SouthState Corp - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10‑K

Commission file number 001‑12669

SOUTH STATE CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(800) 277‑2175

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Act). Yes ☐  No ☒.

The aggregate market value of the voting stock of the registrant held by non‑affiliates was $2,110,172,000 based on the closing sale price of $85.70 per share on June 30, 2017. For purposes of the foregoing calculation only, all directors and executive officers of the registrant have been deemed affiliates. The number of shares of common stock outstanding as of February 21, 2018 was 36,785,071.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the Registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10 ‑ 14 of this form 10‑K.

 

 

South State Corporation

Index to Form 10‑K

Forward‑Looking Statements

The disclosures set forth in this Report are qualified by Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors and the section captioned “Forward‑Looking Statements” in Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this Report and other cautionary statements set forth elsewhere in this Report.

PART I

Item 1.  Business.

South State Corporation, headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, is a bank holding company incorporated in 1985 under the laws of South Carolina.  We provide a wide range of banking services and products to our customers through our wholly‑owned bank subsidiary, South State Bank (the “Bank”), a South Carolina‑chartered commercial bank that opened for business in 1934.  The Bank operates Minis & Co., Inc. and South State Advisory (formerly First Southeast 401k Fiduciaries), both wholly-owned registered investment advisors.  We do not engage in any significant operations other than the ownership of our banking subsidiary.

Unless otherwise mentioned or unless the context requires otherwise, references herein to “South State,” the “Company” “we,” “us,” “our” or similar references mean South State Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries. References to the “Bank” means South State Bank.

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. We coordinate the financial resources of the consolidated enterprise and thereby maintain financial, operation and administrative systems that allow centralized evaluation of subsidiary operations and coordination of selected policies and activities. The Company’s operating revenues and net income are derived primarily from cash dividends received from our Bank.

Our Bank provides a full range of retail and commercial banking services, mortgage lending services, trust and wealth management, and consumer finance loans through financial centers in South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Richmond, Virginia . At December 31, 2017, we had approximately $14.5 billion in assets, $10.6 billion in loans, $11.5 billion in deposits, $2.3 billion in shareholders’ equity, and a market capitalization of approximately $3.2 billion.

We began operating in 1934 in Orangeburg, South Carolina and have maintained our ability to provide high quality customer service while also leveraging our size to offer many products more common to larger banks. We have pursued a growth strategy that relies on organic growth supplemented by the acquisition of select financial institutions or branches in certain market areas.

 

In recent years, we have continued to grow the business under our guiding principles of soundness, profitability and growth. Below are highlights of our expansion efforts over the past three years:

Our principal executive offices are located at 520 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Our mailing address at this facility is Post Office Box 1030, Columbia, South Carolina 29202 and our telephone number is (800) 277‑2175.

Available Information

We provide our Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on our website at www.southstatebank.com under the Investor Relations section. These filings are made accessible as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been filed electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). These filings are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. In addition, we make available under the Investor Relations section on our website (www.southstatebank.com) the following, among other things: (i) Corporate Governance Guidelines, (ii) Code of Ethics, which applies to our directors and all employees, and (iii) the charters of the Audit, Compensation, Executive, Wealth Management and Trust, Risk, and Corporate Governance & Nominating Committees of our board of directors. These materials are available to the general public on our website free of charge. Printed copies of these materials are also available free of charge to shareholders who request them in writing. Please address your request to: Investor Relations, Attn: Fred Austin, South State Corporation, 520 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Statements of beneficial ownership of equity securities filed by directors, officers, and 10% or greater shareholders under Section 16 of the Exchange Act are also available through our website, www.southstatebank.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report.

Territory Served and Competition

We serve customers and conduct our business from 181 financial centers in 29 South Carolina counties, 9 North Carolina counties, 19 Georgia counties and four Virginia counties. We compete in the highly competitive banking and financial services industry. Our profitability depends principally on our ability to effectively compete in the markets in which we conduct business. We expect competition in the industry to continue to increase mainly as a result of the improvement in financial technology used by both existing and new banking and financial services firms. Competition may further intensify as additional companies enter the markets where we conduct business and we enter mature markets in accordance with our expansion strategy.

We experience strong competition from both bank and non‑bank competitors in certain markets. Broadly speaking, we compete with national banks, super‑regional banks, smaller community banks, and non‑traditional internet‑based banks. We compete for deposits and loans with commercial banks, credit unions and other non-bank competitors. In addition, we compete with other financial intermediaries and investment alternatives such as mortgage companies, credit card issuers, leasing companies, finance companies, money market mutual funds, brokerage firms, governmental and corporation bonds, and other securities firms. Many of these non‑bank competitors are not subject to the same regulatory oversight, affording them a competitive advantage in some instances. In many cases, our competitors have substantially greater resources and offer certain services that we are unable to provide to our customers.

We encounter strong competition in making loans and attracting deposits. We compete with other financial institutions to offer customers competitive interest rates on deposit accounts, competitive interest rates charged on loans and other credit, and reasonable service charges. We believe our customers also consider the quality and scope of the services provided and the convenience of banking facilities. Our customers may also take into account the fact that other banks offer different services from those that we provide. The larger national and super‑regional banks may have significantly greater lending limits and may offer additional products. However, by emphasizing customer service and by providing a wide variety of services, we believe that our Bank has been able to compete successfully with our competitors, regardless of their size.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, our Bank had 2,719 full‑time equivalent employees compared to 2,055 as of the same date in 2016. We consider our relationship with our employees instrumental to the success of our business. We provide many of our employees with a comprehensive employee benefit program which includes the following: group life, health and dental insurance, paid vacation, sick leave, educational opportunities, a cash incentive plan, a stock purchase plan, stock incentive plan for officers and key employees, deferred compensation plans for officers and key employees, a defined benefit pension plan for employees hired on or before December 31, 2005 (except for employees acquired in the SunBank acquisition in November of 2005), and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

Regulation and Supervision

As a financial institution, we operate under a regulatory framework. The framework outlines a regulatory environment applicable to financial holding companies, bank holding companies, and their subsidiaries. Below, we have provided some specific information relevant to the Company. The regulatory framework under which we operate is intended primarily for the protection of depositors and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (the “FDIC”) Deposit Insurance Fund and not for the protection of our security holders and creditors. To the extent that the following information describes statutory and regulatory provisions, it is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provisions.

General

The current regulatory environment for financial institutions includes substantial enforcement activity by the federal banking agencies, the U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and other state and federal law enforcement agencies. This environment entails significant potential increases in compliance requirements and associated costs.

We are a bank holding company registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and are subject to the supervision of, and to regular inspection by, the Federal Reserve Board. In addition, as a South Carolina bank holding company organized 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 “SCBFI”). Our Bank is organized as a South Carolina‑chartered commercial bank. It is subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the SCBFI and the FDIC. The following discussion summarizes certain aspects of banking and other laws and regulations that affect the Company and our Bank.

Under the Bank Holding Company Act (the “BHC Act”), our activities and those of our Bank are limited to banking, managing or controlling banks, furnishing services to or performing services for our Bank, or any other activity which the Federal Reserve Board determines to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. The BHC Act requires prior Federal Reserve Board approval for, among other things, the acquisition by a bank holding company of direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all the assets of any bank, or for a merger or consolidation of a bank holding company with another bank holding company. The BHC Act also prohibits a bank holding company from acquiring direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the outstanding voting stock of any company engaged in a non‑banking business unless such business is determined by the Federal Reserve Board to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. Further, under South Carolina law, it is unlawful without the prior approval of the SCBFI for any South Carolina bank holding company (i) to acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank or any other bank holding company, (ii) to acquire all or substantially all of the assets of a bank or any other bank holding company, or (iii) to merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company.

The Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act amended a number of federal banking laws affecting the Company and our Bank. In particular, the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act permits a bank holding company to elect to become a “financial holding company,” provided certain conditions are met. A financial holding company, and the companies it controls, are permitted to engage in activities considered “financial in nature” as defined by the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act and Federal Reserve Board interpretations (including, without limitation, insurance and securities activities), and therefore may engage in a broader range of activities than permitted by bank holding companies and their subsidiaries.

Interstate Banking

Federal legislation permits out-of-state acquisitions by bank holding companies, interstate branching by banks, and interstate merging by banks. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which was signed into law in July 2010 and is discussed more fully below (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), removed previous state law restrictions on de novo interstate branching in states such as South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. This change effectively permits out‑of‑state banks to open de novo branches in states where the laws of such state would permit a bank chartered by that state to open a de novo branch.

Obligations of a Holding Company to its Subsidiary Banks

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’s deposit insurance fund 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 Board, which was confirmed in the Dodd‑Frank Act, 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 (“FDICIA”), 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 Board also has the authority under the BHC Act 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 Board’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 (“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.

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.

Basel Capital Standards

Regulatory capital rules released in July 2013 to implement capital standards referred to as Basel III and developed by an international body known as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, impose higher minimum capital requirements for bank holding companies and banks.  The rules apply to all national and state banks and savings associations regardless of size and bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with more than $1 billion in total consolidated assets.  More stringent requirements are imposed on “advanced approaches” banking organizations which are organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets, $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures, or that have opted into the Basel III capital regime. The requirements in the rules as applicable to us began to phase in on January 1, 2015 and will be fully phased in by January 1, 2019.

The rule include certain new and higher risk-based capital and leverage requirements than those previously in place. Specifically, the following minimum capital requirements apply to us:

Under the rules, Tier 1 capital is redefined to include two components: Common Equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The new and highest form of capital, Common Equity Tier 1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital includes other perpetual instruments historically included in Tier 1 capital, such as noncumulative perpetual preferred stock. Tier 2 capital generally consists of instruments that previously qualified as Tier 2 capital plus instruments that the rules have disqualified from Tier 1 capital treatment. Cumulative perpetual preferred stock, formerly includable in Tier 1 capital, is now included only in Tier 2 capital; except that the 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 Common Equity Tier 1 capital), subject to certain restrictions.  Accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) is presumptively included in Common Equity Tier 1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. The rules 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, will retain the pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

In addition, in order to avoid restrictions on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments to executives, a banking organization must maintain a “capital conservation buffer” on top of its minimum risk-based capital requirements. This buffer must consist solely of Tier 1 Common Equity, but the buffer applies to all three risk-based measurements (Common Equity Tier 1, Tier 1 capital and total capital). The capital conservation buffer will be phased in incrementally over time, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019, at which time it will require an additional amount of Tier 1 common equity equal to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets.  As of January 1, 2018, we are required to hold a capital conservation buffer of 1.875%, increasing to 2.5% effective January 1, 2019.

In general, the rules have had the effect of increasing capital requirements by increasing the risk weights on certain assets, including high volatility commercial real estate, certain loans past due 90 days or more or in nonaccrual status, mortgage servicing rights not includable in Common Equity Tier 1 capital, equity exposures, and claims on securities firms, that are used in the denominator of the three risk-based capital ratios.

Volcker Rule

Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, known as the “Volcker Rule,” prohibits any bank, bank holding company, or affiliate (referred to collectively as “banking entities”) from engaging in two types of activities: “proprietary trading” and the ownership or sponsorship of private equity or hedge funds that are referred to as “covered funds.” Proprietary trading is, in general, trading in securities on a short-term basis for a banking entity's own account.  Funds subject to the ownership and sponsorship prohibition are those not required to register with the SEC because they have only accredited investors or no more than 100 investors. In December 2013, our primary federal regulators, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, together with other federal banking agencies, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, finalized a regulation to implement the Volcker Rule. At December 31, 2017, the Company has evaluated our securities portfolio and has determined that we do not hold any covered funds.

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

If the institution is not well capitalized, it cannot accept brokered deposits without prior FDIC approval. Even if approved, rate restrictions will govern the rate the institution may pay on the brokered deposits. In addition, a bank that is undercapitalized cannot offer an effective yield in excess of 75 basis points over the “national rate” (as defined below) paid on deposits (including brokered deposits, if approval is granted for the bank to accept them) of comparable size and maturity. The “national rate” is defined as a simple average of rates paid by insured depository institutions and branches for which data are available and is published weekly by the FDIC. Institutions subject to the restrictions that believe they are operating in an area where the rates paid on deposits are higher than the “national rate” can use the local market to determine the prevailing rate if they seek and receive a determination from the FDIC that it is operating in a high‑rate area. Regardless of the determination, institutions must use the national rate to determine conformance for all deposits outside their market area.

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

An insured depository institution may not pay a management fee to a bank holding company controlling that institution or any other person having control of the institution if, after making the payment, the institution would be undercapitalized. In addition, an institution 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. 

As of December 31, 2017, the Bank was deemed to be “well capitalized.” 

Payment of Dividends

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The Federal Reserve Board has issued a policy statement on the payment of cash dividends by bank holding companies, which expresses the Federal Reserve Board’s view that a bank holding company generally should pay cash dividends only to the extent that the holding company’s net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that

is consistent with the holding company’s capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve Board also indicated that it would be inappropriate for a bank holding company experiencing serious financial problems to borrow funds to pay dividends. Funds for cash distributions to our shareholders are derived primarily from dividends received from our Bank. Our Bank is subject to various general regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends. Any restriction on the ability of our Bank to pay dividends will indirectly restrict the ability of the Company to pay dividends.

The Company pays cash dividends to shareholders from its assets, which are mainly provided by dividends from the Bank. However, certain restrictions exist regarding the ability of its subsidiary to transfer funds to the Company in form of cash dividends, loans or advances. The approval of the SCBFI is required to pay dividends that exceeds 100% of net income in any calendar year. The Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC have issued policy statements which provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current earnings.

The ability of the Company and the Bank to pay dividends may also be affected by the various minimum capital requirements and the capital and non‑capital standards established under the FDICIA, as described above. The right of the Company, its shareholders, and its creditors to participate in any distribution of the assets or earnings of its subsidiary is further subject to the prior claims of creditors of our Bank.

Certain Transactions by the Company and its Affiliates

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 the 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 any of 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 a bank from engaging in certain transactions with certain affiliates unless the transactions are on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to such bank or its subsidiaries, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other 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 Board 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: must be made on substantially

the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with third parties; and must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features.

Insurance of Deposits

The deposits of the Bank 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, savings associations and credit unions 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), and institutions classified as higher risk pay assessments at higher rates than institutions that pose a lower risk.  Banks with assets of $10 billion or more (after achieving such asset threshold for four consecutive quarters) are subject to a deposit assessment based on a “scorecard” system that combines regulatory ratings and certain forward‑looking financial measures intended to assess the risk an institution poses to the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund. Because the Bank exceeded $10 billion in assets on January 3, 2017 through the merger with SBFC, the Bank’s deposit insurance assessment will be based on this scorecard system starting in the second quarter of 2018, which will result in an increase in the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance.  The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations. 

In addition to ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances.  The FDIC’s deposit insurance fund is currently underfunded, and the FDIC has raised assessment rates and imposed special assessments on certain institutions during recent years to raise funds. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the minimum designated reserve ratio for the deposit insurance fund was increased to 1.35% (which ratio is required to reach by September 30, 2020) of the estimated total amount of insured deposits.  In March 2016, the FDIC adopted rules to impose a surcharge, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, on the quarterly deposit insurance assessments of insured depository institutions that are deemed under the rules to be “large institutions,”  generally defined to include banks with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more for four consecutive quarters, with the first $10 billion being subtracted from the regular insurance assessment base and certain other potential adjustments being made to determine the surcharge base.  The large institution surcharge became effective July 1, 2016, the first the calendar quarter after the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio first reached 1.15% and will continue through the quarter that it first reaches or exceeds 1.35%.  Large institutions pay the quarterly surcharge, in addition to regular assessments, in an amount equal to an annual rate of 4.5 basis points of the surcharge base.  The Bank will be subject to this surcharge starting in the second quarter of 2018.   The surcharge will remain in place through the quarter that the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio first reaches or exceeds 1.35%, but no later than December 31, 2018.  If the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio has not reached 1.35% by that date, the FDIC will impose a shortfall assessment on large institutions in the first quarter of 2019, and collect it on June 30, 2019.

In addition, FDIC insured institutions are required to pay a Financing Corporation assessment to fund the interest on bonds issued to resolve thrift failures in the 1980s.  These assessments, which may be revised based upon the level of deposits, will continue as the bonds mature in the years 2017 through 2019.  The amount assessed on individual institutions is in addition to the amount, if any, paid for deposit insurance according to the FDIC’s risk-related assessment rate schedules.  Assessment rates may be adjusted quarterly to reflect changes in the assessment base.

The FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any insured depository institution if it determines after a notice and 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, remain 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.

Incentive Compensation

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulators and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities, including the Company and the Bank, having at least $1 billion in total assets that encourage inappropriate risks by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements. The agencies proposed such regulations in April 2011. However, the 2011 proposal was replaced with a new proposal in May 2016, which makes explicit that the involvement of risk management and control personnel includes not only compliance, risk management and internal audit, but also legal, human resources, accounting, financial reporting and finance roles responsible for identifying, measuring, monitoring or controlling risk-taking. A final rule had not been adopted as of December 31, 2017.

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC and the OCC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk‑taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk‑taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk‑focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk‑management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

Anti‑Tying Restrictions

Under amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act and Federal Reserve Board regulations, a bank is prohibited from engaging in certain tying or reciprocity arrangements with its customers. In general, a bank may not extend credit, lease, sell property, or furnish any services or fix or vary the consideration for these on the condition that:

Certain arrangements are permissible: a bank may offer combined‑balance products and may otherwise offer more favorable terms if a customer obtains two or more traditional bank products; and certain foreign transactions are exempt from the general rule. A bank holding company or any bank affiliate also is subject to anti‑tying requirements in connection with electronic benefit transfer services.

Community Reinvestment Act

The Community Reinvestment Act (the “CRA”) requires a financial institution’s primary regulator, which is the FDIC for the Bank, to evaluate the record of each financial institution 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 could result in the imposition of additional requirements and limitations on the institution. Additionally, the institution must publicly

disclose the terms of various Community Reinvestment Act‑related agreements. In its most recent CRA examination, the Bank received a “satisfactory” rating.

Consumer Protection Regulations

Activities of the Bank are subject to a variety of statutes and regulations designed to protect consumers. 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 and regulations applicable to credit transactions, such as:

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

Heightened Requirements for Bank Holding Companies with $10 Billion or More in Assets

Various federal banking laws and regulations, including rules adopted by the Federal Reserve pursuant to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, impose heightened requirements on certain large banks and bank holding companies. Most of these rules apply primarily to bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets, but certain rules also apply to banks and bank holding companies with at least $10 billion in total consolidated assets. The Company exceeded $10 billion in total consolidated assets upon consummation of our merger with SBFC on January 3, 2017.  Starting in the second quarter of 2018 (subject to any applicable phase-in period), the fourth consecutive quarter in which our total consolidated assets are anticipated to exceed $10 billion, we will, among other requirements:

Beginning on July 1, 2018, we will also become subject to the so-called Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act relating to debit card interchange fees, called “swipe fees.”  Under the Durbin Amendment and the Federal Reserve’s implementing regulations, bank issuers who are not exempt may only receive an interchange fee from merchants that is reasonable and proportional to the cost of clearing the transaction.  The maximum permissible interchange fee is equal to no more than $0.21 plus 5 basis points of the transaction value for many types of debit interchange transactions.  A debit card issuer may also recover $0.01 per transaction for fraud prevention purposes if the issuer complies with certain fraud-related requirements required by the Federal Reserve.  In addition, the Federal Reserve has rules governing routing and exclusivity that require issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing transactions on each debit or prepaid product. 

As stated above, the Company exceeded $10 billion in total consolidated assets upon consummation of our merger with SBFC on January 3, 2017.   As a result, we have been analyzing these rules to ensure we are prepared to comply with the rules when they become applicable to us.  In particular, we have established a risk committee and have begun the process of preparing for running periodic and selective stress tests on liquidity, interest rates and certain areas of our loan portfolio in order to be in compliance with regulatory stress testing requirements.

Enforcement Powers

The Bank and its “institution‑affiliated parties,” including its management, employees, agents, independent contractors, and consultants such as attorneys and accountants and others who participate in the conduct of the financial institution’s affairs, are subject to potential civil and criminal penalties for violations of law, regulations or written orders of a government agency. These practices can include the failure of an institution to timely file required reports or the filing of false or misleading information or the submission of inaccurate reports. Potential civil penalties have been substantially increased. Criminal penalties for some financial institution crimes have been increased to 20 years.

In addition, regulators are provided with considerable flexibility to commence enforcement actions against institutions and institution‑affiliated parties. Possible enforcement actions include the termination of deposit insurance. Furthermore, banking agencies’ have expansive power to issue cease‑and‑desist orders. These orders may, among other things, require affirmative action to correct any harm resulting from a violation or practice, including restitution, reimbursement, indemnifications or guarantees against loss. A financial institution may also be ordered to restrict its growth, dispose of certain assets, rescind agreements or contracts or take other actions as determined by the ordering agency to be appropriate.

The number of government entities authorized to take action against the Bank has expanded under the Dodd‑Frank Act. The FDIC continues to have primary federal enforcement authority, and the SCBFI also has enforcement authority, with respect to the Bank. In addition, as noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act created the CFPB with broad powers to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws.  Financial institutions with $10 billion or more in total assets are primarily examined by the CFPB with respect to various federal consumer financial protection laws and regulations.

Further, state attorneys general may bring civil actions or other proceedings under the Dodd‑Frank Act or regulations against state‑chartered banks, including the Bank. Prior notice to the CFPB and the FDIC would be necessary for an action against the Bank.

Anti‑Money Laundering

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. Financial institutions 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 recent laws provide law enforcement authorities with increased access to financial information maintained by banks. Anti‑money laundering obligations have been substantially strengthened as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act (the “Patriot Act”), enacted in 2001 and renewed through 2015, as described below. Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations, and this area has become a particular focus of the regulators in recent years. In addition, the regulators 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 found to be violating these obligations.

USA PATRIOT Act

The Patriot Act became effective on October 26, 2001 and amended the Bank Secrecy Act. The Patriot Act 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:

The Patriot Act requires financial institutions to undertake enhanced due diligence of private bank accounts or correspondent accounts for non‑U.S. persons that they administer, maintain, or manage. 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 Patriot Act, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) can send the Bank a list of the names of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities or money laundering. The Bank may be requested to search its records for any relationships or transactions with persons on the list. If the Bank finds any relationships or transactions, it must report those relationships or transactions to FinCEN.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which is an office in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is responsible for helping to ensure that U.S. entities do not engage in transactions with “enemies” of the United States, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress. OFAC publishes lists of names of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts; owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of target countries, and narcotics traffickers. If a bank finds a name on any transaction, account or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, it must freeze or block the transactions on the account. The Bank has appointed a 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. These checks are performed using software that is updated each time a modification is made to the lists provided by OFAC and other agencies of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.

Privacy and Credit Reporting

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 when the financial institution 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. The Bank’s policy is not to disclose any personal information unless permitted by law.

Like other lending institutions, the Bank uses credit bureau data in its underwriting activities. Use of that data is regulated under the Federal Credit Reporting Act on a uniform, nationwide basis, including credit reporting, prescreening, sharing of information between affiliates, and the use of credit data. The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 allows states to enact identity theft laws that are not inconsistent with the conduct required by the provisions of the act.

Fiscal and Monetary Policy

Banking is a business that depends largely on interest rate differentials. In general, the difference between the interest we pay on our deposits and other borrowings, and the interest we receive on our loans and securities holdings, constitutes the major portion of our bank’s earnings. Thus, our earnings and growth will be subject to the influence of economic conditions generally, both domestic and foreign, and also to the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States and its agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates, among other things, the supply of money through various means, including open‑market dealings in United States government securities, the discount rate at which banks may borrow from the Federal Reserve Board, and the reserve requirements on deposits. We cannot predict the nature and timing of any changes in such policies and their impact on our business.

Commercial Real Estate Guidance

In December 2015, the federal banking regulators released a statement entitled “Interagency Statement on Prudent Risk Management for Commercial Real Estate Lending” (the “CRE Guidance”).  In the CRE Guidance, the federal banking regulators (i) expressed concerns with institutions that ease commercial real estate underwriting standards, (ii) directed financial institutions to maintain underwriting discipline and exercise risk management practices to identify, measure and monitor lending risks, and (iii) indicated that they will continue to pay special attention to commercial real estate lending activities and concentrations going forward.  The federal banking regulators previously issued guidance in December 2006, entitled “Interagency Guidance on Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices,” which stated that an institution is potentially exposed to significant commercial real estate concentration risk, and should employ enhanced risk management practices, where (1) total commercial real estate loans represent 300% or more of its total capital and (2) the outstanding balance of such institution’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more during the prior 36 months.  As of December 31, 2017, commercial real estate as a percentage of its total capital was 227%.  Over the past 36 months, the commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by more than 50% due mostly through our acquisitions in 2017.

Proposed Legislation and Regulatory Action

New regulations and statutes are regularly proposed that contain wide‑ranging provisions for altering the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of the nation’s financial institutions. We cannot predict whether or in what form any proposed regulation or statute will be adopted or the extent to which our business may be affected by any new regulation or statute.

Executive Officers of South State Corporation

Executive officers of South State Corporation are elected by the board of directors annually and serve at the pleasure of the board of directors. The executive officers and their ages, positions over the past five years, and terms of office as of February 17, 2018, are as follows:

 

None of the above officers are related and there are no arrangements or understandings between them and any other person pursuant to which any of them was elected as an officer, other than arrangements or understandings with the directors or officers of the Company acting solely in their capacities as such.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors.

Our business operations and the value of securities issued by us may be adversely affected by certain risk factors, many of which are outside of our control. We believe the risk factors listed could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. We may also be adversely affected by additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or focused on or that we currently believe are immaterial to our business operations. If any of such risks actually occur, you could lose part or all of your investment. This Report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors.

General Business Risks

Our business may be adversely affected by economic conditions.

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, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the primary markets where we operate and in the U.S. as a whole. 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; or a combination of these or other factors. While economic conditions in our primary markets of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia have improved since the end of the economic recession, economic growth has been slow and uneven, and concerns still exist over the federal deficit, government spending, and economic risks. A return of recessionary conditions and/or negative developments in the domestic and international credit markets 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 value and sales volumes and high unemployment levels may result in higher than expected loan delinquencies 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.

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve, in an attempt to help the overall economy, has among other things, kept interest rates low through its targeted federal funds rate and the purchase of U.S. Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. The Federal Reserve increased the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points in December 2016 and by a total of 75 basis points during 2017 and has indicated the potential for further gradual increases in the target rate depending on the economic outlook. As the federal funds rate increases, market interest rates will likely rise, which may negatively impact the housing markets and the U.S. economic recovery.

Our estimated allowance for loan losses may be inadequate and an increase in the allowance would reduce earnings.

We are exposed to the risk that our customers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms and that any collateral securing the payment of their loans will not be sufficient to ensure full repayment. Credit losses are inherent in the lending business and could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and ability to meet obligations. The volatility and deterioration in domestic markets may also increase our risk for credit losses. The composition of our loan portfolio, primarily secured by real estate, reduces loss exposure. At December 31, 2017, we had approximately 41,736 of non‑acquired and acquired non‑credit impaired loans secured by real estate with an average loan balance of approximately $196,843. At December 31, 2017, we had approximately 84,414 total non‑acquired and acquired non‑credit impaired loans with an average loan balance of approximately $118,000. We evaluate the collectability of our non-acquired loan portfolio and provide an allowance for loan losses that we believe to be adequate based on a variety of factors including but not limited to: the risk characteristics of various classifications of loans, previous loan loss experience, specific loans that have loss potential, delinquency trends, estimated fair market value of the collateral, current economic conditions, the views of our regulators, and geographic and industry loan concentrations. If our evaluation is incorrect and defaults by borrowers lead to loan losses that exceed our allowance for loan losses, our earnings could be significantly and adversely affected. No assurance can be given that the allowance will be adequate to cover loan losses inherent in our portfolio. We may experience losses in our loan portfolio or perceive adverse conditions and trends that may require us to significantly increase our allowance for loan losses in the future, a decision that would reduce earnings.

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

A significant portion of our non‑acquired and acquired non-credit impaired loan portfolios is secured by real estate. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 82.2% 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.  While economic conditions and real estate in our primary markets of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia have improved since the end of the economic recession, there can be no assurance that our local markets will not experience another economic decline.  Deterioration in the real estate market could cause us to adjust our opinion of the level of credit quality in our loan portfolio. Such a determination may lead to an additional increase in our provisions for loan losses, which could also adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If we fail to effectively manage credit risk and interest rate risk, our business and financial condition will suffer.

We must effectively manage credit risk. There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks with respect to the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, risks relating to proper loan underwriting and guidelines, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions, risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers and risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral. There is no assurance that our credit risk monitoring and loan approval procedures are or will be adequate or will reduce the inherent risks associated with lending. Our credit administration personnel, policies and procedures may not adequately adapt to changes in economic or any other conditions affecting customers and the quality of our loan portfolio. Any failure to manage such credit risks may materially adversely affect our business and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

We must also effectively manage interest rate risk. Because mortgage loans typically have much longer maturities than deposits or other types of funding, rising interest rates can raise the cost of funding relative to the value of the mortgage loan. We manage this risk in part by holding adjustable rate mortgages in portfolios and through other means. Conversely, the value of our mortgage servicing assets may fall when interest rates fall, as borrowers refinance into lower rate loans. Given current rates, material reductions in rates may not be probable, but as rates rise, then the risk increases. There can be no assurance that we will successfully manage the lending and servicing businesses through all future interest‑rate environments.

We are exposed to higher credit risk by commercial real estate, commercial business, and construction lending.

Commercial real estate, commercial business and construction lending usually involves higher credit risks than that of single‑family residential lending. These types of loans involve larger loan balances to a single borrower or groups of related borrowers. Commercial real estate loans may be affected to a greater extent than residential loans by adverse conditions in real estate markets or the economy because commercial real estate borrowers’ ability to repay their loans depends in some cases on successful development of their properties, as well as the factors affecting residential real estate borrowers. These loans may involve greater risk because they generally are not fully amortizing over the loan period, but have a balloon payment due at maturity. A borrower’s ability to make a balloon payment typically will depend on being able to either refinance the loan or sell the underlying property in a timely manner.

Risk of loss on a construction loan depends largely upon whether our initial estimate of the property’s value at completion of construction exceeds the cost of the property construction (including interest) and the availability of permanent take‑out financing. During the construction phase, a number of factors can result in delays and cost overruns. If estimates of value are inaccurate or if actual construction costs exceed estimates, the value of the property securing the loan may be insufficient to ensure full repayment when completed through a permanent loan or by seizure of collateral.

Commercial business loans are typically based on the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans from the cash flow of their businesses. These loans may involve greater risk because the availability of funds to repay each loan depends substantially on the success of the business itself. In addition, the collateral securing the loans may have the following characteristics: (i) depreciate over time, (ii) difficult to appraise and liquidate, and (iii) fluctuate in value based on the success of the business.

Commercial real estate, commercial business, and construction loans are more susceptible to a risk of loss during a downturn in the business cycle. Our underwriting, review, and monitoring cannot eliminate all of the risks related to these loans.

As of December 31, 2017, our non‑acquired and acquired outstanding commercial real estate loans were equal to 227.3% of our total risk‑based capital. The banking regulators are giving commercial real estate lending greater scrutiny, and may require banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans to implement enhanced underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as possibly higher levels of allowances for losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures.

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.

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.

Changes in local economic conditions where we operate could have a negative effect.

Our success depends significantly on growth, or lack thereof, in population, income levels, deposits and housing starts in the geographic markets in which we operate. The local economic conditions in these areas have a significant impact on our commercial, real estate and construction loans, the ability of borrowers to repay these loans, and the value of the collateral securing these loans. Unlike larger financial institutions that are more geographically diversified, we are a regional banking franchise. Adverse changes in the economic conditions of the Southeast United States in general or in our primary markets in South Carolina, Charlotte, and Wilmington, North Carolina, Northeast Georgia, Augusta, Georgia, Savannah, Georgia, and Richmond, Virginia could negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations and profitability.  While economic conditions in the states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia along with the U.S. and worldwide, have improved since the end of the economic recession, a return of recessionary conditions could result in the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business:  loan delinquencies may increase; problem assets and foreclosures may increase; demand for our products and services may decline; and collateral for loans that we make, especially real estate, may decline in value, in turn reducing a customer’s borrowing power, and reducing the value of assets and collateral associated with the our loans.

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

The primary sources of our bank’s funds 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, which could be exacerbated by potential climate change, 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 Federal Home Loan Bank advances, sales of 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.

We may make future acquisitions, which could dilute current shareholders’ stock ownership and expose us to additional risks.

In accordance with our strategic plan, we evaluate opportunities to acquire other banks and branch locations to expand the Company. As a result, we may engage in acquisitions and other transactions that could have a material effect on our operating results and financial condition, including short and long‑term liquidity.

Our acquisition activities could require us to issue a significant number of shares of common stock or other securities and/or to use a substantial amount of cash, other liquid assets, and/or incur debt. In addition, if goodwill recorded in connection with our potential future acquisitions were determined to be impaired, then we would be required to recognize a charge against our earnings, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations during the period in which the impairment was recognized.

Our acquisition activities could involve a number of additional risks, including the risks of:

If we do not successfully manage these risks, our acquisition activities could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, including short-term and long‑term liquidity.

Future acquisitions may be delayed, impeded, or prohibited due to regulatory issues.

Future acquisitions by the Company, particularly those of financial institutions, are subject to approval by a variety of federal and state regulatory agencies.  The process for obtaining these required regulatory approvals has become more difficult in recent years.  Regulatory approvals could be delayed, impeded, restrictively conditioned or denied due to existing or new regulatory issues we have, or may have, with regulatory agencies, including, without

limitation, issues related to anti‑money laundering/Bank Secrecy Act compliance, fair lending laws, fair housing laws, consumer protection laws, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices regulations, Community Reinvestment Act issues, and other similar laws and regulations. We may fail to pursue, evaluate or complete strategic and competitively significant acquisition opportunities as a result of our inability, or perceived or anticipated inability, to obtain regulatory approvals in a timely manner, under reasonable conditions or at all. Difficulties associated with potential acquisitions that may result from these factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be exposed to difficulties in combining the operations of acquired businesses into our own operations, which may prevent us from achieving the expected benefits from our acquisition activities.

We may not be able to fully achieve the strategic objectives and operating efficiencies that we anticipate in our acquisition activities. Inherent uncertainties exist in integrating the operations of an acquired business. In addition, the markets and industries in which the Company and our potential acquisition targets operate are highly competitive. We may lose customers or the customers of acquired entities as a result of an acquisition. We also may lose key personnel from the acquired entity as a result of an acquisition. We may not discover all known and unknown factors when examining a company for acquisition during the due diligence period. These factors could produce unintended and unexpected consequences for us. Undiscovered factors as a result of acquisition, pursued by non‑related third party entities, could bring civil, criminal, and financial liabilities against us, our management, and the management of those entities acquired. These factors could contribute to the Company not achieving the expected benefits from its acquisitions within desired time frames.

We may be exposed to a need for additional capital resources for the future and these capital resources may not be available when needed or at all.

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. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that such financing will be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be materially impaired. In addition, if we decide to raise additional equity capital, our current shareholders’ interests could be diluted.

Our net interest income may decline based on the interest rate environment.

We depend on our net interest income to drive profitability. Differences in volume, yields or interest rates and differences in income earning products such as interest‑earning assets and interest‑bearing liabilities determine our net interest income. We are exposed to changes in general interest rate levels and other economic factors beyond our control. Net interest income will decline in a particular period if:

Our net interest income may decline based on our exposure to a difference in short‑term and long‑term interest rates. If the difference between the interest rates shrinks or disappears, the difference between rates paid on deposits and received on loans could narrow significantly resulting in a decrease in net interest income. In addition to these factors, if market interest rates rise rapidly, interest rate adjustment caps may limit increases in the interest rates on adjustable rate loans, thus reducing our net interest income. Also, certain adjustable rate loans re‑price based on lagging interest rate indices. This lagging effect may also negatively impact our net interest income when general interest rates continue to rise periodically.

Our primary policy for managing interest rate risk exposure involves monitoring exposure to interest rate increases and decreases of as much as 200 basis points ratably over a 12‑month period. As of December 31, 2017, the earnings simulations indicated that the impact of a 200 basis point increase / decrease in rates over 12 months would result in an  estimated  5% increase in net interest income (up 200) and 5.9% decrease (down 200)—as compared with a flat‑rate curve interest rate scenario as the base case. These results indicate that our rate sensitivity is somewhat asset sensitive to the indicated change in interest rates over a one‑year horizon.

We may not be able to adequately anticipate and respond to changes in market interest rates.

We may be unable to anticipate changes in market interest rates, which are affected by many factors beyond our control including but not limited to inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, monetary policy, and other changes that affect financial markets both domestic and foreign. Our net interest income is affected not only by the level and direction of interest rates, but also by the shape of the yield curve and relationships between interest sensitive instruments and key driver rates, as well as balance sheet growth, customer loan and deposit preferences, and the timing of changes in these variables. In the event rates increase, our interest costs on liabilities may increase more rapidly than our income on interest earning assets, thus a deterioration of net interest margins. As such, fluctuations in interest rates could have significant adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to the possibility that more prepayments may be made by customers to pay down loan balances, which could reduce our interest income and profitability.

Prepayment rates stem from consumer behavior, conditions in the housing and financial markets, general U.S. economic conditions, and the relative interest rates on fixed‑rate and adjustable‑rate loans. Therefore, changes in prepayment rates are difficult to predict. Recognition of deferred loan origination costs and premiums paid in originating these loans are normally recognized over the contractual life of each loan. As prepayments occur, the rate at which net deferred loan origination costs and premiums are expensed will accelerate. The effect of the acceleration of deferred costs and premium amortization may be mitigated by prepayment penalties paid by the borrower when the loan is paid in full within a certain period of time, which varies between loans. If prepayment occurs after the period of time when the loan is subject to a prepayment penalty, the effect of the acceleration of premium and deferred cost amortization is no longer mitigated. We recognize premiums paid on mortgage‑backed securities as an adjustment from interest income over the expected life of the security based on the rate of repayment of the securities. Acceleration of prepayments on the loans underlying a mortgage‑backed security shortens the life of the security, increases the rate at which premiums are expensed and further reduces interest income. We may not be able to reinvest loan and security prepayments at rates comparable to the prepaid instrument particularly in a period of declining interest rates.

Our historical operating results may not be indicative of our future operating results.

We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth, and, consequently, our historical results of operations will not necessarily be indicative of our future operations. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and legislative considerations, and competition, may also impede our ability to expand our market presence. If we experience a significant decrease in our historical rate of growth, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected because a high percentage of our operating costs are fixed expenses.

We are exposed to a possible loss of our employees and critical management team.

We are dependent on the ability and experience of a number of key management personnel who have substantial experience with our operations, the financial services industry, and the markets in which we offer products and services. The loss of one or more senior executives or key managers may have an adverse effect on our operations. Also, as we continue to grow operations, our success depends on our ability to continue to attract, manage, and retain other qualified middle management personnel. We cannot guarantee that we will continue to attract or retain such personnel.

If we are unable to offer our key management personnel long‑term incentive compensation, including options, restricted stock, and restricted stock units, as part of their total compensation package, we may have difficulty retaining such personnel, which would adversely affect our operations and financial performance.

We have historically granted equity awards, including stock options, restricted stock awards or restricted stock units, to key management personnel as part of a competitive compensation package. Our ability to grant equity compensation awards as a part of our total compensation package has been vital to attracting, retaining and aligning shareholder interest with a talented management team in a highly competitive marketplace.

In the future, we may seek shareholder approval to adopt new equity compensation plans so that we may issue additional equity awards to management in order for the equity component of our compensation packages to remain competitive in the industry. Shareholder advisory groups have implemented guidelines and issued voting recommendations related to how much equity companies should be able to grant to employees. These advisors influence certain shareholder votes regarding approval of a company’s request for approval of new equity compensation plans. The factors used to formulate these guidelines and voting recommendations include the volatility of a company’s share price and are influenced by broader macro‑economic conditions that can change year to year. The variables used by shareholder advisory groups to formulate equity plan recommendations may limit our ability to obtain approval to adopt new equity plans in the future. If we are limited in our ability to grant equity compensation awards, we would need to explore offering other compelling alternatives to supplement our compensation, including long‑term cash compensation plans or significantly increased short‑term cash compensation, in order to continue to attract and retain key management personnel. If we used these alternatives to long‑term equity awards, our compensation costs could increase and our financial performance could be adversely affected. If we are unable to offer key management personnel long‑term incentive compensation, including stock options, restricted stock or restricted stock units, as part of their total compensation package, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining such personnel, which would adversely affect our operations and financial performance.

We may be adversely affected by the lack of 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 our Bank cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to our Bank. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We could experience a loss due to competition with other financial institutions.

We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, both within and beyond our principal markets, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, super-regional, and internet banks within the various markets in which we operate. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative and regulatory changes and continued consolidation. In addition, as customer preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella 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. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than we can.

Our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken our competitive position, which could adversely affect our growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 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 customer’s audited financial statements conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer. Our earnings are significantly affected by our ability to properly originate, underwrite and service loans. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent we incorrectly assess the creditworthiness of our borrowers, fail to detect or respond to deterioration in asset quality in a timely manner, or rely on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading.

The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected because we are exposed to conditions or assumptions different from the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies.

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosure in conformity with GAAP requires us to make judgments, assumptions, and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our critical accounting policies, included in this document, describe those significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements that are considered “critical” by us because they require judgments, assumptions and estimates that materially impact our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As a result, if future events differ significantly from the judgments, assumptions and estimates in our critical accounting policies, such events or assumptions could have a material impact on our audited consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

We are exposed to the possibility of technology failure and a disruption in our operations may adversely affect our business.

We rely on our computer systems and the technology of outside service providers. Our daily operations depend on the operational effectiveness of their technology. We rely on our systems to accurately track and record our assets and liabilities. If our computer systems or outside technology sources become unreliable, fail, or experience a breach of security, our ability to maintain accurate financial records may be impaired, which could materially affect our business operations and financial condition. In addition, a disruption in our operations resulting from failure of transportation and telecommunication systems, loss of power, interruption of other utilities, natural disaster, fire, global climate changes, computer hacking or viruses, failure of technology, terrorist activity or the domestic and foreign response to such activity or other events outside of our control could have an adverse impact on the financial services industry as a whole and/or on our business. Our business recovery plan may not be adequate and may not prevent significant interruptions of our operations or substantial losses. The increased number of cyber attacks during the past few years has further heightened our attention to this risk. As such, we are in the process of implementing additional security controls and expanding our Cybersecurity team to monitor and assist with the mitigation of this ever increasing risk. 

A failure in or breach of our operational or security systems or infrastructure, or those of our third party vendors and other service providers or other third parties, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could disrupt our businesses, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, increase our costs and cause losses.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Information security risks for financial institutions such as ours have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of

new technologies, the use of the internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists, activists, and other external parties. As client, public, and regulatory expectations regarding operational and information security have increased, our operational systems and infrastructure must continue to be safeguarded and monitored for potential failures, disruptions, and breakdowns. Our business, financial, accounting and data processing systems, or other operating systems and facilities may stop operating properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors, including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control. For example, there could be electrical or telecommunications outages; natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes; disease pandemics; events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts; and, as described below, cyber-attacks.

As noted above, our business relies on our digital technologies, computer and email systems, software, and networks to conduct its operations. Although we have information security procedures and controls in place, our technologies, systems, networks, and our clients’ 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 clients’ confidential, proprietary and other information, or otherwise disrupt our or our clients’ or other third parties’ business operations. Third parties with whom we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including financial intermediaries, or vendors that provide services or security solutions for our operations, and other third parties, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints.

While we have disaster recovery and other 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. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of the evolving nature of these threats. As a result, cybersecurity and the continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes and practices designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a focus for us. As threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate information security vulnerabilities. Disruptions or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our businesses and clients, or cyber-attacks or security breaches of the networks, systems or devices that our clients use to access our products and services could result in client attrition, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs, any of which could materially adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, result of operations and financial condition.

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 may lead to operational losses including internal and external fraud which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our deposit insurance premiums could be higher in the future, which could have an adverse effect on our future earnings.

The FDIC insures deposits at FDIC‑insured depository institutions, such as the Bank, up to $250,000 per account. The amount of a particular institution’s deposit insurance assessment is based on that institution’s risk classification under an FDIC risk‑based assessment system. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to its regulators. Recent market developments and bank failures significantly depleted the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits. As a result of recent economic conditions and the enactment of the Dodd‑Frank Act, banks are now assessed deposit insurance premiums based on the bank’s average consolidated total assets, and the FDIC has modified certain risk‑ based adjustments which increase or decrease a bank’s overall assessment rate. This has resulted in increases to the deposit insurance assessment rates and thus raised deposit premiums for many insured depository institutions. If these

increases are insufficient for the Deposit Insurance Fund to meet its funding requirements, further special assessments or increases in deposit insurance premiums may be required.

Banks with assets of $10 billion or more are subject to a deposit assessment based on a “scorecard” system that combines regulatory ratings and certain forward‑looking financial measures intended to assess the risk an institution poses to the deposit insurance fund. Because the Bank exceeded $10 billion in assets on January 3, 2017 through the merger with SBFC, the Bank’s deposit insurance assessment will be based on this scorecard system starting in the second quarter of 2018, which will result in an increase in the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance.

In addition to ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances.  Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the minimum designated reserve ratio for the FDIC deposit insurance fund was increased to 1.35% (which ratio is required to reach by September 30, 2020) of the estimated total amount of insured deposits.  In March 2016, the FDIC adopted rules to impose a surcharge, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, on the quarterly deposit insurance assessments of insured depository institutions that are deemed under the rules to be “large institutions,”  generally defined to include banks with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more for four consecutive quarters, with the first $10 billion being subtracted from the regular insurance assessment base and certain other potential adjustments being made to determine the surcharge base.  The large institution surcharge became effective July 1, 2016, the first calendar quarter after the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio first reached 1.15% and will continue through the quarter that it first reaches or exceeds 1.35%.  Large institutions pay the quarterly surcharge, in addition to regular assessments, in an amount equal to an annual rate of 4.5 basis points of the surcharge base.  The Bank will be subject to this surcharge starting in the second quarter of 2018.  The surcharge will remain in place through the quarter that the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio first reaches or exceeds 1.35%, but no later than December 31, 2018.  If the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio has not reached 1.35% by that date, the FDIC will impose a shortfall assessment on large institutions in the first quarter of 2019, and collect it on June 30, 2019.

We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums than the recently increased levels. If our financial condition deteriorates or if the bank regulators otherwise have supervisory concerns about us, then our assessments could rise. Any future additional assessments, increases or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums could reduce our profitability, may limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, or otherwise negatively impact our operations.

Negative public opinion surrounding our 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 our 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 cybersecurity incidents, 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.

Legal and Regulatory Risks

We are subject to extensive regulation that could restrict our activities, have an adverse impact on our operations, and impose financial requirements or limitations on the conduct of our business.

We operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to examination, supervision, and comprehensive regulation by various regulatory agencies. The Company is subject to Federal Reserve Board regulation, and our Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, the CFPB and by the SCBFI. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”), the Bank must comply with applicable regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board and the FHLB. Our 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.

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. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in July 2010, instituted major changes to the banking and financial institutions regulatory regimes. The Dodd-Frank Act and other changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies or supervisory guidance, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations, policies or supervisory guidance, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including, among other things, subjecting us to increased capital, liquidity and risk management requirements, creating additional costs, limiting the types of financial services and products we may offer and/or increasing the ability of non‑banks to offer competing financial services and products. 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.

By exceeding $10 billion in total consolidated assets, we will be subject to additional regulations and oversight that have not previously been applicable to us and that could materially and adversely affect our revenues and expenses.

We exceeded $10 billion in total consolidated assets upon consummation of our merger with SBFC on January 3, 2017. As a result, we will become subject to additional regulations and oversight that could adversely affect our revenues and expenses. Such regulations and oversight include the following:

The CFPB has broad rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home equity loans and credit cards. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to banks with over $10 billion in assets. Currently, the Bank is subject to regulations adopted by the CFPB, but the FDIC is primarily responsible for examining the Bank’s compliance with consumer protection laws and those CFPB regulations. As a relatively new agency with evolving regulations and practices, there is uncertainty as to how the CFPB’s examination and regulatory authority might impact our business.

In addition, banking organizations with more than $10 billion in assets must conduct annual stress tests using various scenarios established by federal regulators. Our first required annual stress test will be as of December 31, 2018 and must be filed with federal regulators in July 2019.  Such stress tests are designed to determine whether a banking organization’s capital planning, assessment of capital adequacy and risk management practices adequately protect the banking organization in the event of certain economic downturn scenarios. A banking organization that is required to perform an annual stress test must establish adequate internal controls, documentation, policies and procedures to ensure that the stress test adequately meets these objectives. Banking organizations that are required to perform an annual stress test must report the results of their stress test to their federal regulator and must consider the results of their stress test as part of their capital planning and risk management practices. Failure to meet the enhanced prudential standards and stress testing requirements could limit, among other things, our ability to engage in expansionary activities or make dividend payments to our shareholders.

Furthermore, with respect to deposit-taking activities, banks with assets in excess of $10 billion are subject to two changes. First, these institutions are subject to a deposit assessment based on a new scorecard issued by the FDIC. This new deposit assessment scorecard calculation, which will be applicable to the Bank starting with the second quarter of 2018, considers, among other things, the bank’s CAMELS rating, results of asset-related stress testing and funding-related stress, as well as our use of core deposits, among other things. Depending on the results of a bank’s performance under that scorecard, the total base assessment rate is between 2.5 to 45 basis points. Any increase in the Bank’s deposit insurance assessments may result in an increased expense related to our use of deposits as a funding source.  Second, these institutions are subject to an FDIC surcharge.  Large institutions currently pay the quarterly surcharge, in addition to regular assessments, in an amount equal to an annual rate of 4.5 basis points of the surcharge base.  The Bank will be subject to this surcharge starting in the second quarter of 2018.  The surcharge will remain in place through the quarter that the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio first reaches or exceeds 1.35%, but no later than December 31, 2018.  If the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio has not reached 1.35% by that date, the FDIC will impose a shortfall assessment on these institutions in the first quarter of 2019, and collect it on June 30, 2019.

In addition, banks with over $10 billion in total assets are no longer exempt from the requirements of the Federal Reserve’s rules on interchange transaction fees for debit cards. Beginning on July 1, 2018, the Bank will be limited to receiving only a “reasonable” interchange transaction fee for any debit card transactions processed using debit cards issued by the Bank to our customers. The Federal Reserve has determined that it is unreasonable for a bank with more than $10 billion in total assets to receive more than $0.21 plus 5 basis points of the transaction plus a $0.01 fraud adjustment for an interchange transaction fee for debit card transactions. A reduction in the amount of interchange fees we receive for electronic debit interchange will reduce our revenues. In 2017, we earned approximately $35 million in bankcard services income and we estimate that our bankcard service income would have been reduced by approximately $16 million if this rule would have been effective for the Company in 2017.   We estimate that when this rule becomes effective in July 2018, our bankcard services income will be reduced by approximately $8.5 million in the last half of 2018.

In anticipation of becoming subject to the heightened regulatory requirements, we have hired and continue to hire additional compliance personnel and implement structural initiatives to address these requirements. However, compliance with these requirements may necessitate that we hire additional compliance or other personnel, design and implement additional internal controls, or incur other significant expenses, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Compliance with the annual stress testing requirements, part of which must be publicly disclosed, may also be misinterpreted by the market generally or our customers and, as a result, may adversely affect our stock price or our ability to retain our customers or effectively compete for new business opportunities. To ensure compliance with these heightened requirements when effective, our regulators have required us to take actions to prepare for compliance even before our total consolidated assets equal or exceed $10 billion at the end of four consecutive quarters. Our regulators may also consider our preparation for compliance with these regulatory requirements when examining our operations generally or considering any request for regulatory approval we may make, even requests for approvals on unrelated matters.

We are exposed to declines in the value of retirement plan assets or unfavorable changes in laws or regulations that govern retirement plan funding, which could require us to provide significant amounts of funding for our retirement plan.

As a matter of course, we anticipate that we will make cash contributions to our retirement plans in the near and long term. A significant decline in the value of retirement plan assets in the future or unfavorable changes in laws or regulations that govern retirement plan funding could materially change the timing and amount of required plan funding. As a result, we may be required to fund our retirement plans with a greater amount of cash from operations, perhaps by an additional material amount.

The final Basel III capital rules generally require insured depository institutions and their holding companies to hold more capital which could adversely affect our financial condition and operations

In July 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule that will revise their risk‑based capital requirements and the method for calculating risk‑weighted assets to make them consistent with agreements that were reached by Basel III and certain provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act. This rule substantially amended the regulatory risk‑based capital rules applicable to us. The requirements in the rule began to phase in on January 1, 2015 for the Company and the Bank. The requirements in the rule will be fully phased in by January 1, 2019.

The final rule includes certain new and higher risk-based capital and leverage requirements than those previously in place. Specifically, the following minimum capital requirements apply to us:

Under the rule, Tier 1 capital is redefined to include two components: Common Equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The new and highest form of capital, Common Equity Tier 1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital includes other perpetual instruments historically included in Tier 1 capital, such as noncumulative perpetual preferred stock. Tier 2 capital generally consists of instruments that previously qualified as Tier 2 capital plus instruments that the rule has disqualified from Tier 1 capital treatment. Cumulative perpetual preferred stock, formerly includable in Tier 1 capital, is now included only in Tier 2 capital; except that the rule permits 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 Common Equity Tier 1 capital), subject to certain restrictions.  Bank holding companies that exceed $15 billion in total consolidated assets through organic growth can also continue to include trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock in Tier 1 Capital until they enter into an acquisition. Accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) is presumptively included in Common Equity Tier 1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. The rule 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, will retain the pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

In order to avoid restrictions on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments to executives, a covered banking organization must maintain a “capital conservation buffer” on top of its minimum risk-based capital requirements. This buffer must consist solely of Tier 1 Common Equity, but the buffer applies to all three measurements (Common Equity Tier 1, Tier 1 capital and total capital). The capital conservation buffer will be phased in incrementally over time, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019, and will consist of an additional amount of common equity equal to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets.  As of January 1, 2017, we are required to hold a capital conservation buffer of 1.25%, increasing by 0.625% each successive year until 2019.

In general, the rules have had the effect of increasing capital requirements by increasing the risk weights on certain assets, including high volatility commercial real estate, certain loans past due 90 days or more or in nonaccrual status, mortgage servicing rights not includable in Common Equity Tier 1 capital, equity exposures, and claims on securities firms, that are used in the denominator of the three risk-based capital ratios.

In addition, in the current economic and regulatory environment, bank regulators may impose capital requirements that are more stringent than those required by applicable existing regulations. The application of more stringent capital requirements for us could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, and result in regulatory actions if we are unable to comply with such requirements. Implementation of changes to asset risk weightings for risk‑based capital calculations, items included or deducted in calculating regulatory capital or additional capital conservation buffers, could result in management modifying our business strategy and could limit our ability to make distributions, including paying dividends or buying back our shares.

The federal banking agencies are implementing new liquidity standards that, while not directly applicable to us, could result in our having to lengthen the term of our funding, restructure our business lines by forcing us to seek new sources of liquidity for them, and/or increase our holdings of liquid assets.

In 2014, the federal banking agencies adopted a “liquidity coverage ratio” requirement for bank holding companies with $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposures and their subsidiary depository institutions with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets. The requirement calls for sufficient high quality liquid assets to meet liquidity needs for a 30 calendar day liquidity stress scenario. In 2016, the agencies proposed a net stable funding ratio for these institutions, which imposes a similar requirement over a one-year period.  Neither the liquidity coverage standard nor the net stable funding standard apply directly to us, but the substance of the standards – adequate liquidity over 30-day and one-year periods – may inform the regulators’ assessment of our liquidity. We could be required to reduce our holdings of illiquid assets and adversely affect our results and financial condition. The U.S. regulators have not yet proposed a net stable funding ratio requirement.

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 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (which we refer to as the “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 Department to administer the Bank Secrecy Act, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and has recently 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 the OFAC. Federal and state bank regulators also have begun to 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 impact 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 restrict our ability to originate certain mortgage loans and increase our risk of liability with respect to such loans and 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. Over the course of 2013, the CFPB issued several rules on mortgage lending, notably a rule requiring all home mortgage lenders to determine a borrower’s ability to repay the loan.  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 response to these laws and related CFPB rules, we have tightened and in the future may further tighten our mortgage loan underwriting standards to determine borrowers’ ability to repay. Although it is our policy not to make predatory loans and to determine borrowers’ ability to repay, these laws 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.

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. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. A successful challenge to our performance under the fair lending laws and regulations could adversely impact our rating under the Community Reinvestment Act and result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on merger and acquisition activity and restrictions on expansion activity, which could negatively impact our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

The Federal Reserve Board 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 Board 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 our 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.

A downgrade of the U.S. credit rating could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In August 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from "AAA" to "AA+".   If U.S. debt ceiling, budget deficit or debt concerns, domestic or international economic or political concerns, or other factors were to result in further downgrades to the U.S. government's sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness, it could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions.  A downgrade of the U.S. government's credit rating or any failure by the U.S. government to satisfy its debt obligations could create financial turmoil and uncertainty, which could weigh heavily on the global banking system. It is possible that any such impact could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are party to various claims and lawsuits incidental to our business. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties such that the expenses and ultimate exposure with respect to many of these matters cannot be ascertained.

From time to time, we, our directors and our management are the subject of various claims and legal actions by customers, employees, shareholders and others. Whether such claims and legal actions are legitimate or unfounded, if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in our favor, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of us and our products and services as well as impact customer demand for those products and services.  In light of the potential cost and uncertainty involved in litigation, we have in the past and may in the future settle matters even when we believe we have a meritorious defense. Certain claims may seek injunctive relief, which could disrupt the ordinary conduct of our business and operations or increase our cost of doing business. Our insurance or indemnities may not cover all claims that may be asserted against us.  Any judgments or settlements in any pending litigation or future claims, litigation or investigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

The effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“Tax Reform Act”) on our business have not yet been fully analyzed and could have a significant impact on our net income.

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Reform Act was signed into law. We are in the process of analyzing the Tax Reform Act and its possible effects on the Company and the Bank.  The Tax Reform Act reduces the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, among other things.  As a result of this Tax Reform Act, we have revalued our deferred tax items and recorded a provisional $26.6 million income tax expense as of December 31, 2017.  The Company will continue to evaluate the application of this Tax Reform Act and the related interpretations and guidance on our financial position, which could result in additional income tax expense during 2018.

New accounting standards will likely require us to increase our allowance for loan losses and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The measure of our allowance for loan losses is dependent on the adoption and interpretation of accounting standards.  The Financial Accounting Standards Board has issued a new credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL model, which will become effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019 (effective for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2020).  Under the CECL model, we will be 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 to be 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 currently required under GAAP, which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred.  Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model will materially affect how we determine our allowance for loan losses and could require us to significantly increase our allowance.  Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses.  If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There is uncertainty surrounding the potential legal, regulatory and policy changes by the current presidential administration in the U.S. that may directly affect financial institutions and the global economy.

The current presidential administration has indicated that it would like to see changes made to certain financial reform regulations, including the Dodd-Frank Act, which has resulted in increased regulatory uncertainty, and we are assessing the potential impact on financial and economic markets and on our business.  Changes in federal policy and at regulatory agencies are expected to occur over time through policy and personnel changes, which could lead to changes involving the level of oversight and focus on the financial services industry.  The nature, timing and economic and political effects of potential changes to the current legal and regulatory framework affecting financial institutions remain highly uncertain.  At this time, it is unclear what laws, regulations and policies may change and whether future changes or uncertainty surrounding future changes will adversely affect our operating environment and therefore our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to an Investment in 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.

Our ability to pay cash dividends may be limited by regulatory restrictions, by our Bank’s ability to pay cash dividends to our holding company and by our need to maintain sufficient capital to support our operations. The Federal Reserve Board has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies. In general, the Federal Reserve Board’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. 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.

Since the Company is 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. 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 SCBFI or the Commissioner of Banking, 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 SCBFI. The Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC have issued policy statements which provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current earnings. In addition, under Federal Reserve Board regulations, a dividend cannot be paid by the Bank if it would be less than well‑capitalized after the dividend. The Federal Reserve Board may also prevent the payment of a dividend by the Bank if it determines that the payment would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

If our Bank is not permitted to pay cash dividends to our holding 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. Although we have historically paid cash dividends on our common stock, we are not required to do so and our board of directors could reduce or eliminate our common stock dividend in the future.

We may issue additional shares of stock or equity derivative securities that 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.

Our authorized capital includes 80,000,000 shares of common stock and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of December 31, 2017, we had 36,759,656 shares of common stock outstanding and had reserved for issuance 223,555 shares underlying options that are or may become exercisable at an average price of $52.25 per share. In addition, as of December 31, 2017, we had the ability to issue 1,045,084 shares of common stock pursuant to options and restricted stock that may be granted in the future under our existing equity compensation plans.

Subject to applicable NASDAQ rules, our board generally has the authority, without action by or vote of the shareholders, to issue authorized but unissued shares of stock for any corporate purpose. Such corporate purposes could include, among other things, issuances of equity‑based incentives under or outside of our equity compensation plans, issuances of equity in business combination transactions, and issuances of equity to raise additional capital to support growth or to otherwise strengthen our balance sheet. Any issuance of additional shares of stock or equity derivative securities 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 outstanding shares and may dilute the economic and voting ownership interest of our existing shareholders.

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, concerns, irrational exuberance on the part of investors, 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 the Company’s common stock, and the current market price may not be indicative of future market prices.

Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for our investors to resell their common stock when they desire and at prices they 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.

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.

State law and provisions in our articles of incorporation or bylaws could make it more difficult for another company to purchase us, even though such a purchase may increase shareholder value.

In many cases, shareholders may receive a premium for their shares if we were purchased by another company. State law and our articles of incorporation and bylaws could make it difficult for anyone to purchase us without the approval of our board of directors. For example, our articles of incorporation divide the board of directors into three classes of directors serving staggered three‑year terms with approximately one‑third of the board of directors elected at each annual meeting of shareholders. This classification of directors makes it more difficult for shareholders to change the composition of the board of directors. As a result, at least two annual meetings of shareholders would be required for the shareholders to change a majority of the directors, whether or not a change in the board of directors would be beneficial and whether or not a majority of shareholders believe that such a change would be desirable.

Our articles of incorporation provide that a merger, exchange or consolidation of the Company with, or the sale, exchange or lease of all or substantially all of our assets to, any person or entity (referred to herein as a “Fundamental Change”), must be approved by the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock if the board of directors does not recommend a vote in favor of the Fundamental Change. The articles of incorporation further provide that a Fundamental Change involving a shareholder that owns or controls 20% or more of our voting stock at the time of the proposed transaction (a “Controlling Party”) must be approved by the holders of at least (i) 80% of our outstanding voting stock, and (ii) 67% of our outstanding voting stock held by shareholders other than the Controlling Party, unless (x) the transaction has been recommended to the shareholders by a majority of the entire board of directors or (y) the consideration per share to be received by our shareholders generally is not less than the highest price per share paid by the Controlling Party in the acquisition of its holdings of our common stock during the preceding three years. The approval by the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock is required to amend or repeal these provisions contained in our articles of incorporation. Finally, in the event that any such Fundamental Change is not recommended by the board of directors, the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock must attend a meeting called to address such transaction, in person or by proxy, in order for a quorum for the conduct of business to exist. If the 80% and 67% vote requirements described above do not apply because the board of directors recommends the transaction or the consideration is deemed fair, as applicable, then pursuant to the provisions of the South Carolina Business Corporation Act, the Fundamental Change generally must be approved by two‑thirds of the votes entitled to be cast with respect thereto.

Consequently, a takeover attempt may prove difficult, and shareholders may not realize the highest possible price for their securities.

An investment in our common stock is not an insured deposit.

Our common stock is not a bank deposit and, therefore, is not insured against loss by the FDIC, any other deposit insurance fund, or by any other public or private entity. An investment in our common stock is inherently risky for the reasons described in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this report and is subject to the same market forces that affect the price of common stock in any company. As a result, if you acquire our common stock, you may lose some or all of your investment.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2.  Properties.

Our corporate headquarters are located in a four‑story facility, located at 520 Gervais Street, Columbia, South Carolina, 29201. The main offices of South State Bank and the Midlands region lead branch are also located in this approximately 57,000 square‑foot building. Including this main location, our bank owns 147 properties and leases 66 properties, all of which are used as branch locations or for housing operational units in North and South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia. Although the properties owned and leased are generally considered adequate, we have a continuing program of modernization, expansion, and when necessary, occasional replacement of facilities. For additional information relating to the Company’s premises, equipment and lease commitments, see Note 7—Premises and Equipment and Note 21—Lease Commitments to our audited consolidated financial statements.

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings.

As of December 31, 2017 and the date of this form 10‑K, we believe that we are not a party to, nor is any of our property the subject of, any pending material proceeding other than those that may occur in the ordinary course of our business.

 

Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5.  Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

 

 

Quarterly Common Stock Price Ranges and Dividends

 

 

As of February 19, 2018, we had issued and outstanding 36,785,071 shares of common stock which were held by approximately 23,800 shareholders of record. Our common stock trades in The NASDAQ Global Select MarketSM under the symbol “SSB.”

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The Federal Reserve Board has issued a policy statement on the payment of cash dividends by bank holding companies, which expresses the Federal Reserve Board’s view that a bank holding company generally should pay cash dividends only to the extent that the holding company’s net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the holding company’s capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve Board also indicated that it would be inappropriate for a bank holding company experiencing serious financial problems to borrow funds to pay dividends.

We pay cash dividends to the Company’s shareholders from our assets, which are provided primarily by dividends paid to the Company by our Bank. Certain restrictions exist regarding the ability of our subsidiary to transfer funds to the Company in the form of cash dividends, loans or advances. The approval of the SCBFI is required to pay dividends in excess of 100% of net income in any calendar year. For the year ended December 31, 2017, our Bank paid dividends of approximately $63.6 million to the Company, which did not require SCBFI approval. Dividends paid to our shareholders are approved each quarter by the board of directors.

Cumulative Total Return Performance

 

The performance graph above compares the Company’s cumulative total return over the most recent five‑year period with the NASDAQ Composite and the SNL Southeast Bank Index, a banking industry performance index for the Southeastern United States. Returns are shown on a total return basis, assuming the reinvestment of dividends and a beginning stock index value of $100 per share. The value of the Company’s common stock as shown in the graph is based on published prices for transactions in the Company’s stock.

In February 2004, we announced a program with no formal expiration date to repurchase up to 250,000 of our common shares. In March 2017, the Board of Directors approved and reset the number of shares available to be

repurchased under the 2004 stock repurchase program to 1,000,000.  The following table reflects share repurchase activity during the fourth quarter of 2017:

 

 

*     For the months ended October 31, 2017, November 30, 2017 and December 31, 2017, total includes 3,238 shares, 771 shares and 16,632 shares, respectively, that were repurchased under arrangements, authorized by our stock‑based compensation plans and Board of Directors, whereby officers or directors may sell previously owned shares to the Company in order to pay for the exercises of stock options or for income taxes owed on vesting shares of restricted stock. These shares are not purchased under the plan to repurchase 1,000,000 shares.

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data.

The following table presents selected financial and quantitative data for the five years ended December 31 for South State Corporation:

 

 

*            Excludes loans held for sale.

**          Excludes acquired assets.

***        A reconciliation of non‑GAAP measures to GAAP is presented on page 40.

****      The bank regulatory risk-based capital ratios are not comparable in 2017, 2016 and 2015 to 2014 and 2013 due to the adoption of Basel III beginning in January 1, 2015 (see Note 26 – Regulatory Matters).

The table below provides a reconciliation of non‑GAAP measures to GAAP for the five years ended December 31: