-off and could require us to significantly increase our allowance for credit losses, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Imposition of limits by the bank regulators on commercial and multi-family real estate lending activities could curtail our growth and adversely affect our earnings.

In 2006, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the OCC issued joint guidance entitled “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices” (the “CRE Guidance”). Although the CRE Guidance did not establish specific lending limits, it provides that a bank’s commercial real estate lending exposure could receive increased supervisory scrutiny where total non-owner occupied commercial real estate loans, including loans secured by apartment buildings, investor commercial real estate, and construction and land loans, represent 300% or more of an institution’s

total risk-based capital, and the outstanding balance of the commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more during the preceding 36 months. Our level of commercial real estate and multi-family loans represents 261.7% of the Bank’s total risk-based capital at December 31, 2022.

In December 2015, the regulatory agencies released a new statement on prudent risk management for commercial real estate lending (the “2015 Statement”). In the 2015 Statement, the regulatory agencies, among other things, indicate the intent to continue “to pay special attention” to commercial real estate lending activities and concentrations going forward. If the FDIC, our primary federal regulator, were to impose restrictions on the amount of commercial real estate loans we can hold in our portfolio, for reasons noted above or otherwise, our earnings would be adversely affected.

Repayment of our commercial business loans is often dependent on the cash flows of the borrower, which may be unpredictable, and the collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value.

At December 31, 2022, commercial business loans comprised 14.3% of our total loan portfolio. Our commercial business loans are originated primarily based on the identified cash flow and general liquidity of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower and/or repayment capacity of any guarantor. The borrower’s cash flow may be unpredictable, and collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial business loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use. In addition, business assets may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise, and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. Accordingly, the repayment of commercial business loans depends primarily on the cash flow and credit worthiness of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral value provided by the borrower and liquidity of the guarantor. If these borrowers do not have sufficient cash flows or resources to pay these loans as they come due or the value of the underlying collateral is insufficient to fully secure these loans, we may suffer losses on these loans that exceed our allowance for credit losses.

We may have higher credit losses than we have allowed for in our allowance for credit losses.

Our actual loans losses could exceed our allowance for credit losses and therefore our historic allowance for credit losses may not be adequate. As of December 31, 2022, 48.4% of our loan portfolio was secured by commercial real estate. Repayment of such loans is generally considered more subject to market risk than residential mortgage loans. Industry experience shows that a portion of loans will become delinquent and a portion of loans will require partial or entire charge-off. Regardless of the underwriting criteria utilized, losses may be experienced as a result of various factors beyond our control, including among other things, changes in market conditions affecting the value of loan collateral, the cash flows of our borrowers and problems affecting borrower credit. If we suffer credit losses that exceed our allowance for credit losses, our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

While the COVID-19 fiscal stimulus and relief programs appear to have delayed any materially adverse financial impact to the Bank, once these stimulus programs have been fully exhausted, we believe our credit metrics could worsen and credit losses could ultimately materialize. Any potential credit losses will be contingent upon a number of factors beyond our control, such as a slower return to pre-pandemic routines, which will be influenced by a number of factors including increases in new COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths leading to additional government imposed restrictions; refusals to receive the vaccines along with concerns related to new strains of the virus; supply chain issues remaining unresolved longer than anticipated; unemployment increases while consumer confidence and spending falls; and rising geopolitical tensions.

Our decisions regarding allowance for credit losses and credit risk may materially and adversely affect our business.

Making loans and other extensions of credit is an essential element of our business. Although we seek to mitigate risks inherent in lending by adhering to specific underwriting practices, our loans and other extensions of credit may not be repaid. The risk of nonpayment is affected by a number of factors, including:

We attempt to maintain an appropriate allowance for credit losses to provide for probable losses in our loan portfolio. We periodically determine the amount of the allowance based on consideration of several factors, including but not limited to:

The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for credit losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. A deterioration in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for credit losses. In addition, regulatory agencies periodically review our allowance for credit losses and may require an increase in the provision for credit losses or the recognition of further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of management. In addition, if charge-offs in future periods exceed the allowance for credit losses, we will need additional provisions to increase the allowance for credit losses. Any increases in the allowance for credit losses will result in a decrease in net income and, possibly, capital, and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

A percentage of the loans in our portfolio currently include exceptions to our loan policies and supervisory guidelines.

All of the loans that we make are subject to written loan policies adopted by our board of directors and to supervisory guidelines imposed by our regulators. Our loan policies are designed to reduce the risks associated with the loans that we make by requiring our loan officers to take certain steps that vary depending on the type and amount of the loan, prior to closing a loan. These steps include, among other things, making sure the proper liens are documented and perfected on property securing a loan, and requiring proof of adequate insurance coverage on property securing loans. Loans that do not fully comply with our loan policies are known as “exceptions.” We categorize exceptions as policy exceptions, financial statement exceptions and document exceptions. As a result of these exceptions, such loans may have a higher risk of loan loss than the other loans in our portfolio that fully comply with our loan policies. In addition, we may be subject to regulatory action by federal or state banking authorities if they believe the number of exceptions in our loan portfolio represents an unsafe banking practice.

Risks Related to Capital and Liquidity

Liquidity needs could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Dividends from the Bank provide the primary source of funds for the Company. The primary sources of funds of the Bank are client deposits and loan repayments. While scheduled loan repayments are a relatively stable source of funds, they are subject to the ability of borrowers to repay the loans. The ability of borrowers to repay loans can be adversely affected by a number of factors, including changes in economic conditions, adverse trends or events affecting business industry groups, reductions in real estate values or markets, business closings or lay-offs, inclement weather, natural disasters and international instability.

Additionally, deposit levels may be affected by a number of factors, including rates paid by competitors, general interest rate levels, regulatory capital requirements, returns available to clients on alternative investments and general economic conditions. Accordingly, we may be required from time to time to rely on secondary sources of liquidity to meet withdrawal demands or otherwise fund operations. Such sources include proceeds from FHLB advances, sales of investment securities and loans, and federal funds lines of credit from correspondent banks, as well as out-of-market time deposits. While we believe that these sources are currently adequate, there can be no assurance they will be sufficient to meet future liquidity demands, particularly if we continue to grow and experience increasing loan demand. We may be required to slow or discontinue loan growth, capital expenditures or other investments or liquidate assets should such sources not be adequate.

The Company is a stand-alone entity with its own liquidity needs to service its debt or other obligations. Other than dividends from the Bank, the Company does not have additional means of generating liquidity without obtaining additional debt or equity funding. If we are unable to receive dividends from the Bank or obtain additional funding, we may be unable to pay our debt or other obligations.

Legal, Accounting, Regulatory and Compliance Risks

We are subject to extensive regulation that has limited the conduct of our business, and could impose financial requirements, each of which could have an adverse impact on our operations.

We operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to examination, supervision, and comprehensive regulation by various regulatory agencies. We are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, the regulating authority that insures client deposits, and by our primary state regulator, the S.C. Board. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank,

the Bank must comply with applicable regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank. Regulation by these agencies is intended primarily for the protection of our depositors and the deposit insurance fund and not for the benefit of our shareholders. The Bank’s activities are also regulated under consumer protection laws applicable to our lending, deposit, and other activities. A sufficient claim against us under these laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could also result in heightened regulatory scrutiny and in sanctions by regulatory agencies (such as a memorandum of understanding, a written supervisory agreement or a cease and desist order), civil money penalties and/or reputation damage. Any of these consequences could restrict our ability to expand our business or could require us to raise additional capital or sell assets on terms that are not advantageous to us or our shareholders and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, such violations may occur despite our best efforts.

We are subject to federal and state fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to material penalties.

Federal and state fair lending laws and regulations, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act, impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The Department of Justice, CFPB and other federal and state agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. A finding by these regulators of noncompliance with these laws could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, and imposition of restrictions on expansion activity. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation, which if successful could adversely impact our rating under the CRA.

As of our most recent examination report, the Bank received a “Needs to Improve” CRA rating, which results in restrictions on certain expansionary activities, including certain mergers and acquisitions and the establishment and relocation of bank branches. This rating will also result in a loss of expedited processing of applications to undertake certain activities, and requires the Bank to receive prior regulatory approval for certain activities, including to issue or prepay certain subordinated debt obligations, and open or relocate bank branches. A “Needs to Improve” rating could have an impact on our relationships with certain states, counties, municipalities or other public agencies to the extent applicable law, regulation or policy limits, restricts or influences whether such entity may do business with a company that has a below “Satisfactory” rating and, in general, could negatively affect our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations. These restrictions, among others, will remain in place at least until the Bank’s next CRA rating is publicly released by the FDIC. The FDIC may take additional enforcement action, including a possible informal or formal enforcement action and/or civil monetary penalties. As a result of these limitations and conditions, we may be unable or may fail to pursue, evaluate or complete transactions that might have been strategically or competitively significant.

We face risks related to the adoption of future legislation and potential changes in federal regulatory agency leadership, policies, and priorities.

With the new Congress taking office in 2023, Republicans gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, while Democrats retained control of the U.S. Senate. However slim the majorities, though, the net result was a split Congress, which in the past leads to less sweeping policy changes. However, Congressional committees with jurisdiction over the banking sector have pursued oversight and legislative initiatives in a variety of areas, including addressing climate-related risks, promoting diversity and equality within the banking industry and addressing other Environmental, Social, and Governance matters, improving competition in the banking sector and enhancing oversight of bank mergers and acquisitions, establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets and markets, and oversight of the COVID-19 pandemic response and economic recovery. The prospects for the enactment of major banking reform legislation remain unclear at this time.

Moreover, the turnover of the presidential administration resulted in certain changes in the leadership and senior staffs of the federal banking agencies, the CFPB, CFTC, SEC, and the Treasury Department, with certain significant leadership positions yet to be filled, including the Comptroller of the Currency. These changes have impacted the rulemaking, supervision, examination and enforcement priorities and policies of the agencies and likely will continue to do so over the next several years. The potential impact of any changes in agency personnel, policies and priorities on the financial services sector, including the Company and the Bank, cannot be predicted at this time. Regulations and laws may be modified at any time, and new legislation may be enacted that will affect us. Any future changes in federal and state laws and regulations, as well as the interpretation and implementation of such laws and regulations, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including those listed above or other ways that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.

The federal Bank Secrecy Act, the USA Patriot Act and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain effective anti-money laundering programs and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports as appropriate. The federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, established by the U.S. Treasury to administer the Bank Secrecy Act, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and has engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by OFAC. Federal and state bank regulators also focus on compliance with Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering regulations. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient or the policies, procedures and systems of the financial institutions that we have already acquired or may acquire in the future are deficient, we would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions such as restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including our acquisition plans, which would negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us.

Federal, state and local consumer lending laws may restrict our ability to originate certain mortgage loans or increase our risk of liability with respect to such loans and could increase our cost of doing business.

Federal, state and local laws have been adopted that are intended to eliminate certain lending practices considered “predatory.” These laws prohibit practices such as steering borrowers away from more affordable products, selling unnecessary insurance to borrowers, repeatedly refinancing loans and making loans without a reasonable expectation that the borrowers will be able to repay the loans irrespective of the value of the underlying property. Loans with certain terms and conditions and that otherwise meet the definition of a “qualified mortgage” may be protected from liability to a borrower for failing to make the necessary determinations. In either case, we may find it necessary to tighten our mortgage loan underwriting standards in response to the CFPB rules, which may constrain our ability to make loans consistent with our business strategies. It is our policy not to make predatory loans and to determine borrowers’ ability to repay, but the law and related rules create the potential for increased liability with respect to our lending and loan investment activities. They increase our cost of doing business and, ultimately, may prevent us from making certain loans and cause us to reduce the average percentage rate or the points and fees on loans that we do make.

The Federal Reserve may require us to commit capital resources to support the Bank.

The Federal Reserve requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. Under the “source of strength” doctrine, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal bank regulators to require that all companies that directly or indirectly control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength for the institution. Under these requirements, in the future, we could be required to provide financial assistance to the Bank if the Bank experiences financial distress.

A capital injection may be required at times when we do not have the resources to provide it, and therefore we may be required to borrow the funds. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the holding company’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by the holding company in order to make the required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and will adversely impact the holding company’s cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The CECL accounting standard resulted in a significant change in how we recognize credit losses and may continue to have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued an accounting standard update, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” which replaces the current “incurred loss” model for recognizing credit losses with an “expected loss” model referred to as the Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) model. While the new CECL standard became effective on January 1, 2023 and for interim periods within that year, we early adopted CECL as of January 1, 2022.

Under the CECL model, we are required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of

expected credit losses is based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and periodically thereafter. This differs significantly from the “incurred loss” model required under current generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred. Accordingly, the adoption of the CECL model materially affected how we determine our allowance for credit losses and required us to increase our allowance. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for credit losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for credit losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Operations

Competition with other financial institutions may have an adverse effect on our ability to retain and grow our client base, which could have a negative effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

The banking and financial services industry is very competitive and includes services offered from other banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, mortgage companies, other lenders, and institutions offering uninsured investment alternatives. Legal and regulatory developments have made it easier for new and sometimes unregulated competitors to compete with us. The financial services industry has and is experiencing an ongoing trend towards consolidation in which fewer large national and regional banks and other financial institutions are replacing many smaller and more local banks. These larger banks and other financial institutions hold a large accumulation of assets and have significantly greater resources and a wider geographic presence or greater accessibility. In some instances, these larger entities operate without the traditional brick and mortar facilities that restrict geographic presence. Some competitors have more aggressive marketing campaigns and better brand recognition, and are able to offer more services, more favorable pricing or greater customer convenience than the Bank. In addition, competition has increased from new banks and other financial services providers that target our existing or potential clients. As consolidation continues among large banks, we expect other smaller institutions to try to compete in the markets we serve. This competition could reduce our net income by decreasing the number and size of the loans that we originate and the interest rates we charge on these loans. Additionally, these competitors may offer higher interest rates, which could decrease the deposits we attract or require us to increase rates to retain existing deposits or attract new deposits. Increased deposit competition could adversely affect our ability to generate the funds necessary for lending operations which could increase our cost of funds.

The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. Banks, securities firms and insurance companies can merge as part of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting) and merchant banking. Technological developments have allowed competitors, including some non-depository institutions, to compete more effectively in local markets and have expanded the range of financial products, services and capital available to our target clients. If we are unable to implement, maintain and use such technologies effectively, we may not be able to offer products or achieve cost-efficiencies necessary to compete in the industry. In addition, some of these competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and lower cost structures.

We are subject to environmental risks that could result in losses.

In the course of business, the Bank may acquire, through foreclosure, or deed in lieu of foreclosure, properties securing loans it has originated or purchased which are in default. Particularly in commercial real estate lending, there is a risk that hazardous substances could be discovered on these properties. In this event, the Bank may be required to remove these substances from the affected properties at our sole cost and expense. The cost of this removal could substantially exceed the value of affected properties. We may not have adequate remedies against the prior owner or other responsible parties and could find it difficult or impossible to sell the affected properties. These events could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, we are subject to the growing risk of climate change. Among the risks associated with climate change are more frequent severe weather events. Severe weather events such as hurricanes, tropical storms, tornados, winter storms, freezes, flooding and other large-scale weather catastrophes in our markets subject us to significant risks and more frequent severe weather events magnify those risks. Large-scale weather catastrophes or other significant climate change effects that either damage or destroy residential or multifamily real estate underlying mortgage loans or real estate collateral, or negatively affects the value of real estate collateral or the ability of borrowers to continue to make payments on loans, could decrease the value of our real estate collateral or increase our delinquency rates in the affected areas and thus diminish the value of our loan portfolio. Such events could also cause downturns in economic and market conditions generally, which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results. The potential losses and costs associated with climate change related risks are difficult to predict and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

We rely on other companies to provide key components of our business infrastructure.

Third parties provide key components of our business operations such as data processing, recording and monitoring transactions, online banking interfaces and services, internet connections and network access. While we have selected these third party vendors carefully, we do not control their actions. Any problem caused by these third parties, including poor performance of services, data breaches, failure to provide services, disruptions in communication services provided by a vendor and failure to handle current or higher volumes, could adversely affect our ability to deliver products and services to our clients and otherwise conduct our business, and may harm our reputation. Financial or operational difficulties of a third party vendor could also hurt our operations if those difficulties interfere with the vendor’s ability to serve us. Replacing these third party vendors could also create significant delay and expense. Accordingly, use of such third parties creates an unavoidable inherent risk to our business operations.

We may be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by the Bank cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to the Bank. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations

We are subject to losses due to errors, omissions or fraudulent behavior by our employees, clients, counterparties or other third parties.

We are exposed to many types of operational risk, including the risk of fraud by employees and third parties, clerical recordkeeping errors and transactional errors. Our business is dependent on our employees as well as third-party service providers to process a large number of increasingly complex transactions. We could be materially and adversely affected if employees, clients, counterparties or other third parties caused an operational breakdown or failure, either as a result of human error, fraudulent manipulation or purposeful damage to any of our operations or systems.

In deciding whether to extend credit or to enter into other transactions with clients and counterparties, we may rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of clients and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information, which we do not independently verify. We also may rely on representations of clients and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. For example, in deciding whether to extend credit to clients, we may assume that a client’s audited financial statements conform with GAAP and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the client. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively affected to the extent we rely on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading, any of which could be caused by errors, omissions, or fraudulent behavior by our employees, clients, counterparties, or other third parties.

In addition, criminals committing fraud increasingly are using more sophisticated techniques and in some cases are part of larger criminal rings, which allow them to be more effective. This type of fraudulent activity has taken many forms, ranging from check fraud, mechanical devices attached to ATM machines, social engineering and phishing attacks to obtain personal information or impersonation of our clients through the use of falsified or stolen credentials. Additionally, an individual or business entity may properly identify themselves, particularly when banking online, yet seek to establish a business relationship for the purpose of perpetrating fraud. Further, in addition to fraud committed against us, we may suffer losses as a result of fraudulent activity committed against third parties. Increased deployment of technologies, such as chip card technology, defray and reduce aspects of fraud; however, criminals are turning to other sources to steal personally identifiable information, such as unaffiliated healthcare providers and government entities, in order to impersonate the consumer to commit fraud. Many of these data compromises are widely reported in the media.

As a result of the increased sophistication of fraud activity, we have increased our spending on systems and controls to detect and prevent fraud. This will result in continued ongoing investments in the future. Nevertheless, these investments may prove insufficient and fraudulent activity could result in losses to us or our customers; loss of business and/or customers; damage to our reputation; the incurrence of additional expenses (including the cost of notification to consumers, credit monitoring and forensics, and fees and fines imposed by the card networks); disruption to our business; our inability to grow our online services or other businesses; additional regulatory scrutiny or penalties; or our exposure to civil litigation and possible financial liability any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our operational or security systems may experience an interruption or breach in security, including as a result of cyber-attacks.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could result in failures or disruptions in our client relationship management, deposit, loan, and other systems and also the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information. While we have systems, policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of client business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Furthermore, information security risks for financial institutions have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists, activists, and other external parties. Our technologies, systems, networks, and our customers’ devices may become the target of cyber-attacks or information security breaches that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our or our customers’ confidential, proprietary and other information, or otherwise disrupt our or our customers’ or other third parties’ business operations. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may also be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities.

While we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber-attacks or other information security breaches to date, we may suffer such losses in the future and any information security breach could result in significant costs to us, which may include fines and penalties, potential liabilities from governmental or third party investigations, proceedings or litigation, legal, forensic and consulting fees and expenses, costs and diversion of management attention required for investigation and remediation actions, and the negative impact on our reputation and loss of confidence of our customers and others, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented.

We regularly review and update our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Failure to keep pace with technological change could adversely affect our business.

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

Our profitability is dependent on our banking activities.

Because we are a bank holding company, our profitability is directly attributable to the success of the Bank. Our banking activities compete with other banking institutions on the basis of products, service, convenience and price, among others. Due in part to both regulatory changes and consumer demands, banks have experienced increased competition from other entities offering similar products and services. We rely on the profitability of the Bank and dividends received from the Bank for payment of our operating expenses and satisfaction of our obligations. As is the case with other similarly situated financial institutions, our profitability will be subject to the fluctuating cost and availability of funds, changes in the prime lending rate and other interest rates, changes in economic conditions in general, and other factors.

Risks Related to Our Industry

We are subject to interest rate risk, which could adversely affect our financial condition and profitability.

A significant portion of our banking assets are subject to changes in interest rates. As of December 31, 2022, approximately 87% of our loan portfolio was in fixed rate loans, while only 13% was in variable rate loans. Like most financial institutions, our earnings significantly depend on our net interest income, the principal component of our earnings, which is the difference between interest earned by us from our interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and interest paid by us on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. We expect that we will periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-earning assets, or vice versa. In either event, if market interest rates should move contrary to our position, this “gap” will negatively impact our earnings. Many factors beyond our control impact interest rates, including economic conditions, governmental monetary policies, inflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply, and disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets. Changes in monetary policies of the various government agencies could influence not only the interest we receive on loans and securities and the interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect our ability to originate loans and obtain deposits, the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities, and the average duration of our assets and liabilities.

In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as borrowers refinance their loans at lower rates. In a rising interest rate environment, the interest rate increases often result in larger payment requirements for our floating interest rate borrowers, which increases the potential for default. At the same time, the marketability of the property securing a loan may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates. An increase (or decrease) in interest rates also requires us to increase (or decrease) the interest rates that we pay on our deposits. Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. An increase in interest rates that adversely affects the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans may lead to increases in nonperforming assets, charge-offs and delinquencies, further increases to the allowance for credit losses, and a reduction of income recognized, among others, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. Further, when we place a loan on non-accrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. At the same time, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense. Thus, an increase in the amount of nonperforming assets could have a material adverse impact on our net interest income.

In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve reduced the target Federal Funds rate to between zero and 0.25%; however, due in part to rising inflation, throughout 2022 the target Federal Funds rate increased to between 4.25% and 4.50%. Rapid changes in interest rates make it difficult for us to balance our loan and deposit portfolios, which may adversely affect our results of operations by, for example, reducing asset yields or spreads, creating operating and system issues, or having other adverse impacts on our business. When short-term interest rates are low for a prolonged period and assuming longer-term interest rates fall further, we could experience net interest margin compression as our interest-earning assets would continue to reprice downward while our interest-bearing liability rates could fail to decline in tandem, which would have an adverse effect on our net interest income and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. When interest-earning assets mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest-bearing liabilities, falling interest rates could reduce net interest income. When interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest-earning assets in a period, an increase in interest rates could reduce net interest income.

In addition, our mortgage operations provide a portion of our noninterest income. We generate mortgage revenues primarily from gains on the sale of residential mortgage loans pursuant to programs currently offered by Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae or Freddie Mac. In this rising or higher interest rate environment, our originations of mortgage loans have decreased, resulting in fewer loans that are available to be sold to investors, which has decreased mortgage revenues in noninterest income. In addition, our results of operations are affected by the amount of noninterest expenses associated with mortgage activities, such as salaries and employee benefits, other loan expense, and other costs. During periods of reduced loan demand, our results of operations may be adversely affected to the extent that we are unable to reduce expenses commensurate with the decline in loan originations.

Inflationary pressures and rising prices may affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Inflation has continued rising in 2022 at levels not seen for over 40 years. Inflationary pressures are currently expected to remain elevated throughout 2023. Inflation could lead to increased costs to our customers, making it more difficult for them to repay their loans or other obligations increasing our credit risk. Sustained higher interest rates by the Federal Reserve may be needed to tame persistent inflationary price pressures, which could push down asset prices and weaken economic activity. A deterioration in economic conditions in the United States and our markets could result in an increase

in loan delinquencies and non-performing assets, decreases in loan collateral values and a decrease in demand for our products and services, all of which, in turn, would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The phase-out of LIBOR could negatively impact our net interest income and require significant operational work.

The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) regulates the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), the reference rate previously used for many of our transactions, including our lending and borrowing and our purchase and sale of securities, as well as the derivatives that we use to manage risk related to such transactions. The FCA announced in July 2017 that the sustainability of LIBOR could not be guaranteed. Accordingly, although the FCA confirmed the extension of overnight and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month LIBOR through June 30, 2023 in order to accord financial institutions greater time with which to manage the transition from LIBOR, the FCA is no longer persuading, or compelling, banks to submit to LIBOR. The federal banking agencies previously determined that banks should have ceased entering into any new contract that use LIBOR as a reference rate by December 31, 2021.

The discontinuation of LIBOR, changes in LIBOR, or changes in market perceptions of the acceptability of LIBOR as a benchmark could result in changes to our risk exposures (for example, if the anticipated discontinuation of LIBOR adversely affects the availability or cost of floating-rate funding and, therefore, our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates) or otherwise result in losses on a product or having to pay more or receive less on securities that we own or have issued. In addition, such uncertainty could result in pricing volatility and increased capital requirements, loss of market share in certain products, adverse tax or accounting impacts, and compliance, legal and operational costs and risks associated with client disclosures, discretionary actions taken or negotiation of fallback provisions, systems disruption, business continuity, and model disruption. We do not have substantial exposure to LIBOR-based products, including loans, securities, derivatives and hedges, and trust preferred securities. In addition, all of our LIBOR-based loan documents allow for use of an alternate index if the current index is not available. We continue to prepare for the transition of our existing LIBOR exposures prior to the final LIBOR cessation date of June 30, 2023. We continue to monitor market developments and regulatory updates, including recent announcements from the ICE Benchmark Administrator, as well as collaborate with regulators and industry groups on the transition of existing exposures. In addition, the implementation of LIBOR reform proposals may result in increased compliance costs and operational costs, including costs related to continued participation in LIBOR and the transition to a replacement reference rate or rates. We cannot reasonably estimate the expected cost.

Negative public opinion surrounding the Company and the financial institutions industry generally could damage our reputation and adversely impact our earnings.

Reputation risk, or the risk to our business, earnings and capital from negative public opinion surrounding the Company and the financial institutions industry generally, is inherent in our business. Negative public opinion can result from our actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices, corporate governance and acquisitions, and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public opinion can adversely affect our ability to keep and attract clients and employees and can expose us to litigation and regulatory action. Although we take steps to minimize reputation risk in dealing with our clients and communities, this risk will always be present given the nature of our business.

Consumers may decide not to use banks to complete their financial transactions.

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions through alternative methods that historically have involved banks. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts, mutual funds or general-purpose reloadable prepaid cards. Consumers can also complete transactions such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our reliance on brokered deposits could adversely affect our liquidity and operating results.

Among other sources of funds, in 2022, we relied on brokered deposits to provide funds with which to make loans and provide other liquidity needed. Brokered deposits were $236.2 million, representing 7.5% of our total deposits at December 31, 2022. Generally, these deposits may not be as stable as other types of deposits. In the future, these depositors may not replace their deposits with us as they mature, or we may have to pay a higher rate of interest to keep those deposits or to replace them with other deposits or sources of funds. Not being able to maintain or replace these deposits as they mature could affect our liquidity. Paying higher deposit rates to maintain or replace these types of deposits could adversely affect our net interest margin and operating results.

Risks Related to Our Strategic Plans

We are dependent on key individuals and the loss of one or more of these key individuals could curtail our growth and adversely affect our prospects.

R. Arthur Seaver, Jr., our chief executive officer, and Calvin C. Hurst, our president, each have extensive and long-standing ties within our primary market area and substantial experience with our operations, and each has contributed significantly to our growth. If we lose the services of any of these individuals, they would be difficult to replace and our business and development could be materially and adversely affected. We may not be successful in retaining key personnel, and the unexpected loss of services of one or more of our key personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business because of their skill, knowledge of our primary markets, years of industry experience and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel. In particular, Michael D. Dowling, our chief financial officer and chief operating officer, resigned effective February 15, 2023. Leadership transitions can be inherently difficult to manage, and an inadequate transition to a permanent successor may cause disruptions to our business due to, among other things, diverting management’s attention or causing a deterioration in morale.

Our success also depends, in part, on our continued ability to attract and retain experienced loan originators, as well as other management personnel, including other executive vice presidents. Competition for personnel is intense, and the process of locating key personnel with the combination of skills and attributes required to execute our business strategy may be lengthy. In 2021, there was a dramatic increase in workers leaving their positions throughout our industry and other industries that was referred to as the “great resignation,” and the market to build, retain and replace talent has become even more highly competitive.

If the services of any of our other key personnel should become unavailable for any reason, we may not be able to identify and hire qualified persons on terms acceptable to the Company, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation, financial condition, and future prospects. The departure of any of our other personnel could also have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and growth prospects.

The success of our growth strategy depends on our ability to identify and retain individuals with experience and relationships in the markets in which we intend to expand.

To expand our franchise successfully, we must identify and retain experienced key management members with local expertise and relationships in these markets. We expect that competition for qualified management in the markets in which we may expand will be intense and that there will be a limited number of qualified persons with knowledge of and experience in the community banking industry in these markets. Even if we identify individuals that we believe could assist us in establishing a presence in a new market, we may be unable to recruit these individuals away from more established financial institutions. In addition, the process of identifying and recruiting individuals with the combination of skills and attributes required to carry out our strategy requires both management and financial resources and is often lengthy. Our inability to identify, recruit, and retain talented personnel to manage new offices effectively would limit our growth and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We will face risks with respect to future expansion.

We routinely evaluate opportunities to expand into new markets, as we did in Columbia, South Carolina in 2007, Charleston, South Carolina in 2012, Raleigh, North Carolina in 2017, Atlanta, Georgia in 2017, Summerville, South Carolina and Greensboro, North Carolina in 2018 and Charlotte, North Carolina in 2021. We may also expand our lines of business or offer new products or services as well as seek to acquire other financial institutions or parts of those institutions. Any merger and acquisition activities could be material and could require us to use a substantial amount of common stock, cash, other liquid assets, and/or incur debt. Moreover, these types of expansions involve various risks, including:

There is no assurance that existing branches or future branches, if any, will maintain or achieve deposit levels, loan balances or other operating results necessary to avoid losses or produce profits. Our growth may entail an increase in overhead expenses if we add new branches and staff. There are considerable costs involved in opening branches, and new branches generally do not generate sufficient revenues to offset their costs until they have been in operation for at least a year or more. Accordingly, any new branches established can be expected to negatively impact earnings for some period of time until they reach certain economies of scale. Our historical results may not be indicative of future results or results that may be achieved, particularly if we continue to expand.

Failure to successfully address these and other issues related to any expansion could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including short-term and long-term liquidity, and could adversely affect our ability to successfully implement our business strategy.

New lines of business or new products and services may subject us to additional risk.

From time to time, we may implement new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products and services, we may invest significant time and resources. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as compliance with regulations, competitive alternatives, and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business and/or a new product or service. Furthermore, any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business and/or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Our ability to pay cash dividends is limited, and we may be unable to pay future dividends even if we desire to do so.

The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies. In general, the Federal Reserve’s policies provide that dividends should be paid only out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the bank holding company appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve’s policies also require that a bank holding company serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks by standing ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to those banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and by maintaining the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks where necessary. Further, under the prompt corrective action regulations, the ability of a bank holding company to pay dividends may be restricted if a subsidiary bank becomes undercapitalized. These regulatory policies could affect the ability of the Company to pay dividends or otherwise engage in capital distributions.

Statutory and regulatory limitations apply to the Bank’s payment of dividends to the Company. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board. The FDIC also has the authority under federal law to enjoin a bank from engaging in what in its opinion constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting its business, including the payment of a dividend under certain circumstances. If the Bank is not permitted to pay cash dividends to the Company, it is unlikely that we would be able to pay cash dividends on our common stock. Moreover, holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends only when, and if declared by our board of directors.

Our stock price may be volatile, which could result in losses to our investors and litigation against us.

Our stock price has been volatile in the past and several factors could cause the price to fluctuate substantially in the future. These factors include but are not limited to: actual or anticipated variations in earnings, changes in analysts’ recommendations or projections, our announcement of developments related to our businesses, operations and stock performance of other companies deemed to be peers, new technology used or services offered by traditional and non-traditional competitors, news reports of trends, irrational exuberance on the part of investors, new federal banking regulations, and other issues related to the financial services industry. Our stock price may fluctuate significantly in the future, and these fluctuations may be unrelated to our performance. General market declines or market volatility in the future, especially in the financial institutions sector, could adversely affect the price of our common stock, and the current market price may not be indicative of future market prices. Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for you to resell your common stock when you want and at prices you find attractive. Moreover, in the past, securities class action lawsuits have been instituted against some companies following periods of volatility in the market price of its securities. We could in the future be the target of similar litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our normal business.

Future sales of our stock by our shareholders or the perception that those sales could occur may cause our stock price to decline.

Although our common stock is listed for trading on The NASDAQ Global Market, the trading volume in our common stock is lower than that of other larger financial services companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of our common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. Given the relatively low trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that those sales may occur, could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline or to be lower than it otherwise might be in the absence of those sales or perceptions.

Economic and other circumstances may require us to raise capital at times or in amounts that are unfavorable to us. If we have to issue shares of common stock, they will dilute the percentage ownership interest of existing shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock and adversely affect the terms on which we may obtain additional capital.

We may need to incur additional debt or equity financing in the future to make strategic acquisitions or investments or to strengthen our capital position. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control and our financial performance. We cannot provide assurance that such financing will be available to us on acceptable terms or at all, or if we do raise additional capital that it will not be dilutive to existing shareholders.

If we determine, for any reason, that we need to raise capital, subject to applicable NASDAQ rules, our board generally has the authority, without action by or vote of the shareholders, to issue all or part of any authorized but unissued shares of stock for any corporate purpose, including issuance of equity-based incentives under or outside of our equity compensation plans. Additionally, we are not restricted from issuing additional common stock or preferred stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock or preferred stock or any substantially similar securities. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales by us of a large number of shares of common stock or preferred stock or similar securities in the market or from the perception that such sales could occur. If we issue preferred stock that has a preference over the common stock with respect to the payment of dividends or upon liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, or if we issue preferred stock with voting rights that dilute the voting power of the common stock, the rights of holders of the common stock or the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected. Any issuance of additional shares of stock will dilute the percentage ownership interest of our shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock. Shares we issue in connection with any such offering will increase the total number of shares and may dilute the economic and voting ownership interest of our existing shareholders.

Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws, South Carolina law, and state and federal banking regulations, could delay or prevent a takeover by a third party.

Our articles of incorporation and bylaws could delay, defer, or prevent a third party takeover, despite possible benefit to the shareholders, or otherwise adversely affect the price of our common stock. Our governing documents:

In addition, the South Carolina business combinations statute provides that a 10% or greater shareholder of a resident domestic corporation cannot engage in a “business combination” (as defined in the statute) with such corporation for a period of two years following the date on which the 10% shareholder became such, unless the business combination or the acquisition of shares is approved by a majority of the disinterested members of such corporation’s board of directors before the 10% shareholder’s share acquisition date. This statute further provides that at no time (even after the two-year period subsequent to such share acquisition date) may the 10% shareholder engage in a business combination with the relevant corporation unless certain approvals of the board of directors or disinterested shareholders are obtained or unless the consideration given in the combination meets certain minimum standards set forth in the statute. The law is very broad in its scope and is designed to inhibit unfriendly acquisitions but it does not apply to corporations whose articles of incorporation contain a provision electing not to be covered by the law. Our articles of incorporation do not contain such a provision. An amendment of our articles of incorporation to that effect would, however, permit a business combination with an interested shareholder even though that status was obtained prior to the amendment.

Finally, the Change in Bank Control Act and the BHCA generally require filings and approvals prior to certain transactions that would result in a party acquiring control of the Company or the Bank.

Our common stock is not an insured deposit and is not guaranteed by the FDIC.

Shares of our common stock are not a bank deposit and, therefore, losses in value are not insured by the FDIC, any other deposit insurance fund or by any other public or private entity. Investment in shares of our common stock is inherently risky for the reasons described herein and our shareholders will bear the risk of loss if the value or market price of our common stock is adversely affected.

General Risk Factors

We may be subject to claims and litigation asserting lender liability.

From time to time, clients and others make claims and take legal action pertaining to our performance of fiduciary responsibilities. These claims are often referred to as “lender liability” claims and are sometimes brought in an effort to produce or increase leverage against us in workout negotiations or debt collection proceedings. Lender liability claims frequently assert one or more of the following allegations: breach of fiduciary duties, fraud, economic duress, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and similar claims. Whether customer claims and legal action related to the performance of our responsibilities are founded or unfounded, if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in a favorable manner, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect our market reputation, products and services, as well as potentially affecting customer demand for those products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

From time to time we are, or may become, involved in suits, legal proceedings, information-gatherings, investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory agencies that may lead to adverse consequences.

Many aspects of the banking business involve a substantial risk of legal liability. From time to time, we are, or may become, the subject of information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings, and other forms of regulatory inquiry, including by bank regulatory agencies, self-regulatory agencies, the SEC and law enforcement authorities. The results of such proceedings could lead to significant civil or criminal penalties, including monetary penalties, damages, adverse judgements, settlements, fines, injunctions, restrictions on the way we conduct our business or reputational harm.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Our principal executive offices and the Bank’s main office is located at 6 Verdae Boulevard, Greenville, South Carolina 29607. In addition, we currently operate seven additional offices located in Greenville, Columbia, Summerville and Charleston, South Carolina, one office in Raleigh, North Carolina, one office in Greensboro, North Carolina, one office in Charlotte, North Carolina, and one office in Atlanta, Georgia. We lease seven of our offices and own the remaining five locations. During the fourth quarter of 2020, we consolidated our three Columbia, South Carolina locations into one and subsequently sold the two remaining offices. Management believes the terms of the various leases are consistent with market standards and were arrived at through arm’s-length bargaining.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

In the ordinary course of operations, we may be a party to various legal proceedings from time to time. We do not believe that there is any pending or threatened proceeding against us, which, if determined adversely, would have a material effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

None.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information and Holders of Record

Our common stock is currently traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “SFST.” We had approximately 3,200 shareholders of record on January 17, 2023.

Dividends

We have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock since our inception. For the foreseeable future, we do not intend to declare cash dividends. We intend to retain earnings to grow our business and strengthen our capital base. Our ability to pay cash dividends depends primarily on the ability of our subsidiary, the Bank to pay dividends to us. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board. The FDIC also has the authority under federal law to enjoin a bank from engaging in what in its opinion constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting its business, including the payment of a dividend under certain circumstances.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table sets forth information regarding equity compensation plans approved by security holders at December 31, 2022. We had no equity compensation plans that were not approved by security holders at December 31, 2022. The number of shares and the exercise prices for options have been adjusted for the 10% stock dividends in 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Stock Performance Graph

The performance graph below compares the Company’s cumulative total return over the most recent five-year period with the SNL Southeast Bank Index, a banking industry performance index for the southeastern United States, and the Russell 2000 Index, a small-cap stock market index which the Company was added to in June 2016. Returns are shown on a total return basis, assuming the reinvestment of dividends and a beginning stock index value of $100 per share. The following performance graph does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other Company filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate the performance graphs by reference therein.

Sales of Unregistered Equity Securities

None

Stock Repurchases

On June 21, 2022, the Company announced a share repurchase plan allowing us to repurchase up to 399,026 shares of our common stock (the “Repurchase Plan”). As of December 31, 2022, we have not repurchased any of the shares authorized for repurchase under the Repurchase Plan. The Company is not obligated to purchase any such shares under the Repurchase Plan, and the Repurchase Plan may be discontinued, suspended or restarted at any time; however, repurchases under the Repurchase Plan after December 31, 2022 will require additional approval of our Board of Directors and the Federal Reserve.

The following table reflects share repurchase activity during the fourth quarter of 2022:

Item 6. [Reserved]

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

The following discussion and analysis identifies significant factors that have affected our financial position and operating results during the periods included in the accompanying financial statements. We encourage you to read this discussion and analysis in conjunction with the financial statements and the related notes and the other statistical information also included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

OVERVIEW

Our business model continues to be client-focused, utilizing relationship teams to provide our clients with a specific banker contact and support team responsible for all of their banking needs. The purpose of this structure is to provide a consistent and superior level of professional service, and we believe it provides us with a distinct competitive advantage. We consider exceptional client service to be a critical part of our culture, which we refer to as “ClientFIRST.”

At December 31, 2022, we had total assets of $3.69 billion, a 26.2% increase from total assets of $2.93 billion at December 31, 2021. The largest components of our total assets are loans which were $3.27 billion and $2.49 billion at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Our liabilities and shareholders’ equity at December 31, 2022 totaled $3.40 billion and $294.5 million, respectively, compared to liabilities of $2.65 billion and shareholders’ equity of $277.9 million at December 31, 2021. The principal component of our liabilities is deposits which were $3.13 billion and $2.56 billion at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

Like most community banks, we derive the majority of our income from interest received on our loans and investments. Our primary source of funds for making these loans and investments is our deposits, on which we pay interest. Consequently, one of the key measures of our success is our amount of net interest income, or the difference between the income on our interest-earning assets, such as loans and investments, and the expense on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Another key measure is the difference between the yield we earn on these interest-earning assets and the rate we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities, which is called our net interest spread. In addition to earning interest on our loans and investments, we earn income through fees and other charges to our clients.

Our net income available to common shareholders for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021 was $29.1 million and $46.7 million, or diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) of $3.61 and $5.85 for the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. The decrease in net income resulted primarily from an increase in our provision for credit losses, a decrease in noninterest income and an increase in noninterest expenses, partially offset by an increase in net interest income. In addition, our net income available to shareholders was $18.3 million, or EPS of $2.34 for the year ended December 31, 2020.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table sets forth our selected historical consolidated financial information for the periods and as of the dates indicated. We derived our balance sheet and income statement data for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020 from our audited consolidated financial statements. You should read this information together with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto, which are included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES

We have adopted various accounting policies that govern the application of accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. and with general practices within the banking industry in the preparation of our financial statements. Our significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 to our Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2022.

Certain accounting policies inherently involve a greater reliance on the use of estimates, assumptions and judgments and, as such, have a greater possibility of producing results that could be materially different than originally reported, which could have a material impact on the carrying values of our assets and liabilities and our results of operations. We consider these accounting policies and estimates to be critical accounting policies. We have identified the determination of the allowance for credit losses, the fair valuation of financial instruments and income taxes to be the accounting areas that require the most subjective or complex judgments and, as such, could be most subject to revision as new or additional information becomes available or circumstances change, including overall changes in the economic climate and/or market interest rates. Therefore, management has reviewed and approved these critical accounting policies and estimates and has discussed these policies with the Company’s Audit Committee.

Allowance for Credit Losses

The allowance for credit losses (“ACL”) is management’s current estimate of expected credit losses that will result from the inability of our borrowers to make required loan payments, with particular applicability on our balance sheet to loans and unfunded loan commitments. Estimating the amount of the ACL requires significant judgment and the use of estimates related to historical experience, current conditions, reasonable and supportable forecasts, and the value of collateral on collateral-dependent loans. Credit losses are charged against the allowance, while recoveries of amounts previously charged off are credited to the allowance. A provision for credit losses is charged to operations based on management’s periodic evaluation of the factors previously mentioned, as well as other pertinent factors.

There are many factors affecting the ACL; some are quantitative while others require qualitative judgment. Although management believes its process for determining the allowance adequately considers all the potential factors that could potentially result in credit losses, the process includes subjective elements and is susceptible to significant change. To the extent actual outcomes are worse than management estimates, additional provision for credit losses could be required that could adversely affect our earnings or financial position in future periods.

See Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and Activities for further detailed descriptions of our estimation process and methodology related to the ACL. See also Note 4 – Loans and Allowance for Credit Losses and “Provision for Credit Losses” in this MD&A.

Fair Valuation of Financial Instruments

Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, including securities and derivative instruments. Assets and liabilities carried at fair value inherently include subjectivity and may require the use of significant assumptions, adjustments and judgment including, among others, discount rates, rates of return on assets, cash flows, default rates, loss rates, terminal values and liquidation values. A significant change in assumptions may result in a significant change in fair value, which in turn, may result in a higher degree of financial statement volatility and could result in significant impact on our results of operations, financial condition or disclosures of fair value information.

The fair value hierarchy requires use of observable inputs first and subsequently unobservable inputs when observable inputs are not available. Our fair value measurements involve various valuation techniques and models, which involve inputs that are observable (Level 1 or Level 2 in fair value hierarchy), when available. The level of judgment required to determine fair value is dependent on the methods or techniques used in the process. Assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value using quoted prices in active markets (Level 1) do not require significant judgment while the valuation of assets and liabilities when quoted market prices are not available (Levels 2 and 3) may require significant

judgment to assess whether observable or unobservable inputs for those assets and liabilities provide reasonable determination of fair value. See Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding the fair values measured at each level of the fair value hierarchy, additional discussion regarding fair value measurements, and a brief description of how fair value is determined for categories that have unobservable inputs.

Income Taxes

The financial statements have been prepared on the accrual basis. When income and expenses are recognized in different periods for financial reporting purposes versus for the purposes of computing income taxes currently payable, deferred taxes are provided on such temporary differences. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been recognized in the consolidated financial statements or tax returns. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using the enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be realized or settled.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Net Interest Income and Margin

Our level of net interest income is determined by the level of earning assets and the management of our net interest margin. For the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, our net interest income was $97.6 million, $87.7 million, and $79.8 million, respectively. The $9.9 million, or 11.3%, increase in net interest income during 2022, compared to 2021, was driven by a $525.0 million increase in average earning assets, partially offset by a $401.0 million increase in our average interest-bearing liabilities. The increase in average earning assets was primarily related to an increase in average loans, while the increase in average interest-bearing liabilities was primarily driven by an increase in interest-bearing deposits. During 2021, our net interest income increased $7.9 million, or 9.9%, compared to 2020, while average interest-earning assets increased $249.1 million and average interest-bearing liabilities increased $69.7 million.

Interest income for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020 was $117.7 million, $93.2 million, and $94.8 million, respectively. A significant portion of our interest income relates to our strategy to maintain a large portion of our assets in higher earning loans compared to lower yielding investments and federal funds sold. As such, 97.1% of our interest income related to interest on loans during 2022, compared to 98.3% during 2021 and 98.2% during 2020. Also, included in interest income on loans was $1.7 million related to the net amortization of loan fees and capitalized loan origination costs for the year ended December 31, 2022 and $1.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020.

Interest expense was $20.0 million, $5.4 million, and $15.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively. Interest expense on deposits for 2022 represented 90.3% of total interest expense, compared to 71.9% for 2021, and 87.0% for 2020, while interest expense on borrowings represented 9.7% of total interest expense for 2022, compared to 28.1% for 2021, and 13.0% for 2020. The increase in interest expense on deposits during 2022 resulted from an increase in the rate paid on deposit balances which relates to the Federal Reserve’s 425 basis point increase in the federal funds rate.

We have included a number of tables to assist in our description of various measures of our financial performance. For example, the “Average Balances, Income and Expenses, Yields and Rates” table shows the average balance of each category of our assets and liabilities as well as the yield we earned or the rate we paid with respect to each category during 2022, 2021, and 2022. Similarly, the “Rate/Volume Analysis” table demonstrates the effect of changing interest rates and changing volume of assets and liabilities on our financial condition during the periods shown. We also track the sensitivity of our various categories of assets and liabilities to changes in interest rates, and we have included tables to illustrate our interest rate sensitivity with respect to interest-earning and interest-bearing accounts.

The following table sets forth information related to our average balance sheet, average yields on assets, and average costs of liabilities at December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020. We derived these yields or costs by dividing income or expense by the average balance of the corresponding assets or liabilities. We derived average balances from the daily balances throughout the periods indicated. During the same periods, we had no securities purchased with agreements to resell. All investments were owned at an original maturity of over one year. Nonaccrual loans are included in earning assets in the following tables. Loan yields have been reduced to reflect the negative impact on our earnings of loans on nonaccrual status. The net of capitalized loan costs and fees are amortized into interest income on loans.

Average Balances, Income and Expenses, Yields and Rates

Our net interest margin, on a tax-equivalent basis (TE), was 3.19%, 3.45% and 3.48% for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Our net interest margin (TE) decreased 26 basis points in 2022, compared to 2021, due to higher costs on our interest-bearing liabilities, partially offset by an increase in yield on our interest- earning assets. During 2021, our net interest margin decreased three basis points, compared to 2020, due to the growth in average interest-earning assets at reduced yields being greater than the growth in interest-bearing liabilities which were also at reduced rates.

Our average interest-earning assets increased by $525.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2022, compared to 2021, while the related yield on our interest-earning assets increased by 17 basis points. The increase in average interest-earning assets was driven by a $556.5 million increase in average loan balances, partially offset by a $35.3 million decrease in federal funds sold and interest-bearing deposits with banks. In addition, the increase in yield on our interest earning assets was driven by a 144 basis point increase in the yield on our federal funds sold and other interest-bearing deposits which repriced as the Federal Reserve increased the federal funds rate by 425 basis points during 2022.

During the year ended December 31, 2021, our average interest-earning assets increased by $249.1 million, compared to 2020, while the yield on our interest-earning assets decreased by 47 basis points. The increase in average interest-earning assets was driven primarily by a $207.7 million increase in average loan balances combined with an $18.0 million increase in federal funds sold and interest-bearing deposits with banks. In addition, the reduction in yield on our interest earning assets was driven by a 46 basis point decrease in loan yield as our loan portfolio was impacted by the Federal Reserve’s aggregate 225 basis point interest rate reduction from July 2019 to March 2020.

Our average interest-bearing liabilities increased by $401.0 million during 2022 while the cost of our interest-bearing liabilities increased by 64 basis points. The increase in average interest-bearing liabilities was driven primarily by a $381.9 million increase in average interest-bearing deposits at an average rate of 0.89%. During 2021, our average interest-bearing liabilities increased by $69.7 million, compared to 2020, while the cost of our interest-bearing liabilities decreased by 60 basis points.

Our net interest spread was 2.88% for the year ended December 31, 2022, compared to 3.35% for the same period in 2021 and 3.22% for 2020. The net interest spread is the difference between the yield we earn on our interest-earning assets and the rate we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities. The 64 basis point increase in the cost of our interest-bearing

liabilities, partially offset by a 17 basis point increase in yield on our interest-earning assets resulted in a 47 basis point decrease in our net interest spread for the 2022 period. We anticipate continued pressure on our net interest spread and net interest margin in future periods as our deposits continue to reprice immediately with increases in the fed funds rate, compared to our loan portfolio which reprices as loans are originated or renewed.

Rate/Volume Analysis

Net interest income can be analyzed in terms of the impact of changing interest rates and changing volume. The following tables set forth the effect which the varying levels of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and the applicable rates have had on changes in net interest income for the periods presented.