Stellar Bancorp, Inc. - Annual Report: 2018 (Form 10-K)

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10‑K

 

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018

or

 

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from ____   to   ____.

Commission File Number: 001-38280

 

CBTX, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110

Houston, Texas 77046

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(713) 210‑7600

(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, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein and will not be contained to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part 111 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 an 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 Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

 

As of June 30, 2018, the aggregate market value of the registrant's common stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $586.2 million.

 

As of February 24, 2019, there were 26,002,653 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share outstanding, including 224,960 shares of unvested restricted stock deemed to have beneficial ownership.

 

Document Incorporated by Reference:

Portions of the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement relating to the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. Such Definitive Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

 

 

 

CBTX, INC.

 

 

 

PART I.

Item 1. Business

The disclosures set forth in this item are qualified by Item 1A. "Risk Factors," and the section captioned “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” in Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and other cautionary statements set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

CBTX, Inc., is a bank holding company incorporated in Texas in 2007. All references to “we,” “our,” “us,” “ourselves,” and “the Company” refer to CBTX, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries and all references to “CommunityBank of Texas” or “the Bank” refer to CommunityBank of Texas, National Association, our wholly‑owned bank subsidiary, unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires. All references to “Houston” refer to the Houston‑The Woodlands‑Sugar Land Metropolitan Statistical Area, or MSA and surrounding counties references to “Beaumont” refer to the Beaumont‑Port Arthur MSA and surrounding counties and references to “Dallas” refer to the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA and surrounding counties.

The Bank’s headquarters are located at 5999 Delaware Street, Beaumont, Texas 77706 and our telephone number is (409) 861‑7200. The majority of our executives are located in our Houston office at 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110, Houston, Texas 77046 and the telephone number is (713) 210‑7600. As of December 31, 2018, we employed 495 full‑time equivalent employees. We completed an initial public offering of our common stock on November 10, 2017. Our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “CBTX.” Our business is conducted through one reportable segment.

We operate 19 branches located in the Houston market, 15 branches located in the Beaumont market and one branch in the Dallas market. We have experienced significant organic growth since commencing banking operations, as well as growth through mergers, acquisitions and de novo branches. We are focused on controlled profitable growth. Our total assets increased from $2.6 billion at December 31, 2014 to $3.3 billion as of December 31, 2018 and our return on average assets improved from 0.9% for the year ended December 31, 2014 to 1.5% for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Our merger, acquisition and expansion history includes the following:

We began our operations in Beaumont and surrounding counties and expanded into the Houston market. Our loan portfolio at December 31, 2018 was 73.9% in the Houston market and 26.1% in the Beaumont market. In November 2018, we opened a branch and deposit production office in Dallas, which became a full branch in January 2019. We believe that there are significant ongoing growth opportunities for us in our markets.

We are primarily a business bank and focus on providing commercial banking solutions to small and mid‑sized businesses and professionals including attorneys, accountants and other professional service providers with operations in our markets. We offer a broad range of banking products, including commercial and industrial loans, commercial real estate loans, construction and development loans, 1‑4 family residential mortgage loans, multi-family residential loans consumer loans, agricultural loans, treasury services, traditional retail deposits and a full suite of online banking services.  At December 31, 2018, 83.7% of our loans were commercial loans. We have a relationship-based approach and at December 31, 2018, 81.0% of our loan customers had a deposit relationship with us.

The banking and financial services industry is highly competitive and we compete with a wide range of financial institutions within our markets, including local, regional and national commercial banks and credit unions. We also compete with mortgage companies, brokerage firms, consumer finance companies, mutual funds, securities firms, insurance companies, third‑party payment processors, financial technology, or fintech companies and other financial intermediaries for certain of our products and services. Some of our competitors are not subject to the regulatory restrictions and level of regulatory supervision applicable to us. 

Interest rates on loans and deposits, as well as prices on fee‑based services, are typically significant competitive factors within the banking and financial services industry. Many of our competitors are much larger financial institutions that have greater financial resources than we do and compete aggressively for market share. These competitors attempt to gain market share through their financial product mix, pricing strategies and banking center locations. Other important competitive factors in our industry and markets include office locations and hours, quality of customer service, community reputation, continuity of personnel and services, capacity and willingness to extend credit and ability to offer sophisticated banking products and services.

We seek to remain competitive with respect to fees charged, interest rates and pricing and we believe that our broad and sophisticated suite of financial solutions, our high‑quality customer service culture, our positive reputation and our long‑standing community relationships will enable us to compete successfully within our markets and enhance our ability to attract and retain customers.

Our Strategy

Organic Growth.  We aim to continuously enhance our customer base, increase loans and deposits and expand our overall market share. Through our relationship‑driven, community banking strategy, a significant portion of our organic growth has been through referral business from our existing customers and professionals in our markets including attorneys, accountants and other professional service providers. By understanding our customers’ businesses, appropriately structuring our loans and applying a solution‑minded approach and attitude to our customers’ needs, we believe that we will continue to attract customers who value our approach of being their financial partners. Our team of seasoned bankers has been and will continue to be, an important driver of our organic growth by further developing banking relationships with existing and potential customers.

Maintain Strong Credit Culture. We intend to continue to employ prudent underwriting and proactive credit administration to manage risk in our loan portfolio. In the past, these practices have resulted in low amounts of nonperforming and impaired loans and low charge-offs in relation to the size of our loan portfolio. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Financial Condition—Credit Policies and Risk Management” for further discussion.

 Diversified Loan Portfolio.  We intend to maintain or increase the diversity in our loan portfolio as a means of managing risk associated with fluctuations in economic conditions. Our focus on lending to small to medium‑sized businesses and professionals in our market areas has resulted in a diverse loan portfolio comprised primarily of core relationships. We carefully monitor exposure to certain asset classes to minimize the impact of a downturn in the value of such assets.

Strategic Acquisitions.  We intend to continue to supplement our organic growth through strategic acquisitions. We expect our markets will afford us opportunities to identify and execute acquisitions designed to strengthen our franchise, increase shareholder value and contribute meaningful strategic enhancements, including talented bankers and complementary branch footprints.

Increased Operational Efficiency.  We intend to continue to focus on improving our operational efficiency. We have upgraded our operating capabilities and created a platform for continued efficiencies in the areas of risk management, technology, data processing, regulatory compliance and human resources, which we believe is capable of handling our continued growth. Our efficiency ratio has improved from 64.2% for the year ended December 31, 2014, to 59.0% for the year ended December 31, 2018.

Available Information

The Company’s website address is www.communitybankoftx.com. The Company makes available free of charge on or through its website its annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Information contained on the Company’s website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K and is not part of this or any other report that the Company files with or furnishes to the SEC.

Supervision and Regulation

The U.S. banking industry is highly regulated under federal and state law. Consequently, our growth and earnings performance will be affected not only by management decisions and general and local economic conditions, but also by the statutes administered by, and the regulations and policies of, various governmental regulatory authorities. These authorities include the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, and state taxing authorities. The effect of these statutes, regulations and policies, and any changes to such statutes, regulations and policies, can be significant and cannot be predicted.

The primary goals of the bank regulatory scheme are to maintain a safe and sound banking system, facilitate the conduct of sound monetary policy and promote fairness and transparency for financial products and services. The system of supervision and regulation applicable to us and our subsidiaries establishes a comprehensive framework for their respective operations and is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, the Bank’s depositors and the public, rather than our shareholders or creditors. The description below summarizes certain elements of the applicable bank regulatory framework. This description is not intended to describe all laws and regulations applicable to us and our subsidiaries, and the description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes, regulations, policies, interpretive letters and other written guidance that are described herein.

Financial Services Industry Reform.  On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd‑Frank Act, was enacted.  The Dodd-Frank Act has had a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes such as, among many other things, (i) enhanced resolution authority of troubled and failing banks and their holding companies; (ii) increased regulatory examination fees; (iii) creation of the CFPB, an independent organization dedicated to promulgating and enforcing consumer protection laws applicable to all entities offering consumer financial products or services; and (iv) numerous other provisions designed to improve supervision and oversight of, and strengthen safety and soundness for, the financial services sector.  Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act established a new framework for systemic risk oversight within the financial system to be distributed among new and existing federal regulatory agencies, including the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the Federal Reserve, the OCC and the FDIC.

On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, or the Regulatory Relief Act, was enacted. The Regulatory Relief Act repealed or modified several provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and included a number of burden reduction measures for community banks, including, among other things, directing the federal banking regulators to develop a community bank leverage ratio for banks that have less than $10.0 billion in total assets and have certain risk profiles, exempting community banks with less than $10.0 billion in total assets from the Volcker Rule (discussed below), narrowing and simplifying the definition of high volatility commercial real estate, and requiring the federal banking regulators to raise the asset threshold under the Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement from $1.0 billion to $3.0 billion.

The Regulatory Relief Act also expands the eligibility for certain small banks to undergo 18-month examination cycles, rather than annual cycles, raising the consolidated asset threshold from $1.0 billion to $3.0 billion for eligible

banks.  In addition, the Regulatory Relief Act added certain protections for consumers, including veterans and active duty military personnel and student borrowers, expanded credit freezes and created an identity theft protection database. The Regulatory Relief Act requires the enactment of a number of implementing regulations, the details of which may have a material effect on the ultimate impact of the law.

Regulatory Capital Rules. The Company and the Bank are each required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve and the OCC. The current risk-based capital standards applicable to the Company and the Bank are based on the December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards, known as Basel III, of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, or Basel Committee. In July 2013, the federal bank regulators approved final rules, the Basel III Capital Rules, implementing the Basel III framework as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Capital Rules became effective for the Company and the Bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period for certain provisions). The Basel III Capital Rules require banks and bank holding companies, including the Company and the Bank, to maintain four minimum capital standards: (1) a Tier 1 capital‑to‑adjusted total assets ratio, or leverage capital ratio, of at least 4.0%; (2) a Tier 1 capital to risk‑weighted assets ratio, or Tier 1 risk‑based capital ratio, of at least 6.0%; (3) a total risk‑based capital (Tier 1 plus Tier 2) to risk‑weighted assets ratio, or total risk‑based capital ratio, of at least 8.0%; and (4) a Common Equity Tier 1, or CET1, capital ratio of at least 4.5%.

The Basel III Capital Rules also call for bank holding companies and banks to maintain a “capital conservation buffer” on top of the minimum risk‑based capital requirements. The buffer must be composed of common equity Tier 1 capital. This buffer is intended to help to ensure that banking organizations conserve capital when it is most needed, allowing them to better weather periods of economic stress. The buffer, which became fully phased in on January 1, 2019, is 2.5% of risk‑weighted assets.

The Basel III Capital Rules also attempt to improve the quality of capital by implementing changes to the definition of capital. Among the most important changes are stricter eligibility criteria for regulatory capital instruments that would disallow the inclusion of certain instruments, such as trust preferred securities (other than grandfathered trust preferred securities), in Tier 1 capital going forward and new constraints on the inclusion of minority interests, mortgage‑servicing assets, deferred tax assets and certain investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions. In addition, the Basel III Capital Rules require that most regulatory capital deductions be made from CET1 capital.

The Federal Reserve and the OCC may also set higher capital requirements for individual institutions whose circumstances warrant it. For example, institutions experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions are expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets. At this time, the bank regulatory agencies are more inclined to impose higher capital requirements to meet well capitalized standards and future regulatory change could impose higher capital standards as a routine matter. The Company’s regulatory capital ratios and those of the Bank are in excess of the levels established for “well capitalized” institutions under the rules.

These rules also set forth certain changes in the methods of calculating certain risk‑weighted assets, which in turn will affect the calculation of risk‑based ratios. Under the Basel III Capital Rules, higher or more sensitive risk weights have been assigned to various categories of assets, including certain credit facilities that finance the acquisition, development or construction of real property, certain exposures or credits that are 90 days past due or on nonaccrual status, foreign exposures and certain corporate exposures. In addition, these rules include greater recognition of collateral and guarantees, and revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo‑style transactions.

In September 2017, the federal bank regulators proposed to revise and simplify the capital treatment for certain deferred tax assets, mortgage servicing assets, investments in non-consolidated financial entities and minority interests for banking organizations, such as the Company and the Bank, that are not subject to the advanced approaches requirements. In November 2017, the federal banking regulators revised the Basel III Capital Rules to extend the transitional treatment of these items for non-advanced approaches banking organizations until the September 2017 proposal is finalized. The September 2017 proposal would also change the capital treatment of certain commercial real estate loans under the standardized approach, which we use to calculate our capital ratios.

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published standards that it described as the finalization of the Basel III post-crisis regulatory reforms (commonly referred to as Basel IV). Among other things, these standards revise the Basel

Committee’s standardized approach for credit risk (including by recalibrating risk weights and introducing new capital requirements for certain “unconditionally cancellable commitments,” such as unused credit card lines of credit) and provides a new standardized approach for operational risk capital. Under the Basel framework, these standards will generally be effective on January 1, 2022, with an aggregate output floor phasing in through January 1, 2027. Under the current U.S. capital rules, operational risk capital requirements and a capital floor apply only to advanced approaches institutions, and not to the Company or the Bank. The impact of Basel IV on us will depend on the manner in which it is implemented by the federal bank regulators.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Relief Act, the Federal Reserve, the OCC and the FDIC issued proposed rules implementing the community bank leverage ratio in November 2018. Under the proposed rules, a depository institution would be eligible to elect the community bank leverage ratio framework if it has less than $10.0 billion in total consolidated assets, meets certain risk-based qualifying criteria, and has a community bank leverage ratio greater than 9 percent.  Under the proposed rules, a qualifying community banking organization that has elected to utilize the community bank leverage ratio would not be required to calculate the existing risk-based and leverage capital requirements otherwise required.  Such a community banking organization would be considered to have met the capital ratio requirements to be “well capitalized” for the purpose of its primary federal regulator’s prompt corrective action rules, discussed below, provided it has a community bank leverage ratio greater than 9 percent.

Imposition of Liability for Undercapitalized Subsidiaries.  Bank regulators are required to take prompt corrective action to resolve problems associated with insured depository institutions whose capital declines below certain levels as further described below. In the event an institution becomes undercapitalized, it must submit a capital restoration plan. The capital restoration plan will not be accepted by the regulators unless each company having control of the undercapitalized institution guarantees the subsidiary’s compliance with the capital restoration plan up to a certain specified amount. Any such guarantee from a depository institution’s holding company is entitled to a priority of payment in bankruptcy.

The aggregate liability of the holding company of an undercapitalized bank is limited to the lesser of 5.0% of the institution’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized and the amount necessary to cause the institution to become adequately capitalized. The bank regulators have greater power in situations where an institution becomes significantly or critically undercapitalized or fails to submit a capital restoration plan. For example, a bank holding company controlling such an institution can be required to obtain prior Federal Reserve approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

Volcker Rule. As mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, in December 2013, the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued a final rule implementing certain prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of a banking entity and non-bank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve to engage in proprietary trading and have certain ownership interests in, or relationships with, a “covered fund” (commonly referred to as the “Volcker Rule”). As mentioned above, the Regulatory Relief Act included a provision exempting banking organizations with $10.0 billion or less in total consolidation assets, and total trading assets and trading liabilities that are 5% or less of total consolidated assets, from the Volcker Rule. Thus, the Company and the Bank are not currently subject to the Volcker Rule.

CBTX, Inc.

As a bank holding company, we are subject to regulation under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or BHC Act, and to supervision, examination and enforcement by the Federal Reserve. The BHC Act and other federal laws subject bank holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage, and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations. The Federal Reserve’s jurisdiction also extends to any company that we directly or indirectly control, such as any nonbank subsidiaries and other companies in which we own a controlling investment.

Acquisitions by Bank Holding Companies.  The BHC Act requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve before it acquires all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank or bank holding company if after such acquisition it would own or control, directly or indirectly, more than 5.0% of the voting shares of such bank or bank holding company. In approving bank holding company acquisitions by bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve is required to consider, among other things, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the financial condition, managerial resources and future prospects of the bank

holding company and the banks concerned, the convenience and needs of the communities to be serve, including the record of performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA, the effectiveness of the applicant in combating money laundering activities and the extent to which the proposed acquisition would result in greater or more concentrated risks to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system. Our ability to make future acquisitions will depend on our ability to obtain approval for such acquisitions from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve could deny our application based on the above criteria or other considerations. For example, we could be required to sell banking centers as a condition to receiving regulatory approval, which condition may not be acceptable to us or, if acceptable to us, may reduce the benefit of a proposed acquisition.

Under the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, or the Riegle-Neal Act, a bank holding company may acquire banks in states other than its home state, subject to any state requirement that the bank has been organized and operating for a minimum period of time, not to exceed five years, and to certain deposit market-share limitations. Bank holding companies must be well capitalized and well managed, not merely adequately capitalized and adequately managed, in order to acquire a bank located outside of the bank holding company’s home state.

Control Acquisitions.  Under the BHC Act, a company may not acquire “control” of a bank holding company or a bank without the prior approval of the Federal Reserve. The statute defines control as ownership or control of 25% or more of any class of voting securities, control of the election of a majority of the board of directors, or any other circumstances in which the Federal Reserve determines that a company directly or indirectly exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of the bank holding company or bank. The Federal Reserve regulations include a presumption that control does not exist only when a company owns or controls 5% or less of the outstanding shares of any class of voting securities. Companies that propose to acquire between 5% and 25% of any class of voting securities usually consult with the Federal Reserve in advance and often must make written commitments not to exercise control. As a matter of policy, the Federal Reserve has in a number of cases required a company to take certain actions to avoid control if it proposes to acquire 25% or more but less than 33% of the total equity of a bank or bank holding company through the acquisition of both voting and non‑voting shares, even if the voting shares are less than 25% of a class. The Federal Reserve deems the acquisition of 33% or more of the total equity of a bank or bank holding company to represent control.

The BHC Act does not apply to acquisitions by individuals or certain trusts, but if an individual, trust, or company proposes to acquire control of a bank or bank holding company, the Change in Bank Control Act, or CIBC Act, requires prior notice to the bank’s primary federal regulator or to the Federal Reserve in the case of a bank holding company. The CIBC Act uses the same definition of control as the BHC Act, but agency regulations under the CIBC Act presume in many cases that a change in control occurs when an individual, trust, or company acquires 10% or more of any class of voting securities. The notice is not required for a company required to file an application under the BHC Act for the same transaction.

The requirements of the BHC Act and the CIBC Act could limit our access to capital and could limit parties who could acquire shares of our common stock.

Regulatory Restrictions on Dividends; Source of Strength.  We are regarded as a legal entity separate and distinct from CommunityBank of Texas, N.A. The principal source of our revenues is dividends received from the Bank. Federal law currently imposes limitations upon certain capital distributions by national banks, such as certain cash dividends, payments to repurchase or otherwise acquire its shares, payments to shareholders of another institution in a cash‑out merger and other distributions charged against capital. The Federal Reserve and OCC regulate all capital distributions by the Bank directly or indirectly to the Company, including dividend payments. The Federal Reserve regulates capital dividends paid by the Company. The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement that provides that a bank holding company should not pay dividends unless (1) its net income over the last four quarters (net of dividends paid) has been sufficient to fully fund the dividends, (2) the prospective rate of earnings retention appears to be consistent with the capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition of the bank holding company and its subsidiaries and (3) the bank holding company will continue to meet minimum required capital adequacy ratios. Accordingly, we should not pay cash dividends that exceed our net income in any year or that can only be funded in ways that weaken our financial strength, including by borrowing money to pay dividends.

Under Federal Reserve policy, bank holding companies have historically been required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to each of their banking subsidiaries, and the Dodd‑Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement, we are expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including at times when we may not be in a financial position to provide such resources. Any capital loans by a bank holding company

to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary banks. As discussed above, a bank holding company, in certain circumstances, could be required to guarantee the capital restoration plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary. If the capital of the Bank were to become impaired, the Federal Reserve could assess us for the deficiency. If we failed to pay the assessment within three months, the Federal Reserve could order the sale of our stock in the Bank to cover the deficiency.

In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the trustee will be deemed to have assumed and will be required to cure immediately any deficit under any commitment by the debtor holding company to any of the federal banking agencies to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution, and any claim for breach of such obligation will generally have priority over most other unsecured claims.

Scope of Permissible Activities.  Under the BHC Act, we may engage or acquire a company engaged solely in certain types of activities. Permissible activities include banking, managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to or performing services for the Bank, and certain activities found by the Federal Reserve to be so closely related to banking or managing and controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. These activities include, among others, operating a mortgage, finance, credit card or factoring company; performing certain data processing operations; providing investment and financial advice; acting as an insurance agent for certain types of credit‑related insurance; leasing personal property on a full‑payout, nonoperating basis; and providing certain stock brokerage and investment advisory services. The BHC Act also permits certain other specific activities. To engage in such activities, we would in many cases be required to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve. In its review of applications, the Federal Reserve considers, among other things, whether the acquisition or the additional activities can reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh such possible adverse effects as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest or unsound banking practices.

The Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, effective March 11, 2000, or the GLB Act, amended the BHC Act to expand the scope of activities available to a bank holding company. The amendments allow a qualifying bank holding company to elect “financial holding company” status. A financial holding company may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are “financial in nature.” Such activities include, among other things, securities underwriting, dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities; and activities that the Federal Reserve has determined to be closely related to banking. No regulatory approval is required for a financial holding company to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature, as determined by the Federal Reserve. We qualify for financial holding company status, but we have not made such an election. We would make such an election in the future if we plan to engage in any lines of business that are impermissible for bank holding companies but permissible for financial holding companies.

Safety and Soundness.  Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe or unsound practices. The Federal Reserve’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a bank holding company to provide the Federal Reserve with prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10.0% or more of the bank holding company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. In certain circumstances, the Federal Reserve could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice.

The Federal Reserve has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their nonbanking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound practices, result in breaches of fiduciary duty or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and to assess civil money penalties or impose enforcement action for such activities. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Anti‑tying Restrictions.  Bank holding companies and their affiliates are prohibited from tying the provision of certain services, such as extensions of credit, to other nonbanking services offered by a bank holding company or its affiliates.

CommunityBank of Texas, N.A.

The Bank is subject to various requirements and restrictions under the laws of the United States, and to regulation, supervision and examination by the OCC. The Bank is also an insured depository institution and, therefore, subject to regulation by the FDIC, although the OCC is the Bank’s primary federal regulator. The OCC and the FDIC have the power to enforce compliance with applicable banking statutes and regulations. Such requirements and restrictions include requirements to maintain reserves against deposits, restrictions on the nature and amount of loans that may be made and the interest that may be charged thereon and restrictions relating to investments and other activities of the Bank.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. Under the Basel III Capital Rules, discussed above, the OCC monitors the capital adequacy of the Bank by using a combination of risk‑based guidelines and leverage ratios. The OCC considers the Bank’s capital levels when taking action on various types of applications and when conducting supervisory activities related to the safety and soundness of the Bank and the banking system. Higher capital levels may be required if warranted by the circumstances or risk profiles of individual institutions, or if required by the banking regulators due to the economic conditions impacting our markets. For example, OCC regulations provide that higher capital may be required to take adequate account of, among other things, interest rate risk and the risks posed by concentrations of credit, nontraditional activities or securities trading activities.

Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies.  The federal banking regulators are required by the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDI Act, to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to capital‑deficient institutions that are FDIC‑insured. Agency regulations define, for each capital category, the levels at which institutions are “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized.” Under the current capital rules, which became effective on January 1, 2015, a “well capitalized” bank has a total risk‑based capital ratio of 10.0% or higher, a Tier 1 risk‑based capital ratio of 8.0% or higher, a leverage ratio of 5.0% or higher, a CET1 capital ratio of 6.5% or higher and is not subject to any written agreement, order or directive requiring it to maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. An “adequately capitalized” bank has a total risk‑based capital ratio of 8.0% or higher, a Tier 1 risk‑based capital ratio of 6.0% or higher, a leverage ratio of 4.0% or higher (3.0% or higher if the bank was rated a composite 1 in its most recent examination report and is not experiencing significant growth), a CET1 capital ratio of 4.5% or higher and does not meet the criteria for a well capitalized bank. A bank is “undercapitalized” if it fails to meet any one of the ratios required to be adequately capitalized.

In addition to requiring undercapitalized institutions to submit a capital restoration plan, agency regulations contain broad restrictions on certain activities of undercapitalized institutions including asset growth, acquisitions, branch establishment and expansion into new lines of business. With certain exceptions, an insured depository institution is prohibited from making capital distributions, including dividends, and is prohibited from paying management fees to control persons if the institution would be undercapitalized after any such distribution or payment.

As a national bank’s capital decreases, restrictions on the OCC’s enforcement powers become more severe. A significantly undercapitalized national bank is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management and other restrictions. The OCC has very limited discretion in dealing with a critically undercapitalized national bank and is virtually required to appoint a receiver or conservator.

Banks with risk‑based capital and leverage ratios below the required minimums may also be subject to certain administrative actions, including the termination of deposit insurance upon notice and hearing, or a temporary suspension of insurance without a hearing in the event the institution has no tangible capital.

Standards for Safety and Soundness.  Federal law requires each federal banking agency to prescribe certain standards for all insured depository institutions. These standards relate to, among other things, internal controls, information systems and audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, compensation and other operational and managerial standards as the agency deems appropriate.  Interagency guidelines set forth the safety and soundness standards that the federal banking agencies use to identify and address problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired.  If the appropriate federal banking agency determines that an institution fails to meet any standard prescribed by the guidelines, the agency may require the institution to submit to the agency an acceptable plan to achieve compliance with the standard.  Failure to implement such a plan can result in further enforcement action, including the issuance of a cease and desist order or the imposition of civil money penalties.

Branching.  National banks are required by the National Bank Act to adhere to branching laws applicable to state banks in the states in which they are located. Under the Dodd‑Frank Act, de novo interstate branching by national banks is permitted if, under the laws of the state where the branch is to be located, a state bank chartered in that state would have been permitted to establish a branch. Under current Texas law, state banks are permitted to establish branch offices throughout Texas with prior regulatory approval. In addition, with prior regulatory approval, state banks are permitted to acquire branches of existing banks located in Texas. State banks located in Texas may also branch across state lines by merging with banks or by purchasing a branch of another bank in other states if allowed by the applicable states’ laws.

Restrictions on Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders.  Transactions between the Bank and its nonbanking subsidiaries and/or affiliates, including the Company, are subject to Section 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W promulgated under such Sections. In general, Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act imposes limits on the amount of such transactions and requires certain levels of collateral for loans to affiliated parties. It also limits the amount of advances to third parties which are collateralized by the securities or obligations of the Company or its subsidiaries. Covered transactions with any single affiliate may not exceed 10.0% of the capital stock and surplus of the Bank, and covered transactions with all affiliates may not exceed, in the aggregate, 20.0% of the Bank’s capital and surplus. For a bank, capital stock and surplus refers to the bank’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital, as calculated under the risk‑based capital guidelines, plus the balance of the allowance for credit losses excluded from Tier 2 capital. The Bank’s transactions with all of its affiliates in the aggregate are limited to 20.0% of the foregoing capital. “Covered transactions” are defined by statute to include a loan or extension of credit to an affiliate, as well as a purchase of securities issued by an affiliate, a purchase of assets (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve) from the affiliate, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan and the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate. In addition, in connection with covered transactions that are extensions of credit, the Bank may be required to hold collateral to provide added security to the Bank, and the types of permissible collateral may be limited. The Dodd‑Frank Act generally enhances the restrictions on transactions with affiliates, including an expansion of what types of transactions are covered transactions to include credit exposures related to derivatives, repurchase agreement and securities lending arrangements and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be satisfied. Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which generally requires that certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other nonaffiliated persons.

The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests (collectively referred to herein as “insiders”) contained in Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and in Regulation O promulgated by the Federal Reserve apply to all insured institutions and their subsidiaries and bank holding companies. These restrictions include limits on loans to one borrower and conditions that must be met before such a loan can be made. There is also an aggregate limitation on all loans to insiders and their related interests. Generally, the aggregate of these loans cannot exceed the institution’s total unimpaired capital and surplus, although a bank’s regulators may determine that a more stringent limit is appropriate. Loans to senior executive officers of a bank are even further restricted. Insiders are subject to monetary penalties for knowingly accepting loans in violation of applicable restrictions.

Restrictions on Distribution of Bank Dividends and Assets. Dividends paid by the Bank have provided a substantial part of our operating funds and for the foreseeable future it is anticipated that dividends paid by the Bank to us will continue to be our principal source of operating funds. Earnings and capital adequacy requirements serve to limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by the Bank. In general terms, federal law provides that the Bank’s Board of Directors may, from time to time and as it deems expedient, declare a dividend out of its net profits. Generally, the total of all dividends declared in a year shall not, unless approved by the OCC, exceed the net profits of that year combined with its net profits of the past two years.

In addition, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, the Bank may not pay any dividend if it is undercapitalized or the payment of the dividend would cause it to become undercapitalized. The OCC may further restrict the payment of dividends by requiring that the Bank maintain a higher level of capital than otherwise required for it to be adequately capitalized for regulatory purposes. Moreover, if, in the opinion of the OCC, the Bank is engaged in an unsound practice (which could include the payment of dividends), it may require, generally after notice and hearing, that the Bank cease such practice. The OCC has indicated that paying dividends that deplete a depository institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe banking practice. The OCC has also issued policy statements providing that insured depository institutions generally should pay dividends only out of current operating earnings.

Depositor Preference. In the event of the “liquidation or other resolution” of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors of the institution, including the claims of the FDIC as subrogee of insured depositors, and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as a receiver, will have priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors, along with the FDIC, will have priority in payment ahead of unsecured, non-deposit creditors, including the parent bank holding company, with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.

Incentive Compensation Guidance.  The federal banking agencies have issued comprehensive guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to help ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of those organizations by encouraging excessive risk‑taking. The incentive compensation guidance sets expectations for banking organizations concerning their incentive compensation arrangements and related risk management, control and governance processes. The incentive compensation guidance, which covers all employees that can materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon three primary principles: (1) balanced risk‑taking incentives, (2) compatibility with effective controls and risk management and (3) strong corporate governance. Any deficiencies in compensation practices that are identified may be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect its ability to make acquisitions or take other actions. In addition, under the incentive compensation guidance, a banking organization’s federal supervisor may initiate enforcement action if the organization’s incentive compensation arrangements pose a risk to the safety and soundness of the organization. Further, a provision of the Basel III capital standards described above would limit discretionary bonus payments to bank executives if the institution’s regulatory capital ratios fail to exceed certain thresholds. A number of federal regulatory agencies proposed rules that would require enhanced disclosure of incentive‑based compensation arrangements initially in April 2011 and again in April and May 2016. The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future.

Audits.  For insured institutions with total assets of $500 million or more, financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S., or GAAP, as well as management’s certifications signed by our and the Bank’s chief executive officer and chief accounting or financial officer concerning management’s responsibility for the financial statements, must be submitted to the FDIC. If the insured institution has consolidated total assets of more than $1.0 billion, it must additionally submit an attestation by the auditors regarding the institution’s internal controls. Insured institutions with total assets of $500 million or more must also have an audit committee consisting exclusively of outside directors (the majority of whom must be independent of management), and insured institutions with total assets of $1.0 billion or more must have an audit committee that is entirely independent. The committees of institutions with total assets of more than $3.0 billion must include members with experience in banking or financial management, must have access to outside counsel and must not include representatives of large customers. The Bank’s audit committee consists entirely of independent directors and includes members with experience in banking or related financial management.

Deposit Insurance Assessments.  The FDIC insures the deposits of federally insured banks up to prescribed statutory limits for each depositor through the Deposit Insurance Fund and safeguards the safety and soundness of the banking and thrift industries. The maximum amount of deposit insurance for banks and savings institutions is $250,000 per depositor, per ownership category. The amount of FDIC assessments paid by each insured depository institution is based on its relative risk of default as measured by regulatory capital ratios and other supervisory factors and is calculated based on an institution’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity.

We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. At least semi‑annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the Deposit Insurance Fund and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice‑and‑comment rulemaking, if required. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures or if the FDIC otherwise determines to increase assessment rates, the Bank may be required to pay higher FDIC insurance premiums. Any future increases in FDIC insurance premiums may have a material and adverse effect on our earnings.

In addition, all FDIC‑insured institutions are required to pay assessments to the FDIC to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation, or FICO, an agency of the federal government established to recapitalize the predecessor to the Deposit Insurance Fund. These assessments, which are included in Deposit Insurance Premiums on the Consolidated Statements of Income, will continue until the FICO bonds mature.

Financial Subsidiaries.  Under the GLB Act, banks may establish financial subsidiaries and engage, subject to limitations on investment, in activities that are financial in nature, other than insurance underwriting as principal, insurance company portfolio investment, real estate development, real estate investment, annuity issuance and merchant banking activities. To do so, a bank must be well capitalized, well managed and have a CRA rating from its primary federal regulator of satisfactory or better.  Banks with financial subsidiaries, as well as subsidiary banks of financial holding companies, must remain well capitalized and well managed to continue to engage in activities that are financial in nature without regulatory actions or restrictions. Such actions or restrictions could include divestiture of the “financial in nature” subsidiary or subsidiaries.

Brokered Deposit Restrictions.  Insured depository institutions that are categorized as adequately capitalized institutions under the FDI Act and corresponding federal regulations cannot accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits without receiving a waiver from the FDIC and are subject to restrictions on the interest rates that can be paid on any deposits. Insured depository institutions that are categorized as undercapitalized institutions under the FDI Act and corresponding federal regulations may not accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits. The Bank is not currently subject to such restrictions.

Concentrated Commercial Real Estate Lending Regulations.  The federal banking regulatory agencies have promulgated guidance governing financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate lending. The guidance provides that a bank has a concentration in commercial real estate lending if (1) total reported loans for acquisition, construction, land development and other land represent 100.0% or more of total capital or (2) total reported loans secured by multi‑family and nonfarm nonresidential properties and loans for acquisition, construction, land development and other land represent 300.0% or more of total capital and the bank’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased 50% or more during the prior 36 months. Owner‑occupied loans are excluded from this second category. If a concentration is present, management must employ heightened risk management practices that address, among other things, board and management oversight and strategic planning, portfolio management, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing and maintenance of increased capital levels as needed to support the level of commercial real estate lending.

Community Reinvestment Act.  The CRA and the regulations issued thereunder are intended to encourage banks to help meet the credit needs of their entire assessment area, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operations of such banks. These regulations also provide for regulatory assessment of a bank’s record in meeting the needs of its assessment area when considering applications to establish branches, merger applications and applications to acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of another bank. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 requires federal banking agencies to make public a rating of a bank’s performance under the CRA. In the case of a bank holding company, the CRA performance record of the banks involved in the transaction are reviewed in connection with the filing of an application to acquire ownership or control of shares or assets of a bank or to merge with any other bank holding company. An unsatisfactory CRA record could substantially delay approval or result in denial of an application. The Bank received a “satisfactory” rating in its most recent CRA examination.

Consumer Laws and Regulations.  The Bank is subject to numerous federal laws and regulations intended to protect consumers in transactions with the Bank, including but not limited to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Procedures Act of 1974, the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act and laws prohibiting unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices in connection with consumer financial products and services. Many states and local jurisdictions have consumer protection laws analogous, and in addition, to those enacted under federal law. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits, making loans and conducting other types of transactions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could give rise to regulatory sanctions, customer rescission and registration rights, action by state and local attorneys general and civil or criminal liability.

The authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with $10.0 billion or less in assets for compliance with federal consumer laws remains largely with those institutions’ primary regulators (the OCC, in the case of the Bank). However, the CFPB may participate in examinations of these smaller institutions on a “sampling basis” and may refer potential enforcement actions against such institutions to their primary regulators. Accordingly, the CFPB may participate in examinations of the Bank, which currently has assets of less than $10.0 billion, and could supervise and examine our other direct or indirect subsidiaries that offer consumer financial products or services.

Mortgage Lending Rules.  CFPB regulations that require lenders to determine whether a consumer has the ability to repay a mortgage loan became effective on January 10, 2014. These regulations established certain minimum requirements for creditors when making ability-to-repay determinations and provide certain safe harbors from liability for mortgages that are “qualified mortgages” and are not “higher-priced.” Generally, these CFPB regulations apply to all consumer, closed-end loans secured by a dwelling, including home-purchase loans, refinancing and home equity loans (whether first or subordinate lien). Qualified mortgages must generally satisfy detailed requirements related to product features, underwriting standards, and requirements where the total points and fees on a mortgage loan cannot exceed specified amounts or percentages of the total loan amount. Qualified mortgages must: (1) have a term not exceeding 30 years; (2) provide for regular periodic payments that do not result in negative amortization, deferral of principal repayment, or a balloon payment; (3) and be supported with documentation of the borrower and his or her credit worthiness.

The Regulatory Relief Act included a provision that provides for certain residential mortgages held in portfolio by banks with less than $10.0 billion in consolidated assets to automatically be deemed “qualified mortgages.” This relieves such institutions from many of the requirements to satisfy the criteria listed above for “qualified mortgages.” Mortgages meeting the “qualified mortgage” safe harbor may not have negative amortization, must follow prepayment penalty limitations included in the Truth in Lending Act, and may not have fees greater than three percent of the total value of the loan.

Anti‑Money Laundering and OFAC.  Under federal law, including the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, and the USA PATRIOT Act, certain financial institutions, such as the Bank, must maintain anti‑money laundering programs that include established internal policies, procedures and controls; a designated BSA 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 customer identification especially in their dealings with foreign financial institutions and foreign 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 law enforcement authorities have been granted increased access to financial information maintained by financial institutions. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, issued final rules under the BSA in 2016, with a compliance deadline of May 2018, that clarified and strengthened the due diligence requirements for banks with regard to their customers. The final rules included a new requirement for banks to identify and verify the identity of beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exclusions and exemptions. 

The Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, administers laws and Executive Orders that prohibit U.S. entities from engaging in transactions with certain prohibited parties. OFAC publishes lists of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts, known as Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. Generally, if a bank identifies a transaction, account or wire transfer relating to a person or entity on an OFAC list, it must freeze the account or block the transaction, file a suspicious activity report and notify the appropriate authorities.

Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations and they must consider an institution’s compliance in connection with the regulatory review of applications, including applications for bank mergers and acquisitions. In addition, other government agencies have the authority to conduct investigations of an institution’s compliance with these obligations. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing and comply with OFAC sanctions, or to comply with relevant laws and regulations, could have serious legal, reputational and financial consequences for the institution.

Privacy.  The federal banking regulators have adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non‑public information about consumers to non‑affiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a non‑affiliated third-party. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through financial services companies and conveyed to outside vendors. In addition, consumers may also prevent disclosure of certain information among affiliated companies that is assembled or used to determine eligibility for a product or service, such as that shown on consumer credit reports and asset and income information from applications. Consumers also have the option to direct banks and other financial institutions not to share information about transactions and experiences with affiliated companies for the purpose of marketing products or services. In addition to applicable federal privacy regulations, the Bank is subject to certain state privacy laws.

Federal Home Loan Bank System.  The Federal Home Loan Bank System, of which the Bank is a member, is composed of 11 regional Federal Home Loan Banks, or FHLBs, more than 7,300 member financial institutions, and a

fiscal agent.  The FHLBs provide long- and short-term advances (i.e., loans) to member institutions within their assigned regions in accordance with policies and procedures established by the boards of directors of each regional FHLB. Such advances are primarily collateralized by residential mortgage loans, as well as government and agency securities, and are priced at a small spread over comparable U.S. Department of the Treasury obligations.

As a member of the Dallas FHLB, the Bank is entitled to borrow from the Dallas FHLB, provided it posts acceptable collateral. The Bank is also required to own a certain amount of capital stock in the Dallas FHLB. The Bank is in compliance with the stock ownership rules with respect to such advances, commitments and letters of credit and collateral requirements with respect to home mortgage loans and similar obligations. All loans, advances and other extensions of credit made by the Dallas FHLB to the Bank are secured by a portion of the respective mortgage loan portfolio, certain other investments and the capital stock of the Dallas FHLB held by the Bank.

Enforcement Powers.  The federal banking agencies, including our primary federal regulator, the OCC, have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and supervisory agreements, breaches of fiduciary duty or the maintenance of unsafe and unsound conditions or practices could subject the Company or the Bank and their subsidiaries, as well as their respective officers, directors and other institution‑affiliated parties, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil money penalties. For example, the regulatory authorities may appoint the FDIC as conservator or receiver for a banking institution (or the FDIC may appoint itself, under certain circumstances) if any one or more of a number of circumstances exist, including, without limitation, the fact that the banking institution is undercapitalized and has no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized, fails to become adequately capitalized when required to do so, fails to submit a timely and acceptable capital restoration plan or materially fails to implement an accepted capital restoration plan.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies

The commercial banking business is affected not only by general economic conditions but also by U.S. fiscal policy and the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. Some of the instruments of monetary policy available to the Federal Reserve include changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings, the fluctuating availability of borrowings at the “discount window,” open market operations, the imposition of and changes in reserve requirements against member banks’ deposits and certain borrowings by banks and their affiliates and assets of foreign branches. These policies influence to a significant extent the overall growth of bank loans, investments, deposits and the interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits. We cannot predict the nature of future fiscal and monetary policies or the effect of these policies on our operations and activities, financial condition, results of operations, growth plans or future prospects.

Impact of Current Laws and Regulations

The cumulative effect of these laws and regulations, while providing certain benefits, adds significantly to the cost of our operations and thus may have a negative impact on our profitability. There has also been a notable expansion in recent years of financial service providers that are not subject to the examination, oversight and other rules and regulations to which we are subject. Those providers, because they are not so highly regulated, may have a competitive advantage over us and may continue to draw large amounts of funds away from traditional banking institutions, with a continuing adverse effect on the banking industry in general.

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

As a company with less than $1.07 billion in revenues during our last fiscal year, we qualify as an “emerging growth company” under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act.  An emerging growth company may take advantage of reduced reporting and other requirements that are otherwise generally applicable to public companies.  As an emerging growth company:

We have elected to take advantage of the scaled disclosures and other relief described above in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we may take advantage of these exemptions until December 31, 2022 or such earlier time that we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”  In general, we would cease to be an “emerging growth company” if we have $1.07 billion or more in annual revenues, we have more than $700 million in market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates on any June 30 more than one year after our initial public offering, or we issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period.  As a result, we could cease to be an “emerging growth company” as soon as the end of the 2019 fiscal year.  For so long as we may choose to take advantage of some or all of these reduced burdens, the level of information that we provide stockholders may be different than you might get from other public companies in which you hold stock.  In addition, when these exemptions cease to apply, we expect to incur additional expenses and devote increased management effort toward ensuring compliance with them, which we may not be able to predict or estimate.

Future Legislation and Regulatory Reform

In recent years, regulators have increased their focus on the regulation of financial institutions. From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures. New regulations and statutes are regularly proposed that contain wide‑ranging proposals for altering the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of financial institutions operating in the United States. 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. Future legislation, regulation and policies and the effects of such legislation, regulation and policies, may have a significant influence on our operations and activities, financial condition, results of operations, growth plans or future prospects and the overall growth and distribution of loans, investments and deposits. Such legislation, regulation and policies have had a significant effect on the operations and activities, financial condition, results of operations, growth plans and future prospects of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so.

Item 1A. Risk Factors 

Our business involves significant risks, some of which are described below. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K including “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes. If any of the following risks occur, our business, reputation, financial condition, results of operations, revenue and future prospects could be seriously harmed. Unless otherwise indicated, references to our business being seriously harmed in these risk factors will include harm to our business, reputation, financial condition, results of operations, revenue and future prospects. As a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. Some statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements in the following risk factors section, constitute forward‑looking statements. Please refer to “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward‑Looking Statements” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to Our Business

We may not be able to adequately measure and limit our credit risk, which could lead to unexpected losses.

The business of lending is inherently risky, including risks that the principal of or interest on any loan will not be repaid timely or at all or that the value of any collateral supporting the loan will be insufficient to cover our outstanding exposure. These risks may be affected by the strength of the borrower’s business sector and local, regional and national market and economic conditions. Many of our borrowers are small to medium‑sized businesses that may be less able to withstand competitive, economic and financial pressures than larger borrowers. Our risk management practices, such as monitoring the concentration of our loans within specific industries and our credit approval practices, may not adequately reduce credit risk and 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. A failure to effectively measure and limit the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio could lead to unexpected losses and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to interest rate risk and fluctuations in interest rates may adversely affect our earnings.

Changes in interest rates could have an adverse effect on our net interest income and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Many factors outside our control impact interest rates, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply and international economic weakness and disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets.

The majority of our banking assets and liabilities are monetary in nature and subject to risk from changes in interest rates. Like most financial institutions, our earnings are significantly dependent on our net interest income. Different types of assets and liabilities may react differently and at different times to market rate changes. We may periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest‑bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest‑earning assets, or vice versa. In either event, if market interest rates should move contrary to our position, this “gap” will negatively impact our earnings. The impact on earnings is more adverse when short‑term interest rates increase more than long‑term interest rates or when long‑term interest rates decrease more than short‑term interest rates.

Interest rate increases often result in larger payment requirements for our borrowers, which increase the potential for default. At the same time, the marketability of the property securing a loan may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates. An increase in interest rates can adversely impact the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans, and may lead to an increase in loans on nonaccrual status and a reduction of interest income recognized. Further, when we place a loan on nonaccrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. At the same time, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense.

In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as borrowers refinance their loans at lower rates. In addition, in a low interest rate environment, loan customers often pursue long‑term fixed rate credits, which could adversely affect our earnings and net interest margin if rates increase. If short‑term interest rates remain at low levels for a prolonged period and longer‑term interest rates fall, we could experience net interest margin compression as our interest‑earning assets would continue to reprice downward while our interest‑bearing liability rates could fail to decline in tandem.

Interest rate increases may also reduce the demand for loans and increase competition for deposits. Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets.

Our business is concentrated in and largely dependent upon the continued growth and welfare of our markets and adverse economic conditions in these markets could negatively impact our operations and customers.

Our business is concentrated in the Houston and Beaumont, Texas markets and we recently entered the Dallas, Texas market. Our success depends to a significant extent upon the business activity, population, income levels, employment trends, deposits and real estate activity in our markets. Economic conditions within our markets and the state of Texas are influenced by the energy sector, which is impacted by the price of oil and gas. Although our customers’ business and financial interests may extend well beyond our markets, adverse conditions that affect our markets could reduce our growth rate, the ability of our customers to repay their loans, the value of collateral underlying our loans, our ability to attract deposits and generally impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects. Due to our geographic concentration, we may be less able than other larger regional or national financial institutions to diversify our credit risks. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—Natural disasters and other catastrophes that could negatively impact the economies of our markets, our operations or our customers, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

Our allowance for loan losses may prove to be insufficient to absorb potential losses in our loan portfolio, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses that represents management’s judgment of probable losses and risks inherent in our loan portfolio. As of December 31, 2018, our allowance for loan losses totaled $23.7 million, or 0.97% of total loans. The level of the allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of general economic conditions, diversification and seasoning of the loan portfolio, historic loss experience, identified credit problems, delinquency levels and adequacy of collateral. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses is inherently highly

subjective and requires us to make significant estimates of and assumptions regarding current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. Inaccurate management assumptions, deterioration of economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification or deterioration of additional problem loans, acquisition of problem loans and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses.

In addition, our regulators, as an integral part of their periodic examinations, review our methodology for calculating and the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses and may direct us to make additions to the allowance based on their judgments about information available to them at the time of their examination. Further, if actual charge‑offs in future periods exceed the amounts allocated to the allowance for loan losses, we may need additional provisions for loan losses to restore the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses. Finally, the measure of our allowance for loan losses is dependent on the adoption and interpretation of accounting standards. The Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, recently issued a new credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL model, which will become applicable to us on January 1, 2020. CECL will require financial institutions to estimate and develop a provision for credit losses at origination for the lifetime of the loan, as opposed to reserving for incurred or probable losses up to the balance sheet date. Under the CECL model, credit deterioration would be reflected in the income statement in the period of origination or acquisition of the loan with changes in expected credit losses due to further credit deterioration or improvement reflected in the periods in which the expectation changes. Accordingly, implementation of the CECL model will change our current method of providing allowances for loan losses, which will likely require us to increase our allowance for loan losses. Moreover, the CECL model likely will create more volatility in our level of 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.

The amount of nonperforming and classified assets may increase significantly, resulting in additional losses and costs and expenses that will negatively affect our operations and financial condition.

Our nonperforming assets include nonaccrual loans and assets acquired through foreclosure. Loans are placed on nonaccrual status when, in management’s opinion, the borrower may be unable to meet payment obligations when they become due. In general, we place loans on nonaccrual status when they become more than 90 days past due, unless the loan is in the process of collection or renewal and the underlying collateral fully supports the carrying value of the loan. If the decision is made to continue accruing interest on the loan, periodic reviews are made to confirm the accruing status of the loan and the probability that the Company will collect all principal and interest amounts outstanding. We may also place loans on nonaccrual status if they are 90 days or less past due in the collection of principal or interest is in doubt. At December 31, 2018, we had $3.5 million of nonperforming assets, or 0.11% of total assets.

In addition, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires significant commitments of time from management, which may materially and adversely impact their ability to perform their other responsibilities. While we seek to reduce problem assets through loan workouts, restructurings and otherwise, decreases in the value of the underlying collateral, or in these borrowers’ performance or financial condition could have a material effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Should the amount of nonperforming assets or classified assets increase in the future, we may incur losses and the costs and expenses to maintain such assets likewise can be expected to increase and potentially negatively affect earnings. An increase in the level of nonperforming assets increases our risk profile and may impact the capital levels regulators believe are appropriate considering the ensuing risk profile.  An additional increase in losses due to such assets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Market conditions and economic trends may adversely affect the banking industry and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations in the future.

Market conditions and economic trends nationally and locally, such as volatility in the real estate market in some parts of the country, uncertain regulatory and changing interest rate conditions could adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have direct exposure to the residential and commercial real estate markets in Texas and thus are impacted by declines in real estate values and home sales volumes. In addition, financial institutions in Texas have been affected by volatility in the oil and gas industry and relatively low energy prices. Our markets are also susceptible to hurricanes and other adverse weather conditions. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—Our primary markets are susceptible to natural disasters and other catastrophes that could negatively impact the economies of

our markets, our operations or our customers, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

Our ability to assess the creditworthiness of customers and to estimate the losses inherent in our loan portfolio is made more complex by market and economic conditions. A national economic downturn or deterioration of conditions in our market could adversely effect on our borrowers and cause losses beyond those that are provided for in our allowance for loan losses and lead to the following consequences:

The small to medium‑sized businesses that we lend to may have fewer resources to endure adverse business developments, which may impair our borrowers’ ability to repay loans.

We focus our business development and marketing strategy primarily on small to medium‑sized businesses. Small to medium‑sized businesses frequently have smaller market shares than their competition, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need substantial additional capital to expand or compete and may experience substantial volatility in operating results, any of which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small and medium‑sized business often depends on the management skills, talents and efforts of a small group of people and the death, disability or resignation of one or more of these people could have an adverse effect on the business and its ability to repay its loan. If our borrowers are unable to repay their loans, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Sustained low oil prices, volatility in oil prices and downturns in the energy industry, including in Texas, could materially and adversely affect us.

The economy in Texas is dependent upon on the energy industry. Sustained low oil prices or the failure of oil prices to rise in the future and the resulting downturns or lack of growth in the energy industry and energy‑related business, could have a negative impact on the Texas economy and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Prolonged or heightened pricing pressure on oil and gas could lead to increased credit stress in our energy portfolio, increased losses associated with that portfolio and weaker demand for energy lending. As of December 31, 2018, our direct and indirect energy lending were 8.1% of our gross loans. More significantly for us, sustained low oil prices or general uncertainty resulting from energy price volatility could have other adverse impacts such as job losses in industries tied to energy, lower spending habits, lower borrowing needs and a number of other potential impacts that are difficult to isolate or quantify, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because a significant portion of our loan portfolio is comprised of real estate loans, negative changes affecting real estate values and liquidity could impair the value of collateral securing our real estate loans and result in loan and other losses.

As of December 31, 2018, $1.8 billion, or 74.0%, of our gross loans were loans with real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. Real estate values in many Texas markets have experienced periods of fluctuation and can fluctuate significantly in a short period. Adverse developments affecting real estate values and the liquidity of real estate in our markets or in Texas generally, could increase the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio, result in losses that adversely affect credit quality and cause us to increase our allowance for loan losses. Negative changes in the economy affecting real estate values and liquidity in our market areas and could significantly impair the value of property pledged as collateral on loans and affect our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure without a loss or additional losses. In addition, adverse weather events, including hurricanes and flooding, can cause damages to the property pledged as collateral on loans, which could also result in additional losses upon a foreclosure. Collateral may have to be sold for less than the outstanding balance of the loan, which could result in losses on such loans. Any declines in real estate values that are used as collateral for loans, decreased liquidity and increased losses on foreclosure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our commercial real estate and real estate construction and development loan portfolio exposes us to credit risks that may be greater than the risks related to other types of loans.

As of December 31, 2018, $1.0 billion, or 41.5%, of our gross loans were nonresidential real estate loans (including owner‑occupied commercial real estate loans) and $515.5 million, or 21.0%, of our total loans were construction and development loans. These loans typically involve repayment dependent upon income generated, or expected to be generated, by the property securing the loan in amounts sufficient to cover operating expenses and debt service. The availability of such income for repayment may be adversely affected by changes in the economy or local market conditions. Owner‑occupied commercial real estate is generally less dependent upon income generated directly from the property but still carries risks from the successful operation of the underlying business or adverse economic conditions. These loans expose a lender to greater credit risk than loans secured by other types of collateral because the collateral securing these loans is typically more difficult to liquidate due to the fluctuation of real estate values. Additionally, non‑owner‑occupied commercial real estate loans generally involve relatively large balances to single borrowers or related groups of borrowers. Unexpected deterioration in the credit quality of our non‑owner‑occupied commercial real estate loan portfolio could require us to increase our allowance for loan losses, which would reduce our profitability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Construction and development loans also involve risks because loan funds are secured by a project under construction and the project is of uncertain value prior to its completion. It can be difficult to accurately evaluate the total funds required to complete a project and construction and development lending often involves the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project rather than the ability of a borrower or guarantor to repay the loan. If we are forced to foreclose on a project prior to completion, we may be unable to recover the entire unpaid portion of the loan. In addition, we may be required to fund additional amounts to complete a project, incur taxes, maintenance and compliance costs for a foreclosed property and may have to hold the property for an indeterminate period, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A portion of our loan portfolio is comprised of commercial loans secured by receivables, inventory, equipment or other commercial collateral, which we refer to generally as commercial and industrial loans and the deterioration in value of which could expose us to credit losses.

As of December 31, 2018, commercial and industrial loans were $519.8 million, or 21.2%, of our gross loans. In general, these loans are collateralized by general business assets, including, among other things, accounts receivable, inventory and equipment and most are backed by a personal guaranty of the borrower or principal. These commercial and industrial loans are typically larger in amount than loans to individuals and, therefore, have the potential for larger losses on a single loan basis. Additionally, the repayment of commercial and industrial loans is subject to the ongoing business operations of the borrower. The collateral securing such loans generally includes moveable property such as equipment and inventory, which may decline in value more rapidly than we anticipate, thus exposing us to increased credit risk. In addition, a portion of our customer base, including customers in the energy and real estate business, may be in industries which are particularly sensitive to commodity prices or market fluctuations, such as energy and real estate prices. Accordingly, negative changes in commodity prices, real estate values and liquidity could impair the value of the collateral securing these loans. Significant adverse changes in the economy, local market conditions or adverse weather events in the markets in which our commercial and industrial lending customers operate could cause rapid declines in loan collectability and the values associated with general business assets resulting in inadequate collateral coverage that may expose us to credit losses and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—Natural disasters and other catastrophes that could negatively impact the economies of our markets, our operations or our customers, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

Appraisals and other valuation techniques we use in evaluating and monitoring loans secured by real property, other real estate owned and repossessed personal property may not accurately describe the net value of the asset.

In considering whether to make a loan secured by real property, we generally require an appraisal of the property. However, an appraisal is only an estimate of the value of the property at the time the appraisal is made and real estate values may change significantly in relatively short periods of time. This estimate may not accurately describe the net value of the real property collateral after the loan is made. As a result, we may not be able to realize the full amount of any remaining indebtedness when we foreclose on and sell the relevant property. In addition, we rely on appraisals and other valuation techniques to establish the value of our other real estate owned, or OREO, and personal property that we acquire

through foreclosure proceedings and to determine certain loan impairments. If any of these valuations are inaccurate, our combined and consolidated financial statements may not reflect the correct value of our OREO and our allowance for loan losses may not reflect accurate loan impairments. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We engage in lending secured by real estate and may be forced to foreclose on the collateral and own the underlying real estate, subjecting us to the costs and potential risks associated with the ownership of the real property, or consumer protection initiatives or changes in state or federal law may substantially raise the cost of foreclosure or prevent us from foreclosing at all.

Since we originate loans secured by real estate, we may have to foreclose on the collateral and we would then be exposed to the risks inherent in the ownership of real estate. The amount that we may realize after a default is dependent upon factors outside of our control, including, but not limited to general or local economic conditions, environmental cleanup liability, assessments, real estate tax rates, operating expenses of the mortgaged properties, ability to obtain and maintain adequate occupancy of the properties, zoning laws, governmental and regulatory rules and natural disasters. The costs or size of the risks associated with the ownership of real estate, or write‑downs in the value of other real estate owned, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. As of December 31, 2018, we held $12,000 of OREO.

Additionally, consumer protection initiatives or changes in state or federal law may substantially increase the time and expense associated with the foreclosure process or prevent us from foreclosing at all. While historically Texas has had foreclosure laws that are favorable to lenders, a number of states in recent years have either considered or adopted foreclosure reform laws that make it substantially more difficult and expensive for lenders to foreclose on properties in default and we cannot be certain that Texas will not adopt similar legislation in the future. Additionally, federal regulators have prosecuted a number of mortgage servicing companies for alleged consumer law violations. If new state or federal laws or regulations are ultimately enacted that significantly raise the cost of foreclosure or raise outright barriers, such laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our largest loan and deposit relationships currently make up material percentages of our total loan portfolio and of our deposits, respectively.

As of December 31, 2018, our 15 largest loan relationships (including related entities) totaled $297.8 million in loans, or 12.1% of the total loan portfolio. The concentration risk associated with having a small number of large loan relationships is that, if one or more of these relationships were to become delinquent or suffer default, we could be at serious risk of material losses. The allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover losses associated with any of these relationships and any loss or increase in the allowance would negatively affect our earnings and capital. Even if the loans are collateralized, a large increase in classified assets could harm our reputation with our regulators and inhibit our ability to execute our business plan.

As of December 31, 2018, our 15 largest depositors (including related entities) accounted for $352.7 million in deposits, or 12.7% of our total deposits. Several of our large depositors have business, family, or other relationships with each other, which creates a risk that any one customer’s withdrawal of their deposits could lead to a loss of other deposits from customers within the relationship. Withdrawals of deposits by any one of our largest depositors or by one of our related customer groups could force us to rely more heavily on borrowings and other sources of funding for our business and withdrawal demands, which may be more expensive and less stable. Consequently, the occurrence of any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A material portion of our loans and deposits are with related parties and our ability to continue to do business with such related parties is highly regulated.

We have made loans to and accepted deposits from certain of our directors and officers and the directors and officers of the Bank in compliance with applicable regulations and our written policies. As of December 31, 2018, we had  $169.0 million of loans outstanding and $55.7 million in unfunded loan commitments to such persons. In addition, we held related party deposits of $311.2 million at December 31, 2018. Our business relationships with related parties are highly regulated. In particular, our ability to do business with related parties is limited with respect to, among other things, extensions of credit described in the Federal Reserve’s Regulation O and covered transactions described in sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve’s Regulation W. These regulations could prevent us from

pursuing activities that would otherwise be in our and our shareholders’ best interests. Moreover, if we were to fail to comply with any of these regulations, we could be subject to enforcement and other legal actions by the Federal Reserve, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely heavily on our executive management team and other key employees and we could be adversely affected by the unexpected loss of their services.

Our success depends in large part on the performance of our executive management team and other key personnel, as well as on our ability to attract, motivate and retain highly qualified senior and middle management and other skilled employees. Our goals, strategies and continued growth are closely tied to the banking philosophy and strengths of our executive management. Competition for qualified employees is intense and the process of locating key personnel with the combination of skills, attributes and business relationships required to execute our business plan may be lengthy. We may not be successful in retaining our key employees and the unexpected loss of services of one or more of our key personnel could have an adverse effect on our business because of their skills, knowledge of and business relationships within our primary markets, years of industry experience and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel. If the services of any of our key personnel should become unavailable for any reason, we may not be able to identify and hire qualified persons on terms acceptable to us, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be able to manage the risks associated with our anticipated growth and expansion through de novo branching, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business strategy includes evaluating strategic opportunities to grow through de novo branching and we believe that banking location expansion has been meaningful to our growth since inception. De novo branching carries with it certain potential risks, including significant startup costs and anticipated initial operating losses; an inability to gain regulatory approval; an inability to secure the services of qualified senior management to operate the de novo banking locations and successfully integrate and promote our corporate culture; poor market reception for de novo banking locations established in markets where we do not have a preexisting reputation; challenges posed by local economic conditions; challenges associated with securing attractive locations at a reasonable cost; and an additional strain on management resources and internal systems and controls. Failure to adequately manage the risks associated with our anticipated growth through de novo branching could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. 

We may not be able to implement our expansion strategy, which may adversely affect our ability to maintain our historical earnings trends.

Our expansion strategy focuses on organic growth, supplemented by strategic acquisitions and expansion of the Bank’s banking location network, or de novo branching. We may not be able to execute on aspects of our expansion strategy, which may impair our ability to sustain our historical rate of growth or prevent us from growing at all. More specifically, we may not be able to generate sufficient new loans and deposits within acceptable risk and expense tolerances, obtain the personnel or funding necessary for additional growth or find suitable acquisition candidates. Various factors, such as economic conditions and competition with other financial institutions, may impede or prohibit the growth of our operations, the opening of new banking locations and the consummation of acquisitions. Further, we may be unable to attract and retain experienced bankers, which could adversely affect our growth. The success of our strategy also depends on our ability to effectively manage growth, which is dependent upon a number of factors, including our ability to adapt our credit, operational, technology and governance infrastructure to accommodate expanded operations. If we fail to implement one or more aspects of our strategy, we may be unable to maintain our historical earnings trends, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to overcome the integration and other risks associated with acquisitions, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy.

Although we plan to continue to grow our business organically and through de novo branching, we also intend to pursue acquisition opportunities that we believe complement our activities and have the ability to enhance our profitability and provide attractive risk‑adjusted returns. Our acquisition activities could be material to our business and involve a number of risks, including the following:

Depending on the condition of any institution or assets or liabilities that we may acquire, that acquisition may, at least in the near term, adversely affect our capital and earnings and, if not successfully integrated with our organization, may continue to have such effects over a longer period. We may not be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with pending or potential acquisitions and any acquisition we may consider will be subject to prior regulatory approval. Our inability to overcome these risks could have an adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A component of our strategy is a focus on decision‑making authority at the branch and market level and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected if our local teams do not follow our internal policies or are negligent in their decision‑making.

To provide the responsive and individualized customer service that distinguishes us from competitors and to attract and retain management talent, we empower our local management teams to make certain business decisions at the local level. Certain operational and lending authorities are assigned to managers and their banking teams based on their experience, with all loan relationships in excess of internal specified maximums being reviewed by the Bank’s Directors Loan Committee, comprised of senior management of the Bank, or the Bank’s Board of Directors. Our local management teams may not follow our internal procedures or otherwise act in our best interests with respect to their decision‑making. A failure of our employees to follow our internal policies, or actions taken by our employees that are negligent or not in our best interests, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected if the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies are inaccurate.

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures 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, which are included in the section captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, describe those significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements that we consider “critical” because they require judgments, assumptions and estimates that materially affect our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As a result, if future events or regulatory views concerning such analysis differ significantly from the judgments, assumptions and estimates in our critical accounting policies, those events or assumptions could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, in each case resulting in our needing to revise or restate prior period financial statements, which could cause damage to our reputation and the price of our common stock and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There could be material changes to our financial statements and disclosures if there are changes in accounting standards or regulatory interpretations of existing standards.

From time to time the FASB or the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. Such changes may result in us being subject to new accounting and reporting standards or change existing accounting and reporting standards. For example, in June 2016, the FASB issued revised guidance for impairments on financial instruments which requires the use of CECL models which might increase our allowance for loan losses. For more information, see “Risk Factors - Risks Related to Our Business — Our allowance for loan losses may prove to be insufficient to absorb potential losses in our loan portfolio, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.”  In addition, the bodies that interpret the accounting standards (such as banking regulators or outside auditors) may change their interpretations or positions on how new or existing standards should be applied. These changes may be beyond our control, can be hard to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new standard, revised existing standard or change the application of an existing standard in such a way that financial statements for periods previously reported are revised. Such changes could materially change our financial statements and related disclosures and depending on the nature of the revision, could cause damage to our reputation and the price of our common stock and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to report our financial results accurately and timely.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting and for evaluating and reporting on that system of internal control. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. As a public company, we are required to comply with the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act and other rules that govern public companies. Our management is required to certify our compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act and to make annual assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, when we cease to be an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

 In the past, significant deficiencies have been identified in our internal controls over financial reporting. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those responsible for oversight of the Company’s financial reporting. In 2015, significant deficiencies were identified including the Company’s process related to our accounting for allowance for loan losses and related disclosures of impaired loans, business combination purchase accounting and loan sales process. In addition, in 2015 and 2016, a significant deficiency was identified relating to financial statement disclosures and related review controls. We have implemented measures designed to address the internal control significant deficiencies and will continue to implement measures designed to improve our internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures.

We will continue to periodically test and update, as necessary, our internal control systems, including our financial reporting controls. In addition, we hired additional accounting personnel as part of our transition from a private company to a public company. Our actions, however, may not be sufficient to result in an effective internal control environment and any future failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could impair the reliability of our financial statements, which in turn could harm our business, impair investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, impair our access to the capital markets, cause the price of our common stock to decline and subject us to increased regulatory scrutiny and/or penalties, and higher risk of shareholder litigation.

We are dependent on the use of data and modeling in our management’s decision‑making and faulty data or modeling approaches could negatively impact our decision‑making ability or possibly subject us to regulatory scrutiny in the future.

The use of statistical and quantitative models and other quantitative analyses is endemic to bank decision‑making and the employment of such analyses is becoming increasingly widespread in our operations. Liquidity stress testing, interest rate sensitivity analysis and the identification of possible violations of anti‑money laundering regulations are all examples of areas in which we are dependent on models and the data that underlies them. The use of statistical and

quantitative models is also becoming more prevalent in regulatory compliance. While we are not currently subject to annual Dodd‑Frank Act stress testing and the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review submissions, we anticipate that model‑derived testing may become more extensively implemented by regulators in the future.

We anticipate data‑based modeling will penetrate further into bank decision‑making, particularly risk management efforts, as the capacities developed to meet rigorous stress testing requirements can be employed more widely and in differing applications. While we believe these quantitative techniques and approaches improve our decision‑making, they also create the possibility that faulty data or flawed quantitative approaches could negatively impact our decision‑making ability or if we become subject to regulatory stress testing in the future, adverse regulatory scrutiny. Further, because of the complexity inherent in these approaches, misunderstanding or misuse of their outputs could similarly result in suboptimal decision‑making.

Delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures in residential mortgages create a higher risk of repurchases and indemnity requests.

We originate residential mortgage loans for sale to correspondent banks who may resell such mortgages to government‑sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other investors. As a part of this process, we make various representations and warranties to the purchasers that are tied to the underwriting standards under which the investors agreed to purchase the loan. If a representation or warranty proves to be untrue, we could be required to repurchase one or more of the mortgage loans or indemnify the investor. Repurchase and indemnity obligations tend to increase during weak economic times, as investors seek to pass on the risks associated with mortgage loan delinquencies to the originator of the mortgage. Although we did not repurchase any residential mortgage loans sold to correspondent banks in 2017 or 2018, if we are forced to repurchase mortgage loans in the future that we have previously sold to investors, or indemnify those investors, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

A lack of liquidity could impair our ability to fund operations and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity is essential to our business. Liquidity risk is the potential that we will be unable to meet our obligations as they become due because of an inability to liquidate assets or obtain adequate funding. We require sufficient liquidity to meet customer loan requests, customer deposit maturities and withdrawals, payments on our debt obligations as they come due and other cash commitments under both normal operating conditions and unpredictable circumstances, including events causing industry or general financial market stress. We rely on our ability to generate deposits and effectively manage the repayment and maturity schedules of our loans and securities to ensure that we have adequate liquidity to fund our operations. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, loan repayments, sales of our securities, sales of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity.

Our most important source of funds is deposits and as of December 31, 2018, our deposits totaled $2.8 billion. As of December 31, 2018, $2.4 billion, or 86.9%, of our total deposits were noninterest‑bearing deposits, interest-bearing demand accounts, savings and money market accounts. These types of deposits have historically been stable sources of funds. However, these deposits are subject to potentially dramatic fluctuations in availability or price due to factors that may be outside of our control, such as a loss of confidence by customers in us or the banking sector generally, customer perceptions of our financial health and general reputation, increasing competitive pressures from other financial services firms for consumer or corporate customer deposits, changes in interest rates and returns on other investment classes. As a result, there could be significant outflows of deposits within short periods of time or significant changes in pricing necessary to maintain current customer deposits or attract additional deposits, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.

As of December 31, 2018, $361.0 million of  our deposits were certificates of deposit and $242.0 million, or 8.7% of our certificates of deposits were due to mature within one year. Historically, a majority of our certificates of deposit are renewed upon maturity as long as we pay competitive interest rates. These customers are, however, interest rate conscious and move funds into higher‑yielding investment alternatives. If customers transfer money out of the Bank’s deposits and into other investments such as money market funds, we would lose a relatively low‑cost source of funds, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.

Our other primary sources of funds have typically consisted of cash flows from operations, maturities and sales of securities and loan repayments. We can borrow from third‑party lenders, such as other financial institutions and in 2018  

we entered into an amended and restated loan agreement, the Loan Agreement, agreement providing a $30.0 million revolving line of credit. Additional liquidity is available through our ability to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the FHLB. In 2017, we completed our initial public offering and we may obtain funding in the future from additional issuances and sales of our equity securities or future sales of debt securities.

Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities, or on terms that are acceptable to us, could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry. Our access to funding sources could also be affected by a decrease in the level of our business activity because of a downturn in Texas or by one or more adverse regulatory actions against us. Any decline in available funding could adversely impact our ability to originate loans, invest in securities, meet our expenses, or fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future and such capital may not be available when needed or at all.

We may need to raise additional capital, in the form of debt or equity to have sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet our commitments and fund our business needs and future growth, particularly if the quality of our assets or earnings were to deteriorate significantly. 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 condition. Economic conditions and a loss of confidence in financial institutions may increase our cost of funding and limit access to certain customary sources of capital or make such capital only available on unfavorable terms, including interbank borrowings, repurchase agreements and borrowings from the discount window of the Federal Reserve. We may not be able to obtain capital on acceptable terms or at all. Any occurrence that may limit our access to the capital markets, such as a decline in the confidence of debt purchasers, depositors of our bank or counterparties participating in the capital markets or other disruption in capital markets, may adversely affect our capital costs and our ability to raise capital and, in turn, our liquidity. Further, if we need to raise capital in the future, we may have to do so when many other financial institutions are also seeking to raise capital and would then have to compete with those institutions for investors. An inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The borrowing needs of our clients may increase, especially during a challenging economic environment, which could result in increased borrowing against our contractual obligations to extend credit.

A commitment to extend credit is a formal agreement to lend funds to a client as long as there is no violation of any condition established under the agreement. The actual borrowing needs of our clients under these credit commitments have historically been lower than the contractual amount of the commitments. A significant portion of these commitments expire without being drawn upon. Because of the credit profile of our clients, we typically have a substantial amount of total unfunded credit commitments, which is not reflected on our balance sheet. As of December 31, 2018, we had $831.6 million in unfunded credit commitments to our clients. Actual borrowing needs of our clients may exceed our expectations, especially during a challenging economic environment when our clients’ companies may be more dependent on our credit commitments due to the lack of available credit elsewhere, the increasing costs of credit, or the limited availability of financings from venture firms. This could adversely affect our liquidity, which could impair our ability to fund operations and meet obligations as they become due and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business—A lack of liquidity could impair our ability to fund operations and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.”

We face strong competition from financial services companies and other companies that offer banking services.

We operate in the highly competitive financial services industry and face significant competition for customers from financial institutions located both within and beyond our principal markets. We compete with commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions, nonbank financial services companies and other financial institutions operating within or near the areas we serve. Additionally, certain large banks headquartered outside of our markets and large community banking institutions target the same customers we do. In addition, as customer preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for banks to expand their geographic reach by providing services over the internet and mobile devices and for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally

provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. The banking industry has experienced rapid changes in technology and, as a result, our future success may depend in part on our ability to address our customers’ needs by using technology. Customer loyalty can be influenced by a competitor’s new products, especially offerings that could provide cost savings or a higher return to the customer. Increased lending activity of competing banks can also lead to increased competitive pressures on loan rates and terms for high‑quality credits. We may not be able to compete successfully with other financial institutions in our markets and we may have to pay higher interest rates to attract deposits, accept lower yields to attract loans and pay higher wages for new employees, resulting in lower net interest margins and reduced profitability.

Many of our nonbank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern our activities and may have greater flexibility in competing for business. The financial services industry could become even more competitive because of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. In addition, some of our current commercial banking customers may seek alternative banking sources as they develop needs for credit facilities larger than we may be able to accommodate. Our inability to compete successfully in the markets in which we operate or in new markets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Negative public opinion regarding our company or failure to maintain our reputation in the communities we serve could adversely affect our business and prevent us from growing our business.

As a community bank, our reputation within the communities we serve is critical to our success. We believe we have set ourselves apart from our competitors by building strong personal and professional relationships with our customers and being active members of the communities we serve. As such, we strive to enhance our reputation by recruiting, hiring and retaining employees who share our core values of being an integral part of the communities we serve and delivering superior service to our customers. If our reputation is negatively affected by the actions of our employees or otherwise, we may be less successful in attracting new talent and customers or may lose existing customers and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Further, negative public opinion can expose us to litigation and regulatory action and delay and impede our efforts to implement our expansion strategy, which could further adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We could recognize losses on securities held in our portfolio, particularly if interest rates increase or economic and market conditions deteriorate.

We invest in securities with the primary objectives of providing a source of liquidity, providing an appropriate return on funds invested, managing interest rate risk, meeting pledging requirements and meeting regulatory capital requirements. As of December 31, 2018, our securities were 7.0% of total assets and the fair value of our available for sale securities portfolio was $229.9 million, which included a net unrealized loss of $3.8 million. Factors beyond our control can significantly and adversely influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio. For example, fixed rate securities are generally subject to decreases in market value when interest rates rise. Additional factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency downgrades of the securities, defaults by the issuer or individual borrowers with respect to the underlying securities and instability in the credit markets. Any of the foregoing factors could cause other‑than‑temporary impairment or in future periods and result in realized losses. The process for determining whether impairment is other‑than‑temporary usually requires difficult, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Although we have not recognized other‑than‑temporary impairment related to our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2018, changing economic and market conditions affecting interest rates, the financial condition of issuers of the securities and the performance of the underlying collateral, among other factors, may cause us to recognize realized and/or unrealized losses in future periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We depend on our information technology and telecommunications systems, including third-party service providers and any systems failures, interruptions or data breaches involving these systems could adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

Our business depends on the successful and uninterrupted functioning of our information technology and telecommunications systems including with third‑party servicers and financial intermediaries. We outsource many of our major systems. Specifically, we rely on third parties for certain services, including, but not limited to, core systems processing, website hosting, internet services, monitoring our network and other processing services. Our business depends

on the successful and uninterrupted functioning of our information technology and telecommunications systems and third‑party servicers. The failure of these systems, an information security or cybersecurity breach involving any of our third‑party service providers, or the termination or change in terms of a third‑party software license or service agreement on which any of these systems is based, could interrupt our operations. Because our information technology and telecommunications systems interface with and depend on third‑party systems, we could experience service denials if demand for such services exceeds capacity or such third‑party systems fail or experience interruptions. Replacing vendors or addressing other issues with our third‑party service providers could entail significant delay, expense and disruption of service.

If these third‑party service providers experience difficulties, are subject to information security or cybersecurity breaches, or terminate their services and we are unable to replace them with other service providers, particularly on a timely basis, our operations could be interrupted. If an interruption were to continue for a significant period, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Even if we can replace third‑party service providers, it may be at a higher cost to us, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, the Bank’s primary federal regulator, the OCC, has issued guidance outlining the expectations for third‑party service provider oversight and monitoring by financial institutions. The federal banking agencies, including the OCC, have issued enforcement actions against financial institutions for failure in oversight of third‑party providers and violations of federal banking law by such providers when performing services for financial institutions. Accordingly, our operations could be interrupted if any of our third‑party service providers experience difficulty, are subject to information security or cybersecurity breaches, terminate their services or fail to comply with banking regulations, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our failure to adequately oversee the actions of our third‑party service providers could result in regulatory actions against the Bank, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The occurrence of fraudulent activity, breaches of our information security, and cybersecurity attacks could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business, manage our exposure to risk or expand our businesses, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, increase our costs to maintain and update our operational and security systems and infrastructure, and adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, as well as cause legal or reputational harm.

As a financial institution, we are susceptible to fraudulent activity, information security breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents that may be committed against us, our clients, or third parties with whom we interact and that may result in financial losses or increased costs to us or our clients, disclosure or misuse of confidential information belonging to us or personal or confidential information belonging to our clients, misappropriation of assets, litigation, or damage to our reputation. Our industry has seen increases in electronic fraudulent activity, hacking, security breaches, sophisticated social engineering and cyber-attacks within the financial services industry, including in the commercial banking sector, as cyber-criminals have been targeting commercial bank and brokerage accounts on an increasing basis.

Our business is highly dependent on the security and efficacy of our infrastructure, computer and data management systems, as well as those of third parties with whom we interact or on whom we rely. Our business relies on the secure processing, transmission, storage and retrieval of confidential, proprietary and other information in our computer and data management systems and networks, and in the computer and data management systems and networks of third parties. In addition, to access our network, products and services, our customers and other third parties may use personal mobile devices or computing devices that are outside of our network environment and are subject to their own cybersecurity risks. All of these factors increase our risks related to cyber-threats and electronic disruptions.

In addition to well-known risks related to fraudulent activity, which take many forms, such as check “kiting” or fraud, wire fraud, and other dishonest acts, information security breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents have become a material risk in the financial services industry. These threats may include fraudulent or unauthorized access to data processing or data storage systems used by us or by our clients, electronic identity theft, “phishing”, account takeover, denial or degradation of service attacks, and malware or other cyber-attacks. These electronic viruses or malicious code are typically designed to, among other things:

In recent periods, several governmental agencies and large corporations, including financial service organizations and retail companies, have suffered major data breaches, in some cases exposing not only their confidential and proprietary corporate information, but also sensitive financial and other personal information of their clients or clients and their employees or other third-parties, and subjecting those agencies and corporations to potential fraudulent activity and their clients and other third-parties to identity theft and fraudulent activity in their credit card and banking accounts. Therefore, security breaches and cyber-attacks can cause significant increases in operating costs, including the costs of compensating clients and customers for any resulting losses they may incur and the costs and capital expenditures required to correct the deficiencies in and strengthen the security of data processing and storage systems.

Unfortunately, it is not always possible to anticipate, detect or recognize these threats to our systems, or to implement effective preventative measures against all breaches, whether those breaches are malicious or accidental. Cybersecurity risks for banking organizations have significantly increased in recent years and have been difficult to detect before they occur because of the following, among other reasons:

While we invest in systems and processes that are designed to detect and prevent security breaches and cyber-attacks and we conduct periodic tests of our security systems and processes, we may not succeed in anticipating or adequately protecting against or preventing all security breaches and cyber-attacks from occurring. Even the most advanced internal control environment may be vulnerable to compromise. Targeted social engineering attacks are becoming more sophisticated and are extremely difficult to prevent. Additionally, the existence of cyber-attacks or security breaches at third parties with access to our data, such as vendors, may not be disclosed to us in a timely manner. As cyber-threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities or incidents.

As is the case with non-electronic fraudulent activity, cyber-attacks or other information or security breaches, whether directed at us or third parties, may result in a material loss or have material consequences. Furthermore, the public perception that a cyber-attack on our systems has been successful, whether or not this perception is correct, may damage our reputation with customers and third parties with whom we do business. A successful penetration or circumvention of system security could cause us negative consequences, including loss of customers and business opportunities, disruption to our operations and business, misappropriation or destruction of our confidential information and/or that of our customers, or damage to our customers’ and/or third parties’ computers or systems, and could expose us to additional regulatory scrutiny and result in a violation of applicable privacy laws and other laws, litigation exposure, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, loss of confidence in our security measures, reputational damage, reimbursement or other 

compensatory costs, additional compliance costs, and could adversely impact our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition. 

During 2018, we experienced a security incident involving the possible unauthorized access of certain personal information in the possession of the Bank.  We take the privacy of personal information seriously and we took steps to address the incident promptly after it was discovered, including initiating an internal investigation into the incident and working with an independent forensic investigation firm to assist us in the investigation of and response to the incident.  We also reported the incident to law enforcement authorities.  Based on the report of the independent forensic investigation firm, we believe that a phishing incident occurred where certain emails and attachments from two employee email accounts may have been accessed by an unauthorized person. We believe that these email accounts contained certain personal information for approximately 7,800 individuals. Although our investigation has not found any evidence that the incident involved any unauthorized access to or use of any of the Bank’s internal computer systems or network, and we believe that the access was limited to information that was contained in the email accounts of the two employees, we may become subject to claims in the future for purportedly fraudulent transactions or other matters arising out of the breach of information stored in the affected email accounts. We incurred total out-of-pocket expenses of $65,000 during 2018 related to this incident and estimate we may incur an additional $40,000 of out-of-pocket expenses related to this incident. Additionally, the incident may have a negative impact on our reputation if we become subject to claims in the future, and reputational harm arising out of such claims or litigation may cause our customers to lose confidence in our ability to safeguard their information.

We have a continuing need for technological change and we may not have the resources to effectively implement new technology, or we may experience operational challenges when implementing new technology, or technology needed to compete effectively with larger institutions may not be available to us on a cost-effective basis.

The financial services industry has undergone rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology‑driven products and services. In addition to better serving customers, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend, at least 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 for convenience as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations as we continue to grow and expand our products and service offerings. We may experience operational challenges as we implement these new technology enhancements or products, which could impair our ability to realize the anticipated benefits from such new technology or require us to incur significant costs to remedy any such challenges in a timely manner.

Many of our larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. Third parties upon which we rely for our technology needs may not be able to develop on a cost‑effective basis systems that will enable us to keep pace with such developments. As a result, they may be able to offer additional or superior products compared to those that we will be able to provide, which would put us at a competitive disadvantage. We may lose customers seeking new technology‑driven products and services to the extent we are unable to provide such products and services. Accordingly, the ability to keep pace with technological change is important and the failure to do so could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to laws regarding the privacy, information security and protection of personal information and any violation of these laws or another incident involving personal, confidential or proprietary information of individuals could damage our reputation and otherwise adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

Our business requires the collection and retention of large volumes of customer data, including personally identifiable information in various information systems that we maintain and in those maintained by third parties with whom we contract to provide data services. We also maintain important internal company data such as personally identifiable information about our employees and information relating to our operations. We are subject to complex and evolving laws and regulations governing the privacy and protection of personal information of individuals (including customers, employees, suppliers and other third parties). For example, our business is subject to the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act which, among other things: (i) imposes certain limitations on our ability to share nonpublic personal information about our customers with nonaffiliated third parties; (ii) requires that we provide certain disclosures to customers about our information collection, sharing and security practices and afford customers the right to “opt out” of any information sharing by us with nonaffiliated third parties (with certain exceptions); and (iii) requires that we develop, implement and maintain a written comprehensive information security program containing appropriate safeguards based on our size and complexity, the nature and scope of our activities and the sensitivity of customer information we process, as well as plans

for responding to data security breaches. Various state and federal banking regulators and states have also enacted data security breach notification requirements with varying levels of individual, consumer, regulatory or law enforcement notification in certain circumstances in the event of a security breach. Ensuring that our collection, use, transfer and storage of personal information complies with all applicable laws and regulations can increase our costs.

Furthermore, we may not be able to ensure that all our clients, suppliers, counterparties and other third parties have appropriate controls in place to protect the confidentiality of the information that they exchange with us, particularly where such information is transmitted by electronic means. If personal, confidential or proprietary information of customers or others were to be mishandled or misused (in situations where, for example, such information was erroneously provided to parties who are not permitted to have the information, or where such information was intercepted or otherwise compromised by third parties), we could be exposed to litigation or regulatory sanctions under personal information laws and regulations. Concerns regarding the effectiveness of our measures to safeguard personal information, or even the perception that such measures are inadequate, could cause us to lose customers or potential customers for our products and services and thereby reduce our revenues. Accordingly, any failure or perceived failure to comply with applicable privacy or data protection laws and regulations may subject us to inquiries, examinations and investigations that could result in requirements to modify or cease certain operations or practices or in significant liabilities, fines or penalties and could damage our reputation and otherwise adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

We are subject to certain operational risks, including, but not limited to, customer, employee or third‑party fraud and data processing system failures and errors.

Because we are a financial institution, employee errors and employee or customer misconduct could cause financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Misconduct by our employees could include hiding unauthorized activities from us, improper or unauthorized activities on behalf of our customers or improper use of confidential information, each of which can be particularly damaging for financial institutions. It is not always possible to prevent employee errors and misconduct and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Employee errors could also subject us to financial claims for negligence.

We maintain a system of internal controls to mitigate operational risks, including data processing system failures and errors and customer or employee fraud, as well as insurance coverage designed to protect us from material losses associated with these risks, including losses resulting from any associated business interruption. If our internal controls fail to prevent or detect an occurrence, or if any resulting loss is not insured or exceeds applicable insurance limits, it could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information provided to us by our borrowers and counterparties and any misrepresented information could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In deciding whether to approve loans or to enter other transactions with borrowers and counterparties, we rely on information furnished to us by, or on behalf of, borrowers and counterparties, including financial statements, credit reports and other financial information. We also rely on representations of borrowers and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. If any of this information is intentionally or negligently misrepresented and such misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, the value of the loan may be significantly lower than expected and we may be subject to regulatory action. Whether a misrepresentation is made by the loan applicant, another third-party, or one of our employees, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation. Our controls and processes may not have detected, or may not detect all, misrepresented information in our loan originations or from our business clients. Any such misrepresented information could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to environmental liabilities in connection with the real properties we own and the foreclosure on real estate assets securing our loan portfolio.

We may purchase real estate in connection with our acquisition and expansion efforts, or we may foreclose on and take title to real estate or otherwise be deemed to be in control of property that serves as collateral on loans we make. We could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to those properties. We may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean‑up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or we may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be

substantial. In addition, if we are the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property.

The cost of removal or abatement may substantially exceed the value of the affected properties or the loans secured by those properties, we may not have adequate remedies against the prior owners or other responsible parties and we may not be able to resell the affected properties either before or after completion of any such removal or abatement procedures. If material environmental problems are discovered before foreclosure, we generally will not foreclose on the related collateral or will transfer ownership of the loan to a subsidiary. It should be noted, however, that the transfer of the property or loans to a subsidiary may not protect us from environmental liability. Despite these actions on our part, the value of the property as collateral will generally be substantially reduced or we may elect not to foreclose on the property and we may suffer a loss upon collection of the loan. Any significant environmental liabilities could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Natural disasters and other catastrophes that could negatively impact the economies of our markets, our operations or our customers, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We operate banking locations throughout Houston and Beaumont areas, which are susceptible to hurricanes, tropical storms, other adverse weather conditions and other natural disasters. For example, in late August 2017, Hurricane Harvey caused extensive and costly damage across Southeast Texas. In addition, man‑made events such as acts of terror and governmental responses to acts of terror, malfunctions of the electronic grid and other infrastructure breakdowns, could adversely affect economic conditions in our markets. These adverse weather and catastrophic events can disrupt our operations, cause widespread and extensive property damage, force the relocation of residents and significantly disrupt economic activity in the region, significantly depress the local economies in which we operate and adversely affect our customers. If the economies in our markets experience an overall decline because of a catastrophic event, demand for loans and our other products and services could decline. In addition, the rates of delinquencies, foreclosures, bankruptcies and losses on our loan portfolios may increase substantially after events such as hurricanes, as uninsured property losses, interruptions of our customers’ operations or sustained job interruption or loss may materially impair the ability of borrowers to repay their loans. Moreover, the value of real estate or other collateral that secures our loans could be materially and adversely affected by a catastrophic event. A natural disaster or other catastrophic event could, therefore, result in decreased revenue and loan losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to claims and litigation pertaining to intellectual property in addition to other litigation in the ordinary course of business.

Banking and other financial services companies, such as our company, rely on technology companies to provide information technology products and services necessary to support their day‑to‑day operations. Technology companies frequently enter into litigation based on allegations of patent infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights. We also use trademarks and logos for marketing purposes, and third parties may allege that our marketing, processes or systems may infringe their intellectual property rights. In addition, patent holding companies seek to monetize patents they have purchased or otherwise obtained. Competitors of our vendors, or other individuals or companies, may from time to time claim to hold intellectual property sold to us by our vendors. Such claims may increase in the future as the financial services sector becomes more reliant on information technology vendors. The plaintiffs in these actions frequently seek injunctions and substantial damages.

Regardless of the scope or validity of such patents or other intellectual property rights, or the merits of any claims by potential or actual litigants, we may have to engage in protracted litigation. Such litigation is often expensive, time‑consuming, disruptive to our operations and distracting to management. If we are found to infringe one or more patents or other intellectual property rights, we may be required to pay substantial damages or royalties to a third-party. In certain cases, we may consider entering into licensing agreements for disputed intellectual property, although no assurance can be given that such licenses can be obtained on acceptable terms or that litigation will not occur. These licenses may also significantly increase our operating expenses. If legal matters related to intellectual property claims were resolved against us or settled, we could be required to make payments in amounts that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition to litigation relating to intellectual property, we are regularly involved in litigation matters in the ordinary course of business. While we believe that these litigation matters should not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or future prospects, we may be unable to successfully defend or resolve any current or future litigation matters, in which case those litigation matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have entered into employment agreements with certain of our officers, which may increase our compensation costs upon the occurrence of certain events or increase the cost of acquiring us.

We have entered into employment agreements with certain of our officers, which may increase our compensation costs upon the occurrence of certain events or increase the cost of acquiring us. In the event of termination of employment other than for cause, or in the event of certain types of termination following a change in control, as set forth in the relevant employment agreement, the agreement will provide for cash severance benefits based on such officer’s current base salary and the terms of such agreement.

If the goodwill that we have recorded or may record in connection with a business acquisition becomes impaired, it could require charges to earnings, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Goodwill represents the amount by which the cost of an acquisition exceeded the fair value of net assets we acquired in connection with the purchase of another financial institution. We review goodwill for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if a triggering event occurs which indicates that the carrying value of the asset might be impaired. Our goodwill totals $81.0 million at December 31, 2018. While we have not recorded any impairment charges related to goodwill since we initially recorded the goodwill, there can be no assurance that our future evaluations of our existing goodwill or goodwill we may acquire in the future will not result in findings of impairment and related write‑downs, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Regulation of Our Industry

We operate in a highly-regulated environment and the laws and regulations that govern our operations, corporate governance, executive compensation and accounting principles, or changes in them, or our failure to comply with them, could adversely affect us.

Banking is highly regulated under federal and state law. As such, we are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and legal requirements that govern almost all aspects of our operations. These laws and regulations are not intended to protect our shareholders. Rather, these laws and regulations are intended to protect customers, depositors, the Deposit Insurance Fund and the overall financial stability of the United States. These laws and regulations, among other matters, prescribe minimum capital requirements, impose limitations on the business activities in which we can engage, limit the dividend or distributions that the Bank can pay to us, restrict the ability of institutions to guarantee our debt and impose certain specific accounting requirements on us that may be more restrictive and may result in greater or earlier charges to earnings or reductions in our capital than GAAP would require. Compliance with laws and regulations can be difficult and costly and changes to laws and regulations often impose additional operating costs. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations, even if the failure follows good faith effort or reflects a difference in interpretation, could subject us to restrictions on our business activities, enforcement actions and fines and other penalties, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations, regulatory capital levels and the price of our securities. Further, any new laws, rules and regulations could make compliance more difficult or expensive or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The ongoing implementation of the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, or the Dodd‑Frank Act, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd‑Frank Act was signed into law and the process of implementation is ongoing. The Dodd‑Frank Act imposes significant regulatory and compliance changes on many industries, including ours. There remains significant uncertainty surrounding how the provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act will ultimately be implemented by the various regulatory agencies and the full extent of the impact of the requirements on our operations is unclear, especially considering the Trump administration’s executive order calling for a full review of the Dodd‑Frank Act and the regulations promulgated under it. The changes resulting from the Dodd‑Frank Act may impact the profitability of our business

activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, require the development of new compliance infrastructure, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with the new requirements or with any future changes in laws or regulations could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Federal banking agencies periodically conduct examinations of our business, including compliance with laws and regulations and our failure to comply with any supervisory actions to which we are or become subject as a result of such examinations could adversely affect us.

As part of the bank regulatory process, the OCC and the Federal Reserve periodically conduct examinations of our business, including compliance with laws and regulations. If one of these federal banking agencies were to determine that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, asset sensitivity, risk management or other aspects of any of our operations have become unsatisfactory, or that our Company, the Bank or their respective management were in violation of any law or regulation, it may take a number of different remedial actions as it deems appropriate. These actions include the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative actions to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our capital levels, to restrict our growth, to assess civil monetary penalties against us, the Bank or their respective officers or directors, to remove officers and directors and, if it is concluded that such conditions cannot be corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, to terminate the Bank’s deposit insurance. Becoming subject to such regulatory actions could adversely affect our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to more stringent capital requirements, which may result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, limit our ability to repurchase shares or pay dividends and discretionary bonuses, or result in regulatory action.

In July 2013, the federal banking agencies published new capital rules, referred to herein as the Basel III capital rules, which revised their risk‑based and leverage capital requirements and their method for calculating risk‑weighted assets. The Basel III capital rules apply to all bank holding companies with $3.0 billion or more in consolidated assets and all banks regardless of size. The Basel III capital rules became effective as applied to us on January 1, 2015, with a phase‑in period for the new capital conservation buffer that generally extends from January 1, 2015 through January 1, 2019.

As a result of the enactment of the Basel III capital rules, we became subject to increased required capital levels. Our inability to comply with these more stringent capital requirements could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, limit our ability to repurchase shares or pay dividends and discretionary bonuses or result in regulatory actions, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Many of our new activities and expansion plans require regulatory approvals and failure to obtain them may restrict our growth.

We intend to complement and expand our business by pursuing strategic acquisitions of financial institutions and other complementary businesses and expansion of the Bank’s banking location network, or de novo branching. Generally, we must receive federal regulatory approval before we can acquire a depository institution or related business insured by the FDIC, or before we open a de novo branch. In determining whether to approve a proposed acquisition, federal banking regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, our financial condition, our future prospects and the impact of the proposal on U.S. financial stability. The regulators also review current and projected capital ratios and levels, the competence, experience and integrity of management and its record of compliance with laws and regulations, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served (including the acquiring institution’s record of compliance under the CRA and the effectiveness of the acquiring institution in combating money laundering activities). Such regulatory approvals may not be granted on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. We may also be required to sell banking locations as a condition to receiving regulatory approval, which condition may not be acceptable to us or, if acceptable to us, may reduce the benefit of any acquisition.

Financial institutions, such as the Bank, face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti‑money laundering statutes and regulations.

The Bank Secrecy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or the USA PATRIOT Act, and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective anti‑money laundering program and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports as appropriate. FinCEN, established by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to administer the Bank Secrecy Act, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and frequently coordinates enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the IRS. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the sanctions programs and rules administered and enforced by OFAC.

To comply with regulations, guidelines and examination procedures in this area, we have dedicated significant resources to our anti‑money laundering program. If our policies, procedures, systems and practices are deemed deficient, we could be subject to liability, including fines, regulatory actions such as restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the inability to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plans, including acquisitions and de novo branching, and criminal sanctions.

We are subject to numerous laws designed to protect consumers, including the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, and fair lending laws and failure to comply with these laws could lead to a wide variety of sanctions.

The CRA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The CFPB, the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. The CFPB was created under the Dodd‑Frank Act to centralize responsibility for consumer financial protection with broad rulemaking authority to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of federal consumer financial laws with respect to all financial institutions that offer financial products and services to consumers. The CFPB is also authorized to prescribe rules applicable to any covered person or service provider, identifying and prohibiting acts or practices that are “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service. The ongoing broad rulemaking powers of the CFPB have potential to have a significant impact on the operations of financial institutions offering consumer financial products or services. The CFPB has indicated that it may propose new rules on overdrafts and other consumer financial products or services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations if any such rules limit our ability to provide such financial products or services.

A successful regulatory challenge to an institution’s performance under the CRA, fair lending laws or regulations, or consumer lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity, restrictions on expansion and restrictions on entering new business lines. Private parties can also challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. Such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Failure to comply with economic and trade sanctions or with applicable anti‑corruption laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries and regimes, under authority of various laws, including designated foreign countries, nationals and others. We are responsible for, among other things, blocking accounts of and transactions with such persons and countries, prohibiting unlicensed trade and financial transactions with them and reporting blocked transactions after their occurrence. Through our Company and the Bank and our agents and employees, we are subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or the FCPA, which prohibits offering, promising, giving, or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non‑U.S. government official in order to influence official action or otherwise gain an unfair business advantage. We are also subject to applicable anti‑corruption laws in the jurisdictions in which we may operate. We have implemented policies, procedures and internal controls that are designed to comply with economic and trade sanctions or with applicable anti‑corruption laws, including the FCPA. Failure to comply with economic and trade sanctions or with applicable anti‑corruption laws, including the FCPA, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for us.

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

Federal, state and local laws have been adopted that are intended to eliminate certain lending practices considered “predatory.” These laws prohibit practices such as steering borrowers away from more affordable products, selling unnecessary insurance to borrowers, repeatedly refinancing loans and making loans without a reasonable expectation that the borrowers will be able to repay the loans irrespective of the value of the underlying property. It is our policy not to make predatory loans, but these laws create the potential for liability with respect to our lending and loan investment activities. They increase our cost of doing business and, ultimately, may prevent us from making certain loans and cause us to reduce the average percentage rate or the points and fees on loans that we do make.

The expanding body of federal, state and local regulations and/or the licensing of loan servicing, collections or other aspects of our business and our sales of loans to third parties may increase the cost of compliance and the risks of noncompliance and subject us to litigation.

We service some of our own loans and loan servicing is subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities, as well as various laws and judicial and administrative decisions imposing requirements and restrictions on those activities. The volume of new or modified laws and regulations has increased in recent years and, in addition, some individual municipalities have begun to enact laws that restrict loan servicing activities, including delaying or temporarily preventing foreclosures or forcing the modification of certain mortgages. If regulators impose new or more restrictive requirements, we may incur additional significant costs to comply with such requirements, which may further adversely affect us. In addition, were we to be subject to regulatory investigation or regulatory action regarding our loan modification and foreclosure practices, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

In addition, we have sold loans to third parties. In these sales, we or certain of our subsidiaries or legacy companies make or have made various representations and warranties. Breaches of these representations and warranties may result in a requirement that we repurchase the loans, or otherwise make whole or provide other remedies to counterparties. These aspects of our business or our failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could possibly lead to: civil and criminal liability; loss of licensure; damage to our reputation in the industry; fines and penalties and litigation, including class action lawsuits; and administrative enforcement actions. Any of these outcomes could materially and adversely affect us.

Potential limitations on incentive compensation contained in proposed federal agency rulemaking may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain our highest performing employees.

In April 2011 and May 2016, the Federal Reserve, other federal banking agencies and the SEC jointly published proposed rules designed to implement provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act prohibiting incentive compensation arrangements that would encourage inappropriate risk taking at covered financial institutions, which includes a bank or bank holding company with $1 billion or more in assets, such as the Bank. It cannot be determined at this time whether or when a final rule will be adopted and whether compliance with such a final rule will substantially affect the way we structure compensation for our executives and other employees. Depending on the nature and application of the final rules, we may not be able to successfully compete with certain financial institutions and other companies that are not subject to some or all the rules to retain and attract executives and other high performing employees. If this were to occur, relationships that we have established with our clients may be impaired and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected, perhaps materially.

Increases in FDIC insurance premiums could adversely affect our earnings and results of operations.

We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. As a result of economic conditions and the enactment of the Dodd‑Frank Act, the FDIC has in recent years increased deposit insurance assessment rates, which in turn raised deposit premiums for many insured depository institutions. In 2010, the FDIC increased the Deposit Insurance Fund’s target reserve ratio to 2.0% of insured deposits following the Dodd‑Frank Act’s elimination of the 1.5% cap on the insurance fund’s reserve ratio and the FDIC has put in place a restoration plan to restore the Deposit Insurance Fund to its 1.35% minimum reserve ratio managed by the Dodd‑Frank Act by December 31, 2020. If recent increases in premiums are insufficient for the Deposit Insurance Fund to meet its funding requirements, further special assessments or increases in deposit insurance premiums may be required. Further, if there are additional financial institution failures that affect the Deposit Insurance Fund, we may be required to pay higher FDIC premiums.

Our FDIC insurance related costs were approximately $1.5 million and $1.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Additional assessments, increases in premiums or required prepayments of FDIC insurance premiums could adversely affect our earnings and results of operations.

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

The Federal Reserve requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks and to commit resources to support its subsidiary banks. Under the “source of strength” doctrine that was codified by the Dodd‑Frank Act, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank at times when the bank holding company may not be inclined to do so and may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank. Accordingly, we could be required to provide financial assistance to the Bank if it experiences financial distress.

A capital injection may be required at a time when our resources are limited and we may be required to borrow the funds or raise capital to make the required capital injection. Any loan by a bank holding company to its subsidiary bank is subordinate in right with payment to deposits and certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. 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 any note obligations. Thus, any borrowing by a bank holding company to make a capital injection to a subsidiary bank often becomes more difficult and expensive relative to other corporate borrowings.

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

Financial services institutions are interrelated because 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 our collateral cannot be foreclosed upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due. Any such losses could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition to being affected by general economic conditions, our earnings and growth are affected by the policies of the Federal Reserve. An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the U.S. money supply and credit conditions. Among the instruments used by the Federal Reserve to implement these objectives are open market purchases and sales of securities by the Federal Reserve, adjustments of both the discount rate and the federal funds rate and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall economic growth and the distribution of credit, bank loans, investments and deposits. Their use also affects interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.

The monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. Although we cannot determine the effects of such policies on us at this time, such policies could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to commercial real estate lending guidance issued by the federal banking regulators that impacts our operations and capital requirements.

The OCC and the other federal bank regulatory agencies have promulgated joint guidance on sound risk management practices for financial institutions regarding concentrations in commercial real estate lending. Under the guidance, a financial institution that, like us, is actively involved in commercial real estate lending should perform a risk assessment to identify concentrations. A financial institution may have a concentration in commercial real estate lending if, among other factors, (1) total reported loans for construction, land acquisition and development and other land represent

100% or more of total capital, or (2) total reported loans secured by multi‑family and nonfarm nonresidential properties, loans for construction, land acquisition and development and other land and loans otherwise sensitive to the general commercial real estate market, including loans to commercial real estate related entities, represent 300% or more of total capital. At December 31, 2018, the Bank’s ratios under these tests were 132.1% and 304.5%, respectively. 

The focus of the guidance is on exposure to commercial real estate loans that are dependent on the cash flow from the real estate held as collateral and that are likely to be at greater risk to conditions in the commercial real estate market (as opposed to real estate collateral held as a secondary source of repayment or as an abundance of caution). The purpose of the guidance is to guide banks in developing risk management practices and capital levels commensurate with the level and nature of real estate concentrations. The guidance states that management should employ heightened risk management practices including board and management oversight and strategic planning, development of underwriting standards, risk assessment and monitoring through market analysis and stress testing. While we believe we have implemented policies and procedures with respect to our commercial real estate loan portfolio consistent with this guidance, bank regulators could require us to implement additional policies and procedures consistent with their interpretation of the guidance that may result in additional costs to us or that may result in a curtailment of our commercial real estate lending and/or the requirement that we maintain higher levels of regulatory capital, either of which would adversely affect our loan originations and profitability.

Risks Related to Ownership of our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock may be subject to substantial fluctuations.

The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile, which may make it difficult for you to resell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired. There are many factors that may affect the market price and trading volume of our common stock, including, without limitation:

The stock market and especially the market for financial institution stocks have experienced substantial fluctuations in recent years, which in many cases have been unrelated to the operating performance and prospects of companies. In addition, significant fluctuations in the trading volume in our common stock may cause significant price variations to occur. Increased market volatility may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock and could make it difficult to sell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired.

Future sales and issuances of our capital stock or rights to purchase capital stock could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our shareholders and could cause our stock price to decline.

We may issue additional securities in the future and from time to time. Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase our common stock could result in substantial dilution to our existing shareholders. We may sell common stock, convertible securities and other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we may determine from time to time. If we sell any such securities in subsequent transactions, the percentage ownership of our then existing shareholders may be materially diluted. New investors in such subsequent transactions could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our commons stock.

In addition, we may issue shares of our common stock or other securities from time to time as consideration for future acquisitions and investments and pursuant to compensation and incentive plans. If any such acquisition or investment is significant, the number of shares of our common stock, or the number or aggregate principal amount of other securities that we may issue may in turn be substantial. We may also grant registration rights covering those shares of our common stock or other securities in connection with any such acquisitions and investments.

We cannot predict the size of future issuances of our common stock or the effect, if any, that future issuances and sales of our common stock will have on the market price of our common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock (including shares of our common stock issued in connection with an acquisition or under a compensation or incentive plan), or the perception that such sales could occur, may adversely affect prevailing market prices for our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through future sales of our securities.

The obligations associated with being a public company require significant resources and management attention, which will increase our costs of operations and may divert focus from our business operations.

We completed our initial public offering in November of 2017.  As a public company, our legal, accounting, administrative and other costs and expenses have increased. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition and proxy and other information statements and the rules and regulations implemented by the SEC, the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act, the Dodd‑Frank Act, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, and the Nasdaq Global Select Market, each of which imposes additional reporting and other obligations on public companies. As a public company, compliance with these reporting requirements and other SEC and the Nasdaq Global Select Market rules has made certain operating activities more time‑consuming. We have made and will continue to make changes to our internal controls and procedures for financial reporting and accounting systems to meet our reporting obligations as a public company.

We are classified as an “emerging growth company” under the JOBS Act. An emerging growth company may take advantage of reduced reporting and other requirements that are otherwise generally applicable to public companies. We have elected to take advantage of the scaled disclosures and we may take advantage of these exemptions until December 31, 2022 or such earlier time that we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” We will cease to be an “emerging growth company” if we have $1.07 billion or more in annual revenues, we have more than $700 million in market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates on any June 30 more than one year after our initial public offering, or we issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. We could cease to be an “emerging growth company” as soon as the end of the 2019 fiscal year. When these exemptions cease to apply, we expect to incur additional expenses and devote increased management effort toward ensuring compliance with them. However, we cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur to comply with these requirements.

Securities analysts may not initiate or continue coverage on us.

The trading market for our common stock depends, in part, on the research and reports that securities analysts publish about us and our business. We do not have any control over these securities analysts and they may not cover us. If these analysts cease to cover us or fail to publish regular reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause the price or trading volume of our common stock to decline. If we are covered by securities analysts and are the subject of an unfavorable report, the price of our common stock may decline.

Our management and Board of Directors have significant control over our business.

Our directors and named executive officers beneficially owned approximately 29.1% of our outstanding common stock as a group at December 31, 2018. Consequently, our management and Board of Directors may be able to significantly affect our affairs and policies, including the outcome of the election of directors and the potential outcome of other matters submitted to a vote of our shareholders, such as mergers, the sale of substantially all our assets and other extraordinary corporate matters. This influence may also have the effect of delaying or preventing changes of control or changes in management, or limiting the ability of our other shareholders to approve transactions that they may deem to be in the best interests of our Company. The interests of these insiders could conflict with the interests of our other shareholders.

The holders of our existing debt obligations, as well as debt obligations that may be outstanding in the future, will have priority over our common stock with respect to payment in the event of liquidation, dissolution or winding up and with respect to the payment of interest.

We have an established line of credit with another financial institution, although there was no outstanding amount borrowed at December 31, 2018. In the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, our common stock would rank below all claims of debt holders against us. Our debt obligations are senior to our shares of common stock. As a result, we must make payments on our debt obligations before any dividends can be paid on our common stock. In the event of our bankruptcy, dissolution or liquidation, the holders of our debt obligations must be satisfied before any distributions can be made to the holders of our common stock. To the extent that we issue additional debt obligations they will be of equal rank with, or senior to, our existing debt obligations and senior to our shares of common stock.

We may issue shares of preferred stock in the future, which could make it difficult for another company to acquire us or could otherwise adversely affect holders of our common stock, which could depress the price of our common stock.

Our certificate of formation authorizes us to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of one or more series of preferred stock. Our Board of Directors will have the authority to determine the preferences, limitations and relative rights of shares of preferred stock and to fix the number of shares constituting any series and the designation of such series, without any further vote or action by our shareholders. Our preferred stock could be issued with voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to the rights of our common stock. The potential issuance of preferred stock may delay or prevent a change in control of us, discourage bids for our common stock at a premium over the market price and materially adversely affect the market price and the voting and other rights of the holders of our common stock.

We are dependent upon the Bank for cash flow and the Bank’s ability to make cash distributions is restricted.

Our primary tangible asset is the stock of the Bank. As such, we depend upon the Bank for cash distributions (through dividends on the Bank’s common stock) that we use to pay our operating expenses, satisfy our obligations (including our subordinated debentures and our other debt obligations) and to pay dividends on our common stock. Federal statutes, regulations and policies restrict the Bank’s ability to make cash distributions to us. These statutes and regulations require, among other things, that the Bank maintain certain levels of capital in order to pay a dividend. Further, the OCC can restrict the Bank’s payment of dividends by supervisory action. If the Bank is unable to pay dividends to us, we will not be able to satisfy our obligations or pay dividends on our common stock.

Our dividend policy may change without notice and our future ability to pay dividends is subject to restrictions.

Historically, we have paid a quarterly dividend on our common stock in an amount equal to approximately $0.05 per share per quarter. Although we have historically paid dividends to our shareholders and currently intend to generally maintain our current dividend levels, we have no obligation to continue doing so and may change our dividend policy at any time without notice to holders of our common stock. Holders of our common stock are only entitled to receive such cash dividends as our Board of Directors, in its discretion, may declare out of funds legally available for such payments. Furthermore, consistent with our strategic plans, growth initiatives, capital availability, projected liquidity needs and other factors, we have made and will continue to make, capital management decisions and policies that could adversely impact the amount of dividends paid to holders of our common stock.

As a bank holding company, we are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has indicated that bank holding companies should carefully review their dividend policy in relation to the organization’s overall asset quality, current and prospective earnings and level, composition and quality of capital. The guidance provides

that we inform and consult with the Federal Reserve prior to declaring and paying a dividend that exceeds earnings for the period for which the dividend is being paid or that could result in an adverse change to our capital structure, including interest on our other debt obligations. If required payments on our other debt obligations are not made or are deferred, or dividends on any preferred stock we may issue are not paid, we will be prohibited from paying dividends on our common stock.

In addition, our ability to declare or pay dividends is also subject to the terms of the Loan Agreement, which prohibits us from declaring or paying dividends upon the occurrence and during the continuation of an event of default (as defined in the Loan Agreement).

Our corporate organizational documents and provisions of federal and state law to which we are subject contain certain provisions that could have an anti‑takeover effect and may delay, make more difficult or prevent an attempted acquisition that you may favor or an attempted replacement of our Board of Directors or management.

Our certificate of formation and our bylaws (each as amended and restated) may have an anti‑takeover effect and may delay, discourage or prevent an attempted acquisition or change of control or a replacement of our incumbent Board of Directors or management. Our governing documents include provisions that:

In addition, certain provisions of Texas law, including a provision which restricts certain business combinations between a Texas corporation and certain affiliated shareholders, may delay, discourage or prevent an attempted acquisition or change in control. Furthermore, banking laws impose notice, approval and ongoing regulatory requirements on any shareholder or other party that seeks to acquire direct or indirect “control” of an FDIC‑insured depository institution or its holding company. These laws include the BHC Act and the CIBC Act. These laws could delay or prevent an acquisition.

Furthermore, our amended and restated certificate of formation provides that the state or federal courts located in Jefferson County, Texas, the county in which Beaumont is located, will be the exclusive forum for: (a) any actual or purported derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of fiduciary duty by any of our directors or officers; (c) any action asserting a claim against us or our directors or officers arising pursuant to the Texas Business Organizations Code, or TBOC, our certificate of formation, or our amended and restated bylaws; or (d) any action asserting a claim against us or our officers or directors that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. By becoming a shareholder of our Company, you will be deemed to have notice of and have consented to the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of formation related to choice of forum. The choice of forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of formation may limit our shareholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our amended and restated certificate of formation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated

with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.                                                                                                                                                        

Item 2. Properties

The Bank operates 35 banking locations, all of which are in Texas. The headquarters of the Bank is located at 5999 Delaware Street, Beaumont, Texas 77706 and the telephone number is (409) 861‑7200. The majority of the Bank’s and our executive officers are located in Houston at 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110, Houston, Texas 77046 and the telephone number is (713) 210‑7600. The Bank operates branches in the following Texas locations:

 

We opened our Dallas Preston Center branch and our Houston South Belt branch in January 2019.  For the leased locations, we either lease the location entirely, own the building and have a ground lease, or own the drive‑in and lease the branch. We believe that lease terms for the 12 branches that we lease are generally consistent with prevailing market terms. The expiration dates of the leases range from 2019 to 2045, without consideration of any renewal periods available to us.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are not currently subject to any material legal proceedings. We are from time to time subject to claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business.

At this time, in the opinion of management, the likelihood is remote that the impact of such proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, one or more unfavorable outcomes in any claim or litigation against us could have a material adverse effect for the period in which they are resolved. In addition, regardless of their merits or their ultimate outcomes, such matters are costly, divert management’s attention and may materially and adversely affect our reputation, even if resolved in our favor.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not Applicable.

PART II.

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

Market Information for Common Stock

Shares of our common stock are traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “CBTX”.

Holders of Record

As of February 19, 2019, there were approximately 492 holders of record of our common stock. Additionally a greater number of holders of our common stock are “street name” or beneficial holders, whose shares are held by banks, brokers and other financial institutions.

Dividends

We intend to continue to pay regular quarterly dividends, which have historically been of $0.05 per share. Our dividend policy may change and our Board of Directors may change or eliminate the payment of future dividends at its discretion, without notice to our shareholders. Any future determination to pay dividends to holders of our common stock will be dependent upon our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, banking regulations, contractual restrictions and any other factors that our Board of Directors may deem relevant.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

 

Stock Performance Graph 

The following performance graph compares total stockholders’ return on our common stock for the period beginning at the close of trading on November 7, 2017 and for each month until the end of 2018, with the cumulative total return of the NASDAQ Composite Index and the NASDAQ Bank Index for the same period. Cumulative total return is computed by dividing the difference between our share price at the end and the beginning of the measurement period by the share price at the beginning of the measurement period. The performance graph assumes $100 is invested on November 7, 2017, in the Company’s common stock, the NASDAQ Composite Index and the NASDAQ Bank Index. Historical stock price performance is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

 

 

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

None.

Purchases of equity securities by the issuer and affiliated purchasers

None.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following consolidated selected financial data as of and for the five-year period ended December 31, 2018, is derived from our audited financial statements and should be read in conjunction with “Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

(table continued on next page)

 

 

 

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Our accounting and reporting policies conform to GAAP and the prevailing practices in the banking industry. However, we also evaluate our performance based on certain additional non‑GAAP financial measures. We classify a financial measure as being a non‑GAAP financial measure if that financial measure excludes or includes amounts, or is subject to adjustments that have the effect of excluding or including amounts, that are not included or excluded in the most directly comparable measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP as in effect from time to time in the U.S. in our statements of income, balance sheets or statements of cash flows. Non‑GAAP financial measures do not include operating and other statistical measures or ratios or statistical measures calculated using exclusively financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. Non‑GAAP financial measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for the most directly comparable or other financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. Moreover, the way we calculate the non‑GAAP financial measures may differ from that of other companies reporting measures with similar names.

We calculate tangible equity as total shareholders’ equity, less goodwill and other intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization and tangible book value per share as tangible equity divided by shares of common stock outstanding at the end of the relevant period. The most directly comparable GAAP financial measure for tangible book value per share is book value per share. We calculate tangible assets as total assets less goodwill and other intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization. The most directly comparable GAAP financial measure for tangible equity to tangible assets is total shareholders’ equity to total assets. We believe that tangible book value per share and tangible equity to tangible assets are measures that are important to many investors in the marketplace who are interested in book value per share and total shareholders’ equity to total assets, exclusive of change in intangible assets.