TRICO BANCSHARES / - Annual Report: 2013 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

TriCo Bancshares

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:(530) 898-0300

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 whether the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    YES  ¨    NO  x

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    YES  ¨    NO  x

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 periods that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    YES  x    NO  ¨

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of the Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    YES  x    NO  ¨

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

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    YES  ¨    NO  x

The aggregate market value of the voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, as of June 30, 2013, was approximately $262,109,000 (based on the closing sales price of the Registrant’s common stock on the date). This computation excludes a total of 3,777,212 shares that are beneficially owned by the officers and directors of Registrant who may be deemed to be the affiliates of Registrant under applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The number of shares outstanding of Registrant’s common stock, as of February 28, 2014, was 16,107,242 shares of common stock, without par value.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The information required to be disclosed pursuant to Part III of this report either shall be (i) deemed to be incorporated by reference from selected portions of TriCo Bancshares’ definitive proxy statement for the 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, if such proxy statement is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A not later than 120 days after the end of the Company’s most recently completed fiscal year, or (ii) included in an amendment to this report filed with the Commission on Form 10-K/A not later than the end of such 120 day period.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

In addition to historical information, this Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements about TriCo Bancshares (the “Company,” “TriCo” or “we”) and its subsidiaries for which it claims the protection of the safe harbor provisions contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are based on Management’s current knowledge and belief and include information concerning the Company’s possible or assumed future financial condition and results of operations. When you see any of the words “believes”, “expects”, “anticipates”, “estimates”, or similar expressions, these generally indicate that we are making forward-looking statements. A number of factors, some of which are beyond the Company’s ability to predict or control, could cause future results to differ materially from those contemplated. These factors include those listed at Item 1A Risk Factors, in this report.

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and the Company does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements are made, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Information About TriCo Bancshares’ Business

TriCo Bancshares is a bank holding company incorporated in California in 1981 and registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”). The Company’s principal subsidiary is Tri Counties Bank, a California-chartered commercial bank (the “Bank”). The Bank offers banking services to retail customers and small to medium-sized businesses through 63 branch offices in Northern and Central California. See “Business of Tri Counties Bank”. As a bank holding company, TriCo is subject to the supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”) under the BHC Act. The Bank is subject to the supervision of the California Department of Business Oversight (the “DBO”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). The Company and the Bank are headquartered in Chico, California.

On July 31, 2003, the Company formed a subsidiary business trust, TriCo Capital Trust I, to issue trust preferred securities. On June 22, 2004, the Company formed a subsidiary business trust, TriCo Capital Trust II, to issue additional trust preferred securities. See Note 17 in the financial statements at Item 8 of this report for a discussion about the Company’s issuance of trust preferred securities. The Bank, TriCo Capital Trust I and TriCo Capital Trust II are TriCo’s only subsidiaries and TriCo does not conduct any material business operations independent of the Bank, TriCo Capital Trust I and TriCo Capital Trust II.

Additional information concerning the Company can be found on our website at www.tcbk.com. Copies of our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these reports are available free of charge through the investors relations page of our website, www.tcbk.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company files these reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The information on our website is not incorporated into this annual report.

Business of Tri Counties Bank

The Bank was incorporated as a California banking corporation on June 26, 1974, and received its certificate of authority to begin banking operations on March 11, 1975. The Bank engages in the general commercial banking business in the California counties of Butte, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mendocino, Merced, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo and Yuba. The Bank currently operates from 41 traditional branches and 22 in-store branches.

The Bank conducts a commercial banking business including accepting demand, savings and time deposits and making commercial, real estate, and consumer loans. It also offers installment note collection, issues cashier’s checks, sells travelers checks and provides safe deposit boxes and other customary banking services. Brokerage services are provided at the Bank’s offices by the Bank’s association with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., an independent financial services provider and broker-dealer. The Bank does not offer trust services or international banking services.

The Bank has emphasized retail banking since it opened. Most of the Bank’s customers are retail customers and small to medium-sized businesses. The Bank emphasizes serving the needs of local businesses, farmers and ranchers, retired individuals and wage earners. The majority of the Bank’s loans are direct loans made to individuals and businesses in Northern and Central California where its branches are located. At December 31, 2013, the total of the Bank’s consumer loans net of deferred fees outstanding was $383,163,000 (22.9%), the total of commercial loans outstanding was $131,878,000 (7.9%), and the total of real estate loans including construction loans of $49,103,000 was $1,156,966,000 (69.2%). The Bank takes real estate, listed and unlisted securities, savings and time deposits, automobiles, machinery, equipment, inventory, accounts receivable and notes receivable secured by property as collateral for loans.

Most of the Bank’s deposits are attracted from individuals and business-related sources. No single person or group of persons provides a material portion of the Bank’s deposits, the loss of any one or more of which would have a materially adverse effect on the business of the Bank, nor is a material portion of the Bank’s loans concentrated within a single industry or group of related industries.

Agreement to acquire North Valley Bancorp

On January 21, 2014, TriCo announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization under which it would acquire North Valley Bancorp (“North Valley”). North Valley shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.9433 shares of TriCo common stock for each share of North Valley common stock, which would provide North Valley shareholders with aggregate ownership, on a pro forma basis, of approximately 28.6% of the common stock of the combined company. Based on TriCo’s closing stock price of $27.66 on January 17, 2014, North Valley shareholders would have received consideration valued at approximately $26.09 per share.

The merger will not be completed unless a number of customary closing conditions are met, including, among others, approval of the merger by shareholders of both companies, the registration of the offering of the TriCo common stock to the North Valley shareholders under the Securities Act of 1933, receipt of required regulatory and other approvals and the

2

Table of Contents

expiration of applicable statutory waiting periods, the accuracy of specified representations and warranties of each party, the receipt of tax opinions confirming certain tax aspects of the merger, North Valley’s satisfaction of certain financial measures shortly prior to closing, and the absence of any injunctions or other legal restraints.

TriCo has agreed to appoint three North Valley directors to TriCo’s board upon closing of the merger. The merger is expected to be completed in the second or third quarter of 2014, subject to approval of the merger by shareholders of both companies, receipt of required regulatory and other approvals and satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

North Valley, headquartered in Redding, California, is the parent of North Valley Bank and had approximately $917.8 million in assets and 22 commercial banking offices in Shasta, Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Yolo, Sonoma, Placer and Trinity Counties in Northern California at December 31, 2013. In connection with the acquisition, North Valley Bank will merge into Tri Counties Bank.

As of December 31, 2013, on a pro forma consolidated basis with North Valley, TriCo would have had approximately $3.61 billion in assets.

Purchase and Assumption of Certain Assets and Liabilities of Citizens Bank of Northern California

On September 23, 2011, the Bank acquired certain of the assets and assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Citizens Bank of Northern California, Nevada City, California (“Citizens”), including substantially all the deposits from the FDIC, as receiver for Citizens. The acquisition was made pursuant to the terms of a purchase and assumption agreement entered into by the Bank and the FDIC. Based upon a preliminary closing with the FDIC as of September 23, 2011, the Bank acquired $167.5 million in loans, $9.4 million in investment securities, and $93.5 million in cash and other assets, and assumed an estimated $239.9 million in deposits, $22.0 million in borrowings, and $0.8 million in other liabilities. The Bank paid no cash or other consideration to acquire Citizens. See Note 2 in the financial statements at Item 8 of this report for a discussion about this transaction.

Purchase and Assumption of Certain Assets and Liabilities of Granite Community Bank

On May 28, 2010, the Bank acquired certain of the assets and assumed substantially all of the liabilities of Granite Community Bank, N.A., Granite Bay, California (“Granite”), including substantially all the deposits from the FDIC, as receiver for Granite. The acquisition was made pursuant to the terms of a purchase and assumption agreement entered into by the Bank and the FDIC. The Bank acquired $64.8 million in loans, $3.6 million in investment securities, and $31.9 million in cash and other assets, and assumed an estimated $95.0 million in deposits, $5.0 million in borrowings, and $0.05 million in other liabilities. The Bank paid no cash or other consideration to acquire Granite. In connection with the Acquisition, the Bank entered into a loss-sharing agreement with the FDIC that covered approximately $89.3 million of Granite’s assets (before fair value adjustments). The Bank will share in the losses on the asset pools (loans, foreclosed loan collateral, and certain investment securities) covered under the loss-sharing agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the loss sharing agreement, the FDIC is obligated to reimburse the Bank for 80% of losses with respect to covered assets. The Bank will reimburse the FDIC for 80% of recoveries with respect to losses for which the FDIC paid the Bank under the loss sharing agreement.

Other Activities

The Bank may in the future engage in other businesses either directly or indirectly through subsidiaries acquired or formed by the Bank subject to regulatory constraints. See “Regulation and Supervision”.

Employees

At December 31, 2013, the Company and the Bank employed 794 persons, including seven executive officers. Full time equivalent employees were 733. No employees of the Company or the Bank are presently represented by a union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. Management believes that its employee relations are good.

Competition

The banking business in California generally, and in the Bank’s primary service area of Northern and Central California specifically, is highly competitive with respect to both loans and deposits. It is dominated by a relatively small number of national and regional banks with many offices operating over a wide geographic area. Among the advantages such major banks have over the Bank is their ability to finance wide ranging advertising campaigns and to allocate their investment assets to regions of high yield and demand. By virtue of their greater total capitalization such institutions have substantially higher lending limits than does the Bank.

In addition to competing with savings institutions, commercial banks compete with other financial markets for funds as a result of the deregulation of the financial services industry. Yields on corporate and government debt securities and other commercial paper may be higher than on deposits, and therefore affect the ability of commercial banks to attract and hold deposits. Commercial banks also compete for available funds with money market instruments and mutual funds. During past periods of high interest rates, money market funds have provided substantial competition to banks for deposits and they may continue to do so in the future. Mutual funds are also a major source of competition for savings dollars.

3

Table of Contents

The Bank relies substantially on local promotional activity, personal contacts by its officers, directors, employees and shareholders, extended hours, personalized service and its reputation in the communities it services to compete effectively.

Regulation and Supervision

General

The Company and the Bank are subject to extensive regulation under both federal and state law. This regulation is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the deposit insurance fund, and the banking system as a whole, and not for the protection of shareholders of the Company. Set forth below is a summary description of the significant laws and regulations applicable to the Company and the Bank. The description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the applicable laws and regulations.

Regulatory Agencies

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

The Bank, as a state chartered bank, is subject to broad federal regulation and oversight extending to all its operations by the FDIC and to state regulation by the DBO.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

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

The Bank Holding Company Act

The Company is registered as a bank holding company under the BHC Act. In general, the BHC Act limits the business of bank holding companies to banking, managing or controlling banks and other activities that the FRB has determined to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. As a result of the Gramm-Bliley Act, which amended the BHC Act, qualified bank holding companies that elected to be financial holding companies may engage in any activity, or acquire and retain the shares of a company engaged in any activity, that is either (i) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity (as determined by the FRB in consultation with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”)) or (ii) complementary to a financial activity, and that does not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally (as determined solely by the FRB). Activities that are financial in nature include securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting and agency, and making merchant banking investments. The Company has not elected to become a financial holding company.

The BHC Act, the Bank Merger Act, and other federal and state statutes regulate acquisitions of commercial banks. The BHC Act requires the prior approval of the FRB for the direct or indirect acquisition of more than 5 percent of the voting shares of a commercial bank or its parent holding company. Under the Bank Merger Act, the prior approval of an acquiring bank’s primary federal regulator is required before it may merge with another bank or purchase the assets or assume the deposits of another bank. In reviewing applications seeking approval of merger and acquisition transactions, the bank regulatory authorities will consider, among other things, the competitive effect and public benefits of the transactions, the capital position of the combined organization, the applicant’s performance record under the Community Reinvestment Act, consumer compliance, fair housing laws and the effectiveness of the subject organizations in combating money laundering activities.

4

Table of Contents

CFPB Actions

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

The Bank is not subject to examination by the CFPB but is required to comply with CFPB rules and regulations.

Safety and Soundness Standards

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) implemented certain specific restrictions on transactions and required the regulators to adopt overall safety and soundness standards for depository institutions related to internal control, loan underwriting and documentation, and asset growth. Among other things, FDICIA limits the interest rates paid on deposits by undercapitalized institutions, the use of brokered deposits and the aggregate extension of credit by a depository institution to an executive officer, director, principal stockholder or related interest, and reduces deposit insurance coverage for deposits offered by undercapitalized institutions for deposits by certain employee benefits accounts.

Section 39 to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires the agencies to establish safety and soundness standards for insured financial institutions covering:

If an agency determines that an institution fails to meet any standard established by the guidelines, the agency may require the financial institution to submit to the agency an acceptable plan to achieve compliance with the standard. If the agency requires submission of a compliance plan and the institution fails to timely submit an acceptable plan or to implement an accepted plan, the agency must require the institution to correct the deficiency. An institution must file a compliance plan within 30 days of a request to do so from the institution’s primary federal regulatory agency. The agencies may elect to initiate enforcement action in certain cases rather than rely on an existing plan particularly where failure to meet one or more of the standards could threaten the safe and sound operation of the institution.

Restrictions on Dividends and Distributions

A California corporation such as TriCo may make a distribution to its shareholders to the extent that either the corporation’s retained earnings meet or exceed the amount of the proposed distribution or the value of the corporation’s assets exceed the amount of its liabilities plus the amount of shareholders preferences, if any, and certain other conditions are met. It is the FRB’s policy that bank holding companies should generally pay dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year, and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition.

The primary source of funds for payment of dividends by TriCo to its shareholders has been and will be the receipt of dividends and management fees from the Bank. TriCo’s ability to receive dividends from the Bank is limited by applicable state and federal law. Under the California Financial Code, funds available for cash dividend payments by a bank are restricted to the lesser of: (i) retained earnings; or (ii) the bank’s net income for its last three fiscal years (less any distributions to shareholders made during such period). However, with the prior approval of the Commissioner of the DBO, a bank may pay cash dividends in an amount not to exceed the greatest of the: (1) retained earnings of the bank; (2) net income of the bank for its last fiscal year; or (3) net income of the bank for its current fiscal year. However, if the DBO finds that the shareholders’ equity of the bank is not adequate or that the payment of a dividend would be unsafe or unsound, the Commissioner may order the bank not to pay a dividend to shareholders.

5

Table of Contents

Additionally, under FDICIA, a bank may not make any capital distribution, including the payment of dividends, if after making such distribution the bank would be in any of the “undercapitalized” categories under the FDIC’s Prompt Corrective Action regulations. A bank is undercapitalized for this purpose if its leverage ratios, Tier 1 risk-based capital level and total risk-based capital ratio are not at least four percent, four percent and eight percent, respectively.

The FRB, FDIC and the DBO have authority to prohibit a bank holding company or a bank from engaging in practices which are considered to be unsafe and unsound. Depending on the financial condition of TriCo and the Bank and other factors, the FRB, FDIC or the DBO could determine that payment of dividends or other payments by TriCo or the Bank might constitute an unsafe or unsound practice.

Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations

The Company is subject to many federal consumer protection statues and regulations, some of which are discussed below.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is intended to encourage insured depository institutions, while operating safely and soundly, to help meet the credit needs of their communities. This act specifically directs the federal regulatory agencies to assess a bank’s record of helping meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound practices. This act further requires the agencies to take a financial institution’s record of meeting its community credit needs into account when evaluating applications for, among other things, domestic branches, mergers or acquisitions, or holding company formations. The agencies use the Community Reinvestment Act assessment factors in order to provide a rating to the financial institution. The ratings range from a high of “outstanding” to a low of “substantial noncompliance.”

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act generally prohibits discrimination in any credit transaction, whether for consumer or business purposes, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age (except in limited circumstances), receipt of income from public assistance programs, or good faith exercise of any rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The Truth-in-Lending Act is designed to ensure that credit terms are disclosed in a meaningful way so that consumers may compare credit terms more readily and knowledgeably.

The Fair Housing Act regulates many practices, including making it unlawful for any lender to discriminate in its housing-related lending activities against any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap or familial status. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act grew out of public concern over credit shortages in certain urban neighborhoods and provides public information that will help show whether financial institutions are serving the housing credit needs of the neighborhoods and communities in which they are located. This act also includes a “fair lending” aspect that requires the collection and disclosure of data about applicant and borrower characteristics as a way of identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing anti-discrimination statutes.

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act requires lenders to provide borrowers with disclosures regarding the nature and cost of real estate settlements. Also, this act prohibits certain abusive practices, such as kickbacks, and places limitations on the amount of escrow accounts.

Penalties under the above laws may include fines, reimbursements, injunctive relief and other penalties.

USA Patriot Act of 2001

The USA Patriot Act was enacted in 2001 to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The impact of the Patriot Act on financial institutions is significant and wide ranging. The Patriot Act contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and requires various regulations, including:

Capital Requirements

Federal regulation imposes upon all financial institutions a variable system of risk-based capital guidelines designed to make capital requirements sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banking organizations, to take into account off-balance sheet exposures and to promote uniformity in the definition of bank capital uniform nationally.

6

Table of Contents

The Bank and the Company are subject to the minimum capital requirements of the FDIC and the FRB, respectively. As a result of these requirements, the growth in assets is limited by the amount of its capital as defined by the respective regulatory agency. Capital requirements may have an effect on profitability and the payment of dividends on the common stock of the Bank and the Company. If an entity is unable to increase its assets without violating the minimum capital requirements or is forced to reduce assets, its ability to generate earnings would be reduced.

The FRB and the FDIC have adopted guidelines utilizing a risk-based capital structure. Qualifying capital is divided into two tiers. Tier 1 capital consists generally of common stockholders’ equity, qualifying noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock (up to 25% of total Tier 1 capital) and minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, less goodwill and certain other intangible assets. Tier 2 capital consists of, among other things, allowance for loan and lease losses up to 1.25% of weighted risk assets, other perpetual preferred stock, hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt, mandatory convertible debt securities, subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock. Tier 2 capital qualifies as part of total capital up to a maximum of 100% of Tier 1 capital. Amounts in excess of these limits may be issued but are not included in the calculation of risk-based capital ratios. Under these risk-based capital guidelines, the Bank and the Company are required to maintain capital equal to at least 8% of its assets, of which at least 4% must be in the form of Tier 1 capital.

The guidelines also require the Company and the Bank to maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 4% of Tier 1 capital to total assets (the “leverage ratio”). The leverage ratio is determined by dividing an institution’s Tier 1 capital by its quarterly average total assets, less goodwill and certain other intangible assets. The leverage ratio constitutes a minimum requirement for the most well-run banking organizations. See Note 29 in the financial statements at Item 8 of this report for a discussion about the Company’s risk-based capital and leverage ratios.

New Capital Rules and the Basel Accords

The current risk-based capital guidelines which apply to the Company and the Bank are based upon the 1988 capital accord (referred to as “Basel I”) of the International Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”), a committee of central banks and bank supervisors and regulators from the major industrialized countries. The Basel Committee develops broad policy guidelines for use by each country’s supervisors in determining the supervisory policies they apply. On July 2, 2013, the FRB approved final rules that substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to TriCo and the Bank. The FDIC has subsequently approved these rules. The final rules implement the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. “Basel III” refers to two consultative documents released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2009, the rules text released in December 2010, and loss absorbency rules issued in January 2011, which include significant changes to bank capital, leverage and liquidity requirements.

The rules include new risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which would be phased in from 2015 to 2019, and would refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The new minimum capital level requirements applicable to TriCo and the Bank under the final rules would be: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The final rules also establish a “capital conservation buffer” above the new regulatory minimum capital requirements, which must consist entirely of common equity Tier 1 capital. The capital conservation buffer will be phased-in over four years beginning on January 1, 2016, as follows: the maximum buffer will be 0.625% of risk-weighted assets for 2016, 1.25% for 2017, 1.875% for 2018, and 2.5% for 2019 and thereafter. This will result in the following minimum ratios beginning in 2019: (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Under the final rules, institutions are subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital level falls below the buffer amount. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions. Basel III provided discretion for regulators to impose an additional buffer, the “countercyclical buffer,” of up to 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to take into account the macro-financial environment and periods of excessive credit growth. However, the final rules permit the countercyclical buffer to be applied only to “advanced approach banks” ( i.e., banks with $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures), which currently excludes TriCo and the Bank. The final rules also implement revisions and clarifications consistent with Basel III regarding the various components of Tier 1 capital, including common equity, unrealized gains and losses, as well as certain instruments that will no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, some of which will be phased out over time. However, the final rules provide that small depository institution holding companies with less than $15 billion in total assets as of December 31, 2009 (which includes TriCo) will be able to permanently include non-qualifying instruments that were issued and included in Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital prior to May 19, 2010 in additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital until they redeem such instruments or until the instruments mature.

The final rules also contain revisions to the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including the Bank, if their capital levels begin to show signs of weakness. These revisions take effect January 1, 2015. Under the prompt corrective action requirements, which are designed to complement the capital conservation buffer, insured depository institutions will be required to meet the following increased capital level requirements in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (increased from 4%).

7

Table of Contents

The final rules set forth certain changes for the calculation of risk-weighted assets, which we will be required to utilize beginning January 1, 2015. The standardized approach final rule utilizes an increased number of credit risk exposure categories and risk weights, and also addresses: (i) an alternative standard of creditworthiness consistent with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act Act; (ii) revisions to recognition of credit risk mitigation; (iii) rules for risk weighting of equity exposures and past due loans; (iv) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo-style transactions; and (v) disclosure requirements for top-tier banking organizations with $50 billion or more in total assets that are not subject to the “advance approach rules” that apply to banks with greater than $250 billion in consolidated assets. Based on our current capital composition and levels, we believe that we would be in compliance with the requirements applicable to us as set forth in the final rules if they were presently in effect.

Prompt Corrective Action

Prompt Corrective Action Regulations of the federal bank regulatory agencies establish five capital categories in descending order (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized), assignment to which depends upon the institution’s total risk-based capital ratio, Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio, and leverage ratio. Institutions classified in one of the three undercapitalized categories are subject to certain mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions, which include increased monitoring and review, implementation of capital restoration plans, asset growth restrictions, limitations upon expansion and new business activities, requirements to augment capital, restrictions upon deposit gathering and interest rates, replacement of senior executive officers and directors, and requiring divestiture or sale of the institution. The Bank has been classified as well-capitalized since adoption of these regulations.

Premiums for Deposit Insurance

Deposit accounts in the Bank are insured by the FDIC, generally up to a maximum of $250,000 per separately insured depositor. The Bank’s deposits are subject to FDIC deposit insurance assessments. The Bank pays insurance assessments based on its consolidated total assets less tangible equity capital. This assessment is based on the risk category of the institution. To determine the total base assessment rate, the FDIC first establishes an institution’s initial base assessment rate and then adjusts the initial base assessment based upon an institution’s levels of unsecured debt, secured liabilities, and brokered deposits. The total base assessment rate ranges from 2.5 to 45 basis points of the institution’s average consolidated total assets less tangible equity capital.

The Bank is generally unable to control the amount of premiums that it is required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures or if the FDIC otherwise determines, the Bank may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums than the recently increased levels. These announced increases and any future increases in FDIC insurance premiums may have a material and adverse affect on the Company’s earnings and could have a material adverse effect on the value of, or market for, the Company’s common stock.

The FDIC may terminate a depository institution’s deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution’s financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices that pose a risk to the DIF or that may prejudice the interest of the bank’s depositors. The termination of deposit insurance for the Bank would also result in the revocation of the Bank’s charter by the DBO.

Impact of Monetary Policies

Banking is a business that depends on interest rate differentials. In general, the difference between the interest paid by a bank on its deposits and other borrowings, and the interest rate earned by banks on loans, securities and other interest-earning assets comprises the major source of banks’ earnings. Thus, the earnings and growth of banks are subject to the influence of economic conditions generally, both domestic and foreign, and also to the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States and its agencies, particularly the FRB. The FRB implements national monetary policy, such as seeking to curb inflation and combat recession, by its open-market dealings in United States government securities, by adjusting the required level of reserves for financial institutions subject to reserve requirements and through adjustments to the discount rate applicable to borrowings by banks which are members of the FRB. The actions of the FRB in these areas influence the growth of bank loans, investments and deposits and also affect interest rates. The nature and timing of any future changes in such policies and their impact on the Company cannot be predicted. In addition, adverse economic conditions could make a higher provision for loan losses a prudent course and could cause higher loan loss charge-offs, thus adversely affecting the Company’s net earnings.

8

Table of Contents

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

In analyzing whether to make or continue an investment in the Company, investors should consider, among other factors, the following:

Risks Related to the Nature and Geographic Area of Our Business

We are exposed to risks in connection with the loans we make.

A significant source of risk for us arises from the possibility that we will sustain losses because borrowers, guarantors and related parties may fail to perform in accordance with the terms of their loans. Our earnings are significantly affected by our ability to properly originate, underwrite and service loans. We have underwriting and credit monitoring procedures and credit policies, including the establishment and review of the allowance for loan losses, that we believe to be appropriate to minimize this risk by assessing the likelihood of nonperformance, tracking loan performance and diversifying our respective loan portfolios. Such policies and procedures, however, may not prevent unexpected losses that could adversely affect our results of operations. We could sustain losses if we incorrectly assess the creditworthiness of our borrowers or fail to detect or respond to deterioration in asset quality in a timely manner.

Our allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual losses.

Like other financial institutions, we maintain an allowance for loan losses to provide for loan defaults and non-performance. Our allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual loan losses, and future provisions for loan losses could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The allowance for loan losses reflects our estimate of the probable losses in our loan portfolio at the relevant balance sheet date. Our allowance for loan losses is based on prior experience, as well as an evaluation of the known risks in the current portfolio, composition and growth of the loan portfolio and economic factors. The determination of an appropriate level of loan loss allowance is an inherently difficult process and is based on numerous assumptions. The amount of future losses is susceptible to changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates, that may be beyond our control and these losses may exceed current estimates. Federal and state regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review our loans and allowance for loan losses. While we believe that our allowance for loan losses is adequate to cover current losses, we cannot assure you that we will not increase the allowance for loan losses further or that the allowance will be adequate to absorb loan losses we actually incur. Either of these occurrences could have a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business may be adversely affected by business conditions in Northern and Central California.

We conduct most of our business in Northern and Central California. As a result of this geographic concentration, our results are impacted by the difficult economic conditions in California. A deterioration in the economic conditions or a prolonged delay in economic recovery in California could result in the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows:

In view of the concentration of our operations and the collateral securing our loan portfolio in both Northern and Central California, we may be particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of any of these consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

A significant majority of the loans in our portfolio are secured by real estate and a downturn in our real estate markets could hurt our business.

A downturn in our real estate markets or prolonged delay in economic recovery in California could hurt our business because most of our loans are secured by real estate. Real estate values and real estate markets are generally affected by changes in national, regional or local economic conditions, fluctuations in interest rates and the availability of loans to potential purchasers, changes in tax laws and other governmental statutes, regulations and policies and acts of nature. As real estate prices decline, the value of real estate collateral securing our loans is reduced. As a result, our ability to recover on defaulted loans by foreclosing and selling the real estate collateral could then be diminished and we would be more likely to suffer losses on defaulted loans. As of December 31, 2013, approximately 90.4% of the book value of our loan portfolio consisted of loans collateralized by various types of real estate. Substantially all of our real estate collateral is located in California. So if there is a significant adversely decline in real estate values in California, the collateral for our loans will provide less

9

Table of Contents

security. Real estate values could also be affected by, among other things, earthquakes, drought and national disasters in our markets. Any such downturn could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We depend on key personnel and the loss of one or more of those key personnel may materially and adversely affect our prospects.

Competition for qualified employees and personnel in the banking industry is intense and there are a limited number of qualified persons with knowledge of, and experience in, the California community banking industry. The process of recruiting personnel with the combination of skills and attributes required to carry out our strategies is often lengthy. Our success depends to a significant degree upon our ability to attract and retain qualified management, loan origination, finance, administrative, marketing and technical personnel and upon the continued contributions of our management and personnel. In particular, our success has been and continues to be highly dependent upon the abilities of our senior management team of Messrs. Smith, O’Sullivan, Bailey, Reddish, Carney, Rios, Hunter and Ms. Ward, who have expertise in banking and experience in the California markets we serve and have targeted for future expansion. We also depend upon a number of other key executives who are California natives or are long-time residents and who are integral to implementing our business plan. The loss of the services of any one of our senior executive management team or other key executives could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We are exposed to risk of environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title.

In the course of our business, we may foreclose and take title to real estate and could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. We may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or may be required to investigate or clean-up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. In addition, if we are the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property. If we become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

Strong competition in California could hurt our profits.

Competition in the banking and financial services industry is intense. Our profitability depends upon our continued ability to successfully compete. We compete exclusively in Northern and Central California for loans, deposits and customers with commercial banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, and brokerage and investment banking firms. In particular, our competitors include several major financial companies whose greater resources may afford them a marketplace advantage by enabling them to maintain numerous locations and mount extensive promotional and advertising campaigns. Additionally, banks and other financial institutions with larger capitalization and financial intermediaries not subject to bank regulatory restrictions may have larger lending limits which would allow them to serve the credit needs of larger customers. Areas of competition include interest rates for loans and deposits, efforts to obtain loan and deposit customers and a range in quality of products and services provided, including new technology-driven products and services. Technological innovation continues to contribute to greater competition in domestic and international financial services markets as technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services. We also face competition from out-of-state financial intermediaries that have opened loan production offices or that solicit deposits in our market areas. If we are unable to attract and retain banking customers, we may be unable to continue our loan growth and level of deposits and our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be adversely affected.

Our previous results may not be indicative of our future results.

We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth and level of profitability or may not even be able to grow our business or continue to be profitable at all. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and legislative considerations and competition, may also impede or prohibit our ability to expand our market presence and financial performance. If we experience a significant decrease in our historical rate of growth, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected due to a high percentage of our operating costs being fixed expenses.

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

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

10

Table of Contents

Recent health care legislation could increase our expenses or require us to pass further costs on to our employees, which could adversely affect our operations, financial condition and earnings.

Legislation enacted in 2010 requires companies to provide expanded health care coverage to their employees, such as affordable coverage to part-time employees and coverage to dependent adult children of employees. Companies will also be required to enroll new employees automatically into their health plans. Compliance with these and other new requirements of the health care legislation will increase our employee benefits expense, and may require us to pass these costs on to our employees, which could give us a competitive disadvantage in hiring and retaining qualified employees.

Our business may be adversely affected the continuing drought in California.

California is experiencing the third year of a severe drought. A considerable portion of our borrowers are involved in, or are impacted to some extent by, the agricultural industry, which is dependent on water. Agriculture operating loans comprised $33.5 million and $41.7 million, or 2.0% and 2.7%, of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. We also originate agriculture real estate loans, which comprised $55.5 million and $65.2 million or 3.3% and 4.2% of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2013 and 2012. As a result of the drought, there are various governmental proposals concerning the distribution or rationing of water. If the amount of water available to agriculture in our market areas becomes increasingly scarce due to drought, rationing and/or diversion, growers may not be able to continue to produce agricultural products at a reasonable profit, which has the potential to force many out of business. While many of our borrowers are not directly involved in agriculture, they could be impacted by difficulties in the agricultural industry because many jobs in our market areas are ancillary to the production, processing, marketing and sales of agricultural products. The drought has the potential to adversely affect agricultural industries as well as consumer purchasing power, and could lead to further unemployment throughout our market area. The drought therefore could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and asset quality.

Market and Interest Rate Risk

Decreasing interest rates could hurt our profits.

Our ability to earn a profit, like that of most financial institutions, depends on our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income we earn on our interest-earning assets, such as mortgage loans and investments, and the interest expense we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits. Our profitability depends on our ability to manage our assets and liabilities during periods of changing market interest rates. Recently, the FRB has maintained the targeted federal funds rate at record low levels. A sustained decrease in market interest rates could adversely affect our earnings. When interest rates decline, borrowers tend to refinance higher-rate, fixed-rate loans at lower rates. Under those circumstances, we would not be able to reinvest those prepayments in assets earning interest rates as high as the rates on the prepaid loans on investment securities. In addition, our commercial real estate and commercial loans, which carry interest rates that adjust in accordance with changes in the prime rate, will adjust to lower rates.

Our business is subject to interest rate risk and variations in interest rates may negatively affect our financial performance.

Because of the differences in the maturities and repricing characteristics of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, changes in interest rates do not produce equivalent changes in interest income earned on interest-earning assets and interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities. Accordingly, fluctuations in interest rates could adversely affect our interest rate spread and, in turn, our profitability. In addition, loan origination volumes are affected by market interest rates. Rising interest rates, generally, are associated with a lower volume of loan originations while lower interest rates are usually associated with higher loan originations. Conversely, in rising interest rate environments, loan repayment rates may decline and in falling interest rate environments, loan repayment rates may increase. Although we have been successful in generating new loans during 2013, the continuation of historically low long-term interest rate levels may cause additional refinancing of commercial real estate and 1-4 family residence loans, which may depress our loan volumes or cause rates on loans to decline. In addition, an increase in the general level of short-term interest rates on variable rate loans may adversely affect the ability of certain borrowers to pay the interest on and principal of their obligations or reduce the amount they wish to borrow. Additionally, if short-term market rates rise, in order to retain existing deposit customers and attract new deposit customers we may need to increase rates we pay on deposit accounts. Accordingly, changes in levels of market interest rates could materially and adversely affect our net interest spread, asset quality, loan origination volume, business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

11

Table of Contents

Regulatory Risks

Recently enacted financial reform legislation will, among other things, create a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tighten capital standards and result in new laws and regulations that are expected to increase our costs of operations.

On July 21, 2010, the President signed the Dodd-Frank Act. This new law significantly changes the current bank regulatory structure and affects the lending, deposit, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new implementing rules and regulations, and to prepare numerous studies and reports for Congress. The federal agencies are given significant discretion in drafting the implementing rules and regulations, and consequently, many of the details and much of the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act may not be known for many months or years.

Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with broad powers to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The CFPB has broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all banks and savings institutions, including the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over all banks and savings institutions with more than $10 billion in assets. Banks such as the Bank with $10 billion or less in assets will continue to be examined for compliance with the consumer laws by their primary bank regulators. The Dodd-Frank Act also weakens the federal preemption rules that have been applicable for national banks and federal savings associations, and gives state attorneys general the ability to enforce federal consumer protection laws.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires minimum leverage (Tier 1) and risk based capital requirements for bank and savings and loan holding companies that are no less than those applicable to banks, which will exclude certain instruments that previously have been eligible for inclusion by bank holding companies as Tier 1 capital, such as trust preferred securities (unless such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a bank holding company with less than $15 billion in assets).

It is difficult to predict at this time what specific impact the Dodd-Frank Act and the yet to be written implementing rules and regulations will have on community banks. However, it is expected that at a minimum they will increase our operating and compliance costs and could increase our interest expense.

We operate in a highly regulated environment and we may be adversely affected by changes in laws and regulations. Regulations may prevent or impair our ability to pay dividends, engage in acquisitions or operate in other ways.

We are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by the DBO, FDIC, and the FRB. See Item 1—Regulation and Supervision of this report for information on the regulation and supervision which governs our activities. Regulatory authorities have extensive discretion in their supervisory and enforcement activities, including the imposition of restrictions on our operations, the classification of our assets and determination of the level of our allowance for loan losses. Banking regulations, designed primarily for the protection of depositors, may limit our growth and the return to our shareholders by restricting certain of our activities, such as:

We also are subject to capitalization guidelines set forth in federal legislation and could be subject to enforcement actions to the extent that we are found by regulatory examiners to be undercapitalized. We cannot predict what changes, if any, will be made to existing federal and state legislation and regulations or the effect that such changes may have on our future business and earnings prospects. Any change in such regulation and oversight, whether in the form of regulatory policy, regulations, legislation or supervisory action, may have a material impact on our operations.

Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure may result in additional risks and expenses.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and new SEC regulations, are creating additional expense for publicly-traded companies such as TriCo. The application of these laws, regulations and standard may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies, which could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We are committed to maintaining high standards of corporate governance and public disclosure. As a result, our efforts to comply with evolving laws,

12

Table of Contents

regulations and standards have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, increased expenses and a diversion of management time and attention. In particular, our efforts to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the related regulations regarding management’s required assessment of its internal control over financial reporting and its external auditors’ audit of that assessment has required the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources. We expect these efforts to require the continued commitment of significant resources. Further, the members of our board of directors, members of our audit or compensation and management succession committees, our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer and certain other executive officers could face an increased risk of personal liability in connection with the performance of their duties. It may also become more difficult and more expensive to obtain director and officer liability insurance. As a result, our ability to attract and retain executive officers and qualified board and committee members could be more difficult.

We could be adversely affected by new regulations.

Federal and state governments and regulators could pass legislation and adopt policies responsive to current credit conditions that would have an adverse affect on the Company and its financial performance. For example, the Company could experience higher credit losses because of federal or state legislation or regulatory action that limits the Bank’s ability to foreclose on property or other collateral or makes foreclosure less economically feasible.

Risks Related to Growth and Expansion

If we cannot attract deposits, our growth may be inhibited.

We plan to increase the level of our assets, including our loan portfolio. Our ability to increase our assets depends in large part on our ability to attract additional deposits at favorable rates. We intend to seek additional deposits by offering deposit products that are competitive with those offered by other financial institutions in our markets and by establishing personal relationships with our customers. We cannot assure that these efforts will be successful. Our inability to attract additional deposits at competitive rates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

There are potential risks associated with future acquisitions and expansions.

We intend to continue to explore expanding our branch system through opening new bank branches and in-store branches in existing or new markets in Northern and Central California. In the ordinary course of business, we evaluate potential branch locations that would bolster our ability to cater to the small business, individual and residential lending markets in California. Any given new branch, if and when opened, will have expenses in excess of revenues for varying periods after opening that may adversely affect our results of operations or overall financial condition.

In addition, to the extent that we acquire other banks in the future, our business may be negatively impacted by certain risks inherent with such acquisitions. These risks include:

As result of these risks, any given acquisition, if and when consummated, may adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition. In addition, because the consideration for an acquisition may involve cash, debt or the issuance of shares of our stock and may involve the payment of a premium over book and market values, existing shareholders may experience dilution in connection with any acquisition.

13

Table of Contents

Our growth and expansion may strain our ability to manage our operations and our financial resources.

Our financial performance and profitability depend on our ability to execute our corporate growth strategy. In addition to seeking deposit and loan and lease growth in our existing markets, we may pursue expansion opportunities in new markets. Continued growth, however, may present operating and other problems that could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will be able to execute our growth strategy or maintain the level of profitability that we have recently experienced.

Our growth may place a strain on our administrative, operational and financial resources and increase demands on our systems and controls. This business growth may require continued enhancements to and expansion of our operating and financial systems and controls and may strain or significantly challenge them. In addition, our existing operating and financial control systems and infrastructure may not be adequate to maintain and effectively monitor future growth. Our continued growth may also increase our need for qualified personnel. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in attracting, integrating and retaining such personnel.

Our decisions regarding the fair value of assets acquired from Citizens and Granite, including the FDIC loss sharing assets associated with Granite, could be inaccurate which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects.

Management makes various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of acquired loans, including the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of secured loans. In FDIC-assisted acquisitions that include loss sharing agreements, such as our acquisition of Granite, we may record a loss sharing asset that we consider adequate to absorb future losses which may occur in the acquired loan portfolio. In determining the size of the loss sharing asset, we analyze the loan portfolio based on historical loss experience, volume and classification of loans, volume and trends in delinquencies and nonaccruals, local economic conditions, and other pertinent information.

If our assumptions are incorrect, the balance of the FDIC indemnification asset may at any time be insufficient to cover future loan losses, and credit loss provisions may be needed to respond to different economic conditions or adverse developments in the acquired loan portfolio. Any increase in future loan losses could have a negative effect on our operating results.

Our ability to obtain reimbursement under the loss sharing agreement on covered assets purchased from the FDIC depends on our compliance with the terms of the loss sharing agreement.

We must certify to the FDIC on a quarterly basis our compliance with the terms of the FDIC loss sharing agreement as a prerequisite to obtaining reimbursement from the FDIC for realized losses on covered assets. The required terms of the agreements are extensive and failure to comply with any of the guidelines could result in a specific asset or group of assets permanently losing their loss sharing coverage. Additionally, Management may decide to forgo loss share coverage on certain assets to allow greater flexibility over the management of certain assets. As of December 31, 2013, $28,586,000, or 1.0%, of the Company’s assets were covered by these FDIC loss sharing agreements.

Risks Relating to Dividends and Our Common Stock

Our future ability to pay dividends is subject to restrictions.

Since we are a holding company with no significant assets other than the Bank, we currently depend upon dividends from the Bank for a substantial portion of our revenues. Our ability to continue to pay dividends in the future will continue to depend in large part upon our receipt of dividends or other capital distributions from the Bank. The ability of the Bank to pay dividends or make other capital distributions to us is subject to the restrictions in the California Financial Code and the DBO. As of December 31, 2013, the Bank could have paid $44,548,000 in dividends without the prior approval of the DBO. The amount that the Bank may pay in dividends is further restricted due to the fact that the Bank must maintain a certain minimum amount of capital to be considered a “well capitalized” institution as further described under Item 1—Capital Requirements in this report.

From time to time, we may become a party to financing agreements or other contractual arrangements that have the effect of limiting or prohibiting us or the Bank from declaring or paying dividends. Our holding company expenses and obligations with respect to our trust preferred securities and corresponding junior subordinated deferrable interest debentures issued by us may limit or impair our ability to declare or pay dividends. Finally, our ability to pay dividends is also subject to the restrictions of the California Corporations Code. See “Regulation and Supervision – Restrictions on Dividends and Distributions”.

Only a limited trading market exists for our common stock, which could lead to price volatility.

Our common stock is quoted on Nasdaq and trading volumes have been modest. The limited trading market for our common stock may cause fluctuations in the market value of our common stock to be exaggerated, leading to price volatility in excess

14

Table of Contents

of that which would occur in a more active trading market of our common stock. In addition, even if a more active market in our common stock develops, we cannot assure you that such a market will continue or that shareholders will be able to sell their shares.

Anti-takeover provisions and federal law may limit the ability of another party to acquire us, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Various provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws could delay or prevent a third party from acquiring us, even if doing so might be beneficial to our shareholders. These provisions provide for, among other things:

The BHC Act and the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, together with federal regulations, require that, depending on the particular circumstances, either FRB approval must be obtained or notice must be furnished to the FRB and not disapproved prior to any person or entity acquiring “control” of a bank holding company such as TriCo. These provisions may prevent a merger or acquisition that would be attractive to shareholders and could limit the price investors would be willing to pay in the future for our common stock.

The amount of common stock owned by, and other compensation arrangements with, our officers and directors may make it more difficult to obtain shareholder approval of potential takeovers that they oppose.

As of December 31, 2013, directors and executive officers beneficially owned approximately 14.4% of our common stock and our Employee Stock Ownership Plan owned approximately 8.2%. Agreements with our senior management also provide for significant payments under certain circumstances following a change in control. These compensation arrangements, together with the common stock and option ownership of our board of directors and management, could make it difficult or expensive to obtain majority support for shareholder proposals or potential acquisition proposals of us that our directors and officers oppose.

We may issue additional common stock or other equity securities in the future which could dilute the ownership interest of existing shareholders.

In order to maintain our capital at desired or regulatorily-required levels, or to fund future growth, our board of directors may decide from time to time to issue additional shares of common stock, or securities convertible into, exchangeable for or representing rights to acquire shares of our common stock. The sale of these shares may significantly dilute your ownership interest as a shareholder. New investors in the future may also have rights, preferences and privileges senior to our current shareholders which may adversely impact our current shareholders.

Holders of our junior subordinated debentures have rights that are senior to those of our common stockholders.

We have supported our continued growth through the issuance of trust preferred securities from special purpose trusts and accompanying junior subordinated debentures. At December 31, 2013, we had outstanding trust preferred securities and accompanying junior subordinated debentures totaling $41,238,000. Payments of the principal and interest on the trust preferred securities are conditionally guaranteed by us. Further, the accompanying junior subordinated debentures we issued to the trusts are senior to our shares of common stock. As a result, we must make payments on the junior subordinated debentures before any dividends can be paid on our common stock and, in the event of our bankruptcy, dissolution or liquidation, the holders of the junior subordinated debentures must be satisfied before any distributions can be made on our common stock.

Risks Relating to Systems, Accounting and Internal Controls

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal and disclosure controls, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, current and potential shareholders could lose confidence in our financial reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our securities.

Effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud and to operate successfully as a public company. If we cannot provide

15

Table of Contents

reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our reputation and operating results would be harmed. We continually review and analyze our internal control over financial reporting for Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance. As part of that process we may discover material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control as defined under standards adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board that require remediation. Material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected in a timely basis. Significant deficiency is a deficiency or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that is less severe than material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those responsible for the oversight of the Company’s financial reporting.

As a result of weaknesses that may be identified in our internal control, we may also identify certain deficiencies in some of our disclosure controls and procedures that we believe require remediation. If we discover weaknesses, we will make efforts to improve our internal and disclosure control. However, there is no assurance that we will be successful. Any failure to maintain effective controls or timely effect any necessary improvement of our internal and disclosure controls could harm operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations, which could affect our ability to remain listed with Nasdaq. Ineffective internal and disclosure controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities.

We rely on communications, information, operating and financial control systems technology and we may suffer an interruption in or breach of the security of those systems.

We rely heavily on our communications, information, operating and financial control systems technology to conduct our business. We rely on third party services providers to provide many of these systems. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems could result in failures or interruptions in our customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, servicing and loan origination systems. We cannot assure you that such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed by us or the third parties service providers on which we rely. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customers, expose us to possible financial liability, lead to additional regulatory scrutiny or require that we make expenditures for remediation or prevention. Any of these circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

A failure to implement technological advances could negatively impact our business.

The banking industry is undergoing technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to improving customer services, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend, in part, on 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. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources than we do to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or successfully market such products and services to our customers.

Risks Related to the Announced Merger with North Valley Bancorp

Failure to consummate the Merger, or a delay in consummating the Merger, could negatively impact the market price of TriCo common stock and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

On January 21, 2014, TriCo and North Valley Bancorp entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”) providing for the merger of North Valley Bancorp with and into TriCo, with Trico as the surviving entity (the “Merger”).

Consummation of the Merger is subject to various customary conditions, including (i) approval by TriCo’s shareholders and North Valley Bancorp’s shareholders, (ii) receipt of certain required regulatory approvals without materially burdensome regulatory conditions, (iii) the absence of any governmental order or law prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, and (iv) effectiveness of the registration statement for the TriCo common stock to be issued as consideration in the Merger.

We have incurred substantial expenses in connection with the negotiation and preparations for completion of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. If the Merger is not completed, we will have incurred these expenses without realizing the expected benefits of the Merger. If the Merger is not consummated for any reason, our ongoing business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected and the market price of TriCo common stock may decline significantly, particularly to the extent that the current market price reflects a market assumption that the Merger will be consummated. If the consummation of the Merger is delayed, including by a delay in receipt of necessary governmental approvals or by the receipt of a competing acquisition proposal or by reason of litigation, our business, financial condition and results of operations may also be materially adversely affected. Additionally, if the Merger Agreement is terminated, under certain circumstances, TriCo could be required to pay a termination fee to North Valley

16

Table of Contents

Bancorp equal to $3,800,000. In addition, our business may have been impacted adversely by the failure to pursue other beneficial opportunities due to the focus of management on the Merger, without realizing any of the anticipated benefits of completing the Merger.

We may fail to realize the cost savings we have estimated for the Merger or integrate the business operations and managements of our two companies in an efficient manner.

The success of the Merger will depend, in part, on our ability to realize anticipated cost savings and to combine the businesses of TriCo and North Valley Bancorp in a manner that permits growth opportunities to be realized and does not materially disrupt the existing customer relationships of the Tri Counties Bank or North Valley Bank, nor result in decreased revenues due to any loss of customers.

TriCo and North Valley Bancorp have operated and, until the completion of the Merger, will continue to operate independently. To realize these anticipated benefits, the businesses of TriCo and North Valley and Tri Counties Bank and North Valley Bank must be successfully combined. While management has taken existing leases and other contractual obligations into consideration in developing its estimate of cost savings, changes in transaction volumes, operating systems and procedures and other factors may cause the actual cost savings to be different from these estimates. In addition, difficulties encountered in integrating our information systems could prevent us from realizing some of the estimated cost savings. Such difficulties could also jeopardize customer relationships and cause a loss of deposits or loan customers and the revenue associated with those customers. It is possible that the integration process could result in the loss of key employees, as well as the disruption of each company’s ongoing businesses or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies, any or all of which could adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with customers and employees after the Merger or to achieve the anticipated benefits of the Merger. Integration efforts between the two companies will also divert management attention and resources. A failure to successfully navigate the complicated integration process could have an adverse effect on the combined companies or the combined bank. If the combined bank is not able to achieve these cost-savings objectives, the anticipated benefits of the Merger may not be realized fully or at all or may take longer to realize than expected.

We are subject to various uncertainties and contractual restrictions while the Merger is pending that could disrupt the conduct of our business and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Uncertainty about the effect of the Merger on employees, customers, suppliers, and vendors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. These uncertainties may impair our ability or the ability of North Valley Bancorp to attract, retain and motivate key personnel, depositors and borrowers pending the consummation of the Merger, as such personnel, depositors and borrowers may experience uncertainty about their future roles following the consummation of the Merger. Additionally, these uncertainties could cause customers (including depositors and borrowers), suppliers, vendors and others who deal with us to seek to change existing business relationships with us or fail to extend an existing relationship with us. In addition, competitors may target our existing customers by highlighting potential uncertainties and integration difficulties that may result from the Merger.

In addition, the Merger Agreement restricts us from taking certain actions without North Valley Bancorp’s consent while the Merger is pending. These restrictions may, among other matters, prevent us from pursuing certain transactions or making other changes to our business prior to consummation of the Merger or termination of the Merger Agreement. These restrictions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have a small number of key personnel. The pursuit of the Merger and the preparation for the integration may place a burden on management and internal resources. Any significant diversion of management attention away from ongoing business concerns and any difficulties encountered in the transition and integration process could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The consideration to be paid in the Merger is fixed and will not be adjusted for changes in the business, assets, liabilities, prospects, outlook, financial condition or results of operations of TriCo or North Valley Bancorp, or in the event of any change in our stock price or North Valley Bancorp’s stock price.

The Merger Agreement provides that the merger consideration, i.e. the number of shares of TriCo common stock that we will issue to holders of North Valley Bancorp common stock, is fixed and will not be adjusted for changes in our business, assets, liabilities, prospects, outlook, financial condition or results of operations, or changes in the market price of, analyst estimates of, or projections relating to, TriCo common stock or those of North Valley Bancorp. For example, if we experienced an improvement in our business, assets, liabilities, prospects, outlook, financial condition or results of operations prior to the consummation of the Merger, there would be no adjustment to the amount of the merger consideration.

17

Table of Contents

The market price of our common stock after the Merger may be affected by factors different from those affecting our shares currently.

The results of operations of the combined company and the market price of our common stock after the completion of the Merger may be affected by factors different from those currently affecting the independent results of our operations and the market price of our common stock.

The costs relating to the Merger could reduce our future earnings per share.

We estimate that we have incurred or will incur significant transaction costs associated with the Merger, a portion of which will be incurred whether or not the Merger closes. We believe the combined company may incur charges to operations, which are not currently reasonably estimable, in the quarter in which the Merger is completed or subsequent quarters, to reflect costs associated with integrating Tri Counties Bank and North Valley Bank. There is no assurance that the combined company will not incur additional material charges in subsequent quarters to reflect additional costs associated with the Merger, including charges associated with the impairment of any goodwill booked in connection with the Merger.

The Failure of Tri Counties Bank’s or North Valley Bank’s Loan Portfolios to Perform as Expected May Unfavorably Impact Us.

Our performance and prospects after the Merger will be dependent to a significant extent on the performance of the combined loan portfolios of Tri Counties Bank and North Valley Bank, and ultimately on the financial condition of their respective borrowers and other customers. The existing loan portfolios of the two banks differ to some extent in the types of borrowers, industries and credits represented. In addition, there are differences in the documentation, classifications, underwriting and management of the portfolios. As a result, our overall loan portfolio after the Merger will have a different risk profile than the loan portfolio of either Tri Counties Bank or North Valley Bank before the Merger. The performance of the two loan portfolios will be adversely affected if any of such factors is worse than currently anticipated. In addition, to the extent that present customers are not retained by North Valley Bancorp or North Valley Bank, or additional expenses are incurred in retaining them, there could be adverse effects on our future consolidated results of operations following the Merger. The anticipated benefits of the Merger are dependent, in part, on the extent to which the revenues of North Valley Bancorp are maintained and enhanced.

Goodwill resulting from the Merger may adversely affect our results of operations.

Goodwill and other intangible assets are expected to increase substantially as a result of the Merger. Potential impairment of goodwill and amortization of other intangible assets could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. We assess our goodwill and other intangible assets and long-lived assets for impairment annually and more frequently when required by U.S. GAAP. We are required to record an impairment charge if circumstances indicate that the asset carrying values exceed their fair values. Our assessment of goodwill, other intangible assets, or long-lived assets could indicate that an impairment of the carrying value of such assets may have occurred that could result in a material, non-cash write-down of such assets, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and future earnings.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

The Company is engaged in the banking business through 63 offices in 23 counties in Northern and Central California including ten offices in Shasta County, nine in Butte County, seven in Sacramento and Nevada Counties, six in Placer County, four in Stanislaus County, three each in Siskiyou, Sutter and Kern Counties, two each in Glenn and Yolo Counties, and one each in Contra Costa, Del Norte, Fresno, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mendocino, Merced, Napa, Tehama, Tulare, and Yuba Counties. All offices are constructed and equipped to meet prescribed security requirements.

The Company owns twenty branch office locations, four administrative buildings, and two other buildings that it leases out. The Company leases forty-three branch office locations, and one administrative building. Most of the leases contain multiple renewal options and provisions for rental increases, principally for changes in the cost of living index, property taxes and maintenance.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Bank owns 10,214 shares of Class B common stock of Visa Inc. which are convertible into Class A common stock at a conversion ratio of 0.4206 per Class A share. As of December 31, 2013, the value of the Class A shares was $222.68 per share. Utilizing the conversion ratio, the value of unredeemed Class A equivalent shares owned by the Bank was $957,000 as of December 31, 2013, and has not been reflected in the accompanying financial statements. The shares of Visa Class B common stock are restricted and may not be transferred. Visa Member Banks are required to fund an escrow account to cover settlements, resolution of pending litigation and related claims. If the funds in the escrow account are insufficient to settle all the covered litigation, Visa may sell additional Class A shares, use the proceeds to settle litigation, and further reduce the conversion ratio. If funds remain in the escrow account after all litigation is settled, the Class B conversion ratio will be increased to reflect that surplus.

18

Table of Contents

On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against TriCo, North Valley Bancorp and certain other defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the Merger Agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration; approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders; entering into the Merger Agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys’ of the merger agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief. At this stage, TriCo is unable to predict the outcome of the proceedings or their impact on TriCo or North Valley Bancorp.

On September 27, 2012, the Company announced that the Bank entered into a tentative settlement with a former employee who filed a class action lawsuit against the Bank in the Superior Court of California, Kern County on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former Bank employees serving as assistant branch managers seeking undisclosed damages, alleging that the Bank improperly classified its assistant branch managers as exempt employees under California laws. The lawsuit alleges claims for: failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to provide suitable seating; declaratory relief; accounting; and unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200. On September 26, 2012, after efforts to mediate the claim, the Bank and the former employee agreed to settle the case in an amount ranging from $2,039,500 to $2,500,000, depending primarily on the number of class participants who file claims, and pending final approval by the court, including determination of the method to allocate settlement payments among current and former employees who are members of the defined settlement class, and the portion of the total settlement allocable to attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff’s counsel. On September 26, 2012, the Bank recorded a $2,090,000 expense and accrued liability in anticipation of approval of this settlement by the court and estimated related payroll taxes. On May 7, 2013, the court preliminariy approved the settlement. On August 27, 2013, the court approved a final settlement agreement for $2,429,000, and the Bank recorded an additional $339,000 expense and accrued liability related to this matter. During September 2013, the Bank paid the settlement amount.

The Bank is named as defendant in a lawsuit filed by a former employee seeking undisclosed damages, alleging that the Bank improperly terminated his employment under California law. The Bank denies all allegations and is vigorously defending the suit.

Neither the Company nor its subsidiaries, are party to any other material pending legal proceeding, nor is their property the subject of any material pending legal proceeding, except routine legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of their business. None of these proceedings is expected to have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s business, consolidated financial position or results of operations.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Inapplicable.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Common Stock Market Prices and Dividends

The Company’s common stock is traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol “TCBK.” The following table shows the high and the low closing sale prices for the common stock for each quarter in the past two years, as reported by Nasdaq:

19

Table of Contents

As of February 28, 2014 there were approximately 1,397 shareholders of record of the Company’s common stock. On February 28, 2014, the closing sales price was $24.99.

The Company has paid cash dividends on its common stock in every quarter since March 1990, and it is currently the intention of the Board of Directors of the Company to continue payment of cash dividends on a quarterly basis. There is no assurance, however, that any dividends will be paid since they are dependent upon earnings, financial condition and capital requirements of the Company and the Bank. As of December 31, 2013, $44,548,000 was available for payment of dividends by the Bank to the Company, under applicable laws and regulations. The Company paid cash dividends of $0.11 per common share in each of the quarters ended December 31, 2013, September 30, 2013, June 30, 2013, and $0.09 per common share in each of the quarters ended March 31, 2013, December 31, 2012, September 30, 2012, June 30, 2012, and March 31, 2012.

Stock Repurchase Plan

The Company adopted a stock repurchase plan on August 21, 2007 for the repurchase of up to 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock from time to time as market conditions allow. The 500,000 shares authorized for repurchase under this plan represented approximately 3.2% of the Company’s approximately 15,815,000 common shares outstanding as of August 21, 2007. This plan has no stated expiration date for the repurchases. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had purchased 166,600 shares under this plan. The following table shows the repurchases made by the Company or any affiliated purchaser (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Exchange Act) during the fourth quarter of 2013:

20

Table of Contents

The following graph presents the cumulative total yearly shareholder return from investing $100 on December 31, 2008, in each of TriCo common stock, the Russell 3000 Index, and the SNL Western Bank Index. The SNL Western Bank Index compiled by SNL Financial includes banks located in California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Hawaii and Alaska with market capitalization similar to that of TriCo’s. The amounts shown assume that any dividends were reinvested.

Equity Compensation Plans

The following table shows shares reserved for issuance for outstanding options, stock appreciation rights and warrants granted under our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2013. All of our equity compensation plans have been approved by shareholders.

21

Table of Contents

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following selected consolidated financial data are derived from our consolidated financial statements. This data should be read in connection with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes located at Item 8 of this report.

TRICO BANCSHARES

Financial Summary

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

22

Table of Contents

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

General

As TriCo Bancshares has not commenced any business operations independent of the Bank, the following discussion pertains primarily to the Bank. Average balances, including such balances used in calculating certain financial ratios, are generally comprised of average daily balances for the Company. Within Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, interest income and net interest income are generally presented on a fully tax-equivalent (FTE) basis. The presentation of interest income and net interest income on a FTE basis is a common practice within the banking industry. Interest income and net interest income are shown on a non-FTE basis in this Item 7 this report, and a reconciliation of the FTE and non-FTE presentations is provided below in the discussion of net interest income.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The Company’s discussion and analysis of its financial condition and results of operations are based upon its consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America. The preparation of these financial statements requires the Company to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an on-going basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those that materially affect the financial statements and are related to the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses, investments, mortgage servicing rights, fair value measurements, retirement plans and intangible assets. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. The Company’s policies related to estimates on the allowance for loan losses, other than temporary impairment of investments and impairment of intangible assets, can be found in Note 1 in the financial statements at Item 8 of this report.

Average balances, including balances used in calculating certain financial ratios, are generally comprised of average daily balances for the Company. Within Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, certain performance measures including interest income, net interest income, net interest yield, and efficiency ratio are generally presented on a fully tax-equivalent (FTE) basis. The Company believes the use of these non-generally accepted accounting principles (non-GAAP) measures provides additional clarity in assessing its results.

On January 21, 2014, TriCo announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization under which it would acquire North Valley Bancorp. North Valley Bancorp shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.9433 shares of TriCo common stock for each share of North Valley Bancorp common stock, which would provide North Valley Bancorp shareholders with aggregate ownership, on a pro forma basis, of approximately 28.6% of the common stock of the combined company. Based on TriCo’s closing stock price of $27.66 on January 17, 2014, North Valley Bancorp shareholders would have received consideration valued at approximately $26.09 per share.

The Merger will not be completed unless a number of customary closing conditions are met, including, among others, approval of the merger by shareholders of both companies, the registration of the offering of the TriCo common stock to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders under the Securities Act of 1933, receipt of required regulatory and other approvals and the expiration of applicable statutory waiting periods, the accuracy of specified representations and warranties of each party, the receipt of tax opinions confirming certain tax aspects of the merger, North Valley Bancorp’s satisfaction of certain financial measures shortly prior to closing, and the absence of any injunctions or other legal restraints.

TriCo has agreed to appoint three North Valley Bancorp directors to TriCo’s board upon closing of the Merger. The Merger is expected to be completed in the second or third quarter of 2014, subject to approval of the Merger by shareholders of both companies, receipt of required regulatory and other approvals and satisfaction of customary closing conditions.

North Valley, headquartered in Redding, California, is the parent of North Valley Bank and had approximately $917.8 million in assets and 22 commercial banking offices in Shasta, Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Yolo, Sonoma, Placer and Trinity Counties in Northern California at December 31, 2013. In connection with the acquisition, North Valley Bank will merge into the Bank.

As of December 31, 2013, on a pro forma consolidated basis with North Valley Bancorp, TriCo would have had approximately $3.61 billion in assets.

On September 23, 2011, the California DBO closed Citizens Bank of Northern California (“Citizens”), Nevada City, California and appointed the FDIC as receiver. That same date, the Bank assumed the banking operations of Citizens from the FDIC under a whole bank purchase and assumption agreement without loss sharing. With this agreement, the Bank added seven traditional bank branches including two in Grass Valley, and one in each of Nevada City, Penn Valley, Lake of the Pines, Truckee, and Auburn, California. This acquisition is consistent with the Bank’s community banking expansion strategy and provides further opportunity to fill in the Bank’s market presence in the Northern California market.

23

Table of Contents

On May 28, 2010, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency closed Granite Community Bank (“Granite”), Granite Bay, California and appointed the FDIC as receiver. That same date, the Bank assumed the banking operations of Granite from the FDIC under a whole bank purchase and assumption agreement with loss sharing. Under the terms of the loss sharing agreement, the FDIC will cover a substantial portion of any future losses on loans, related unfunded loan commitments, other real estate owned (OREO)/foreclosed assets and accrued interest on loans for up to 90 days. The FDIC will absorb 80% of losses and share in 80% of loss recoveries on the covered assets acquired from Granite. The loss sharing arrangements for non-single family residential and single family residential loans are in effect for 5 years and 10 years, respectively, and the loss recovery provisions are in effect for 8 years and 10 years, respectively, from the acquisition date. With this agreement, the Bank added one traditional bank branch in each of Granite Bay and Auburn, California. This acquisition is consistent with the Bank’s community banking expansion strategy and provides further opportunity to fill in the Bank’s market presence in the greater Sacramento, California market.

The Company refers to loans and foreclosed assets that are covered by loss sharing agreements as “covered loans” and “covered foreclosed assets”, respectively. In addition, the Company refers to loans purchased or obtained in a business combination as “purchased credit impaired” (PCI) loans, or “purchased not credit impaired” (PNCI) loans. The Company refers to loans that it originates as “originated” loans. Additional information regarding the Citizens acquisition can be found in Note 2 in the financial statements at Item 8 of this report. Additional information regarding the definitions and accounting for originated, PNCI and PCI loans can be found in Notes 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the financial statements at Item 8 of this report, and under the heading Asset Quality and Non-Performing Assets below.

Geographical Descriptions

For the purpose of describing the geographical location of the Company’s loans, the Company has defined northern California as that area of California north of, and including, Stockton; central California as that area of the State south of Stockton, to and including, Bakersfield; and southern California as that area of the State south of Bakersfield.

Results of Operations

Overview

The following discussion and analysis is designed to provide a better understanding of the significant changes and trends related to the Company and the Bank’s financial condition, operating results, asset and liability management, liquidity and capital resources and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of the Company and the related notes at Item 8 of this report.

Following is a summary of the components of net income for the periods indicated (dollars in thousands):

24

Table of Contents

Net Interest Income

The Company’s primary source of revenue is net interest income, which is the difference between interest income on earning assets and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities.

Following is a summary of the Company’s net interest income for the periods indicated (dollars in thousands):

Net interest income (FTE) for the year ended December 31, 2013 was $102,214,000, an increase of $585,000 or 0.6% compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. The increase in net interest income during 2013 when compared to 2012 is mainly due to a decrease in average balance of other borrowings, a shift in deposit balances from relatively high interest rate earning time deposits to noninterest-earning, demand, and savings deposits, an increase in the average balance of investments securities, and an increase in the average balance of loans; all of which were substantially offset by a decrease in the average yield on loans. The “Yield” and “Volume/Rate” tables shown below are useful in illustrating and quantifying the developments that affected net interest income during 2013.

Net interest income (FTE) for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $101,629,000, an increase of $8,576,000 or 9.2% compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase in net interest income during 2012 when compared to 2011 is mainly due to the acquisition of Citizens on September 23, 2011 and its associated net interest income of $17,852,000 during 2012 compared to $6,117,000 from the acquisition date of September 23, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Included in the net interest income associated with the Citizens acquisition is $7,572,000 and $3,146,000 from the accretion of loan purchase discounts during 2012 and 2011, respectively. Also contributing to the increase in net interest income was a reduction in deposit rates, the flow of deposits from relatively higher paying time deposits to lower paying non-maturity deposits, and the reduction of relatively high cost other borrowings. During 2012, investment opportunities continued to be unattractive given their low market yields and interest rate risk profile. The “Yield” and “Volume/Rate” tables shown below are useful in illustrating and quantifying the developments that affected net interest income during 2012.

25

Table of Contents

Summary of Average Balances, Yields/Rates and Interest Differential – Yield Tables

The following tables present, for the periods indicated, information regarding the Company’s consolidated average assets, liabilities and shareholders’ equity, the amounts of interest income from average earning assets and resulting yields, and the amount of interest expense paid on interest-bearing liabilities. Average loan balances include nonperforming loans. Interest income includes proceeds from loans on nonaccrual loans only to the extent cash payments have been received and applied to interest income. Yields on securities and certain loans have been adjusted upward to reflect the effect of income thereon exempt from federal income taxation at the current statutory tax rate (dollars in thousands):

26

Table of Contents

Summary of Average Balances, Yields/Rates and Interest Differential – Yield Tables (continued)

27

Table of Contents

Summary of Changes in Interest Income and Expense due to Changes in Average Asset and Liability Balances and Yields Earned and Rates Paid – Volume/Rate Tables

The following table sets forth a summary of the changes in the Company’s interest income and interest expense from changes in average asset and liability balances (volume) and changes in average interest rates for the periods indicated. The rate/volume variance has been included in the rate variance. Amounts are calculated on a fully taxable equivalent basis:

Provision for Loan Losses

The provision for loan losses during any period is the sum of the allowance for loan losses required at the end of the period and any loan charge offs during the period, less the allowance for loan losses required at the beginning of the period, and less any loan recoveries during the period. See the Tables labeled “Allowance for loan losses – year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012” at Note 5 in Item 8 of Part II of this report for the components that make up the provision for loan losses for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.

The Company benefited from a $715,000 reversal of provision for loan losses during the year ended December 31, 2013 versus a provision for loan losses of $9,423,000 during the year ended December 31, 2012. As shown in the Table labeled “Allowance for Loan Losses— year ended December 31, 2013” at Note 5 in Item 8 of Part II of this report, residential real estate mortgage loans, home equity lines of credit and auto indirect loans experienced a reversal of provision for loan losses during the year ended December 31, 2013. All other categories of loans experienced a provision for loan losses during the year ended December 31, 2013. The level of provision, or reversal of provision, for loan losses of each loan category during the year ended December 31, 2013 was due primarily to a decrease in the required allowance for loan losses as of December 31, 2013 when compared to the required allowance for loan losses as of December 31, 2012 less net charge-offs during the year ended December 31, 2013, and the effect of the changes in the allowance methodology during the year ended December 31, 2013 as described under the heading “Loans and Allowance for Loan Losses” at Note 1 in Item 8 of Part II of this report. All categories of loans except commercial real estate mortgage loans, home equity loans, and residential construction loans experienced a decrease in the required allowance for loan losses during the year ended December 31, 2013. These decreases in required allowance for loan losses were due primarily to reduced impaired loans, improvements in estimated cash flows and collateral values for the remaining and newly impaired loans, and reductions in historical loss factors that, in part, determine the required loan loss allowance for performing loans in accordance with the Company’s allowance for loan losses methodology as described under the heading “Loans and Allowance for Loan Losses” at Note 1 in Item 8 of Part II of this report. These same factors were also present, to some extent, for commercial real estate mortgage loans, home equity loans, and residential construction loans, but were more than offset by the effect of increased loan balances or changes in credit quality within the “pass” category of these loan categories resulting in net provisions for loan losses in these categories during the year ended December 31, 2013. For details of the change in nonperforming loans during the year ended December 31, 2013 see the Tables, and associated narratives, labeled “Changes in nonperforming assets during the year ended December 31, 2013” and “Changes in nonperforming assets during the three months ended December 31, September 30, June 30, and March 31, 2013” under the heading “Asset Quality and Non-Performing Assets” below. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company made several changes to its allowance for loan loss methodology. The changes in methodology are described under the heading “Allowance for loan losses” in the section below labeled “Financial Condition”. Excluding the effect of the changes in allowance methodology during the year ended December 31, 2013, the reversal of provision for loan losses during the year ended December 31, 2013 would have been approximately $4,188,000, or $3,473,000 more than the $715,000 that was actually recorded, and the allowance for loan losses at December 31, 2013 would have been approximately $34,772,000, or $3,473,000 less than the $38,245,000 that was actually recorded.

28

Table of Contents

The provision for loan losses was $9,423,000 and $23,060,000 for the years ended December 31, 2012, and 2011, respectively. The decrease in the provision for loan losses for the year ended December 31, 2012 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2011 was primarily the result of improvement in collateral values and estimated cash flows related to nonperforming loans and purchased credit impaired loans, and a reduction in nonperforming loans.

The provision for loan losses related to Originated and PNCI loans is based on management’s evaluation of inherent risks in these loan portfolios and a corresponding analysis of the allowance for loan losses. The provision for loan losses related to PCI loan portfolio is based on changes in estimated cash flows expected to be collected on PCI loans. Additional discussion on loan quality, our procedures to measure loan impairment, and the allowance for loan losses is provided under the heading “Asset Quality and Non-Performing Assets” below.

Management re-evaluates the loss ratios and other assumptions used in its calculation of the allowance for loan losses for its Originated and PNCI loan portfolios on a quarterly basis and makes changes as appropriate based upon, among other things, changes in loss rates experienced, collateral support for underlying loans, changes and trends in the economy, and changes in the loan mix. Management also re-evaluates expected cash flows used in its accounting for its PCI loan portfolio, including any required allowance for loan losses, on a quarterly basis and makes changes as appropriate based upon, among other things, changes in loan repayment experience, changes in loss rates experienced, and collateral support for underlying loans.

Noninterest Income

The following table summarizes the Company’s noninterest income for the periods indicated (dollars in thousands):

Noninterest income decreased $1,151,000 (3.0%) to $36,829,000 in 2013. Service charges on deposit accounts were down $1,574,000 (11.0%) due to reduced customer overdrafts and a resulting decrease in non-sufficient funds fees. ATM fees and interchange income was up $608,000 (7.8%) due to increased customer point-of-sale transactions that are primarily the result of incentives for such usage. Overall, mortgage banking activities, which includes mortgage banking servicing fees, change in value of mortgage servicing rights, and gain on sale of loans, accounted for $7,629,000 of noninterest income in the 2013 compared to $6,460,000 in 2012. This $1,169,000 (18.1%) increase in mortgage banking related revenue is mainly due to historically low mortgage rates and the associated high level of mortgage refinance activity that existed during most of 2013, the Bank’s focus of resources in this area, and an increase in mortgage rates in the second half of 2013 that while significantly decreasing originations, sales, and gain on sale of loans during the second half of 2013, also resulted in an increase in the value of the Company’s mortgage servicing rights during 2013. Commissions on sale of nondeposit investment products decreased $226,000 (7.0%) in 2013. The change in indemnification asset from ($286,000) in 2012 to ($1,649,000) in 2013 is primarily due to a decrease in estimated loan losses from the loan portfolio and foreclosed assets acquired in the Granite acquisition on May 28, 2010, and the fact that such losses are generally “covered” at the rate of 80% by the FDIC. The decrease in estimated losses is also reflected in increased interest income, decreased provision for loan losses and/or decreased provision for foreclosed asset losses.

Noninterest income decreased $4,833,000 (11.3%) to $37,980,000 in 2012. Excluding bargain purchase gains and gain on life insurance death benefits, noninterest income would have increased $2,856,000 (8.3%) to $37,305,000 in 2012 from $34,449,000 in 2011. Service charges on deposit accounts were down $486,000 (3.3%) due to reduced customer overdrafts and a resulting decrease in non-sufficient funds fees. ATM fees and interchange income was up $704,000 (10.0%) due to increased customer point-of-sale transactions that are the result of incentives for such usage. Overall, mortgage banking

29

Table of Contents

activities, which includes mortgage banking servicing fees, change in value of mortgage servicing rights, and gain on sale of loans, accounted for $6,460,000 of noninterest income in the 2012 compared to $3,425,000 in 2011. This $3,035,00 (88.6%) increase in mortgage banking related revenue is mainly due to historically low mortgage rates, an associated level of mortgage refinance activity, and the Bank’s focus of resources in this area. Commissions on sale of nondeposit investment products increased $1,104,000 (52.4%) in 2012 due to the Bank’s focus of resources in this area. The change in indemnification asset from $2,059,000 in 2011 to ($286,000) in 2012 is primarily due to a decrease in estimated loan losses from the loan portfolio and foreclosed assets acquired in the Granite acquisition on May 28, 2010, and the fact that such losses are generally “covered” at the rate of 80% by the FDIC. The actual decrease in estimated losses is reflected in increased interest income, decreased provision for loan losses and/or decreased provision for foreclosed asset losses. The operations of Citizens added $2,585,000 to noninterest income during 2012.

Noninterest Expense

The following table summarizes the Company’s other noninterest expense for the periods indicated (dollars in thousands):

Salary and benefit expenses increased $1,984,000 (4.0%) to $51,936,000 during the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. Base salaries increased $1,311,000 (4.0%) to $34,404,000 during the year ended December 31, 2013. The increase in base salaries was mainly due to annual merit increases and an increase in administrative, central operations, and electronic banking personnel that were partially offset by a reduction in branch personnel. Average full time equivalent personnel decreased to 733 during the year ended December 31, 2013 from 737 during the year ended December 31, 2012. Incentive and commission related salary expenses decreased $444,000 (8.6%) to $4,694,000 during year ended December 31, 2013 due primarily to reduced mortgage loan production incentives when compared to the prior year. Benefits expense, including retirement, medical and workers’ compensation insurance, and taxes, increased $1,117,000 (9.5%) to $12,838,000 during the year ended December 31, 2013 primarily due to increased medical insurance costs, employee stock ownership plan expense, and employer payroll taxes.

Salary and benefit expenses increased $5,749,000 (13.0%) to $49,952,000 in 2012 compared to 2011. Base salaries increased $3,340,000 (11.2%) to $33,093,000 in 2012. The increase in base salaries was mainly due to a 50 FTE (7.3%) increase in average full time equivalent staff to 737 during 2012, and annual merit increases. Incentive and commission related salary expenses increased $1,403,000 (37.6%) to $5,138,000 in 2012 due primarily to increases in commissions related to loan production and nondeposit investment product fee production. Benefits expense, including retirement, medical and workers’ compensation insurance, and taxes, increased $1,006,000 (9.4%) to $11,721,000 during 2012. The operations of Citizens added $2,452,000 and $751,000 to salaries and benefits expense for the year ended December 31, 2012, and the period from September 23, 2011 to December 31, 2011, respectively.

30

Table of Contents

Other noninterest expenses decreased $6,378,000 (13.3%) to $41,668,000 during the year ended December 31, 2013 when compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. The decrease in other noninterest expense is primarily due to decreases of $2,075,000, $1,751,000, $1,046,000, $960,000, and $895,000 in change in reserve for unfunded commitments, legal settlement expense, provision for foreclosed asset losses, foreclosed asset expenses, and advertising and marketing expense, respectively, from the prior year. The decrease in change in reserve for unfunded commitments was mainly due to improved loss histories for performing originated loans that are used to calculate the required reserve for unfunded commitments. The decrease in legal settlement expense is due to the resolution of a legal proceeding, and is further described at Item 3 of Part I of this report. The decreases in provision for foreclosed asset losses and foreclosed asset expense are due to decreased foreclosed assets, and improved values of foreclosed values. During 2013, the Bank opened no branches, closed three (leased) branches, closed one (leased) non-branch facility, and opened its Campus (owned) facility.

Other noninterest expenses increased $9,534,000 (24.8%) to $48,046,000 in 2012. The operations of Citizens added $3,333,000 to other noninterest expense during 2012, compared to $1,114,000 from September 23, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Changes in the various categories of other noninterest expense are reflected in the table above. The changes from 2011 to 2012 are indicative of the economic environment which lead to increases in professional loan collection expenses, provision for foreclosed asset losses, and foreclosed asset expenses. Occupancy expense increased primarily due to seven branches and one admin facility acquired in the Citizens acquisition on September 23, 2011. The increase in change in reserve for unfunded commitments during 2012 is primarily due to increased unfunded construction loan commitments during the three months ended December 31, 2012. During 2012, the Bank opened one (leased) branch, and closed two (leased) branches.

Income Taxes

The effective tax rate on income was 40.2%, 40.5%, and 37.6% in 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. The effective tax rate was greater than the federal statutory tax rate due to state tax expense of $4,811,000, $3,277,000, and $2,845,000, respectively, in these years. Tax-exempt income of $583,000, $428,000, and $514,000, respectively, from investment securities, and $1,727,000, $2,495,000, and $2,674,000, respectively, from increase in cash value and gain on death benefit of life insurance in these years helped to reduce the effective tax rate.

Financial Condition

Investment Securities

The following table presents the available for sale investment securities portfolio by major type as of the dates indicated:

Investment securities available for sale decreased $58,380,000 to $104,647,000 as of December 31, 2013, as compared to December 31, 2012. This decrease is attributable to maturities and principal repayments of $53,468,000, a decrease in fair value of investments securities available for sale of $4,233,000, and amortization of net purchase price premiums of $679,000.

The following table presents the held to maturity investment securities portfolio by major type as of the dates indicated:

Investment securities held to maturity increased to $240,504,000 as of December 31, 2013, as compared to December 31, 2012. This increase is attributable to purchases of $244,967,000, less principal repayments of $4,391,000, and amortization of net purchase price discounts/premiums of $72,000.

Additional information about the investment portfolio is provided in Note 3 in the financial statements at Item 8 of Part II of this report.

31

Table of Contents

Restricted Equity Securities

Restricted equity securities were $9,163,000 at December 31, 2013 and $9,647,000 at December 31, 2012. The entire balance of restricted equity securities at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 represents the Bank’s investment in the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (“FHLB”). The decrease of $484,000 is attributable to the redemption of $484,000 of FHLB stock.

FHLB stock is carried at par and does not have a readily determinable fair value. While technically these are considered equity securities, there is no market for the FHLB stock. Therefore, the shares are considered as restricted investment securities. Management periodically evaluates FHLB stock for other-than-temporary impairment. Management’s determination of whether these investments are impaired is based on its assessment of the ultimate recoverability of cost rather than by recognizing temporary declines in value. The determination of whether a decline affects the ultimate recoverability of cost is influenced by criteria such as (1) the significance of any decline in net assets of the FHLB as compared to the capital stock amount for the FHLB and the length of time this situation has persisted, (2) commitments by the FHLB to make payments required by law or regulation and the level of such payments in relation to the operating performance of the FHLB, (3) the impact of legislative and regulatory changes on institutions and, accordingly, the customer base of the FHLB, and (4) the liquidity position of the FHLB.

As a member of the FHLB system, the Company is required to maintain a minimum level of investment in FHLB stock based on specific percentages of its outstanding mortgages, total assets, or FHLB advances. The Company may request redemption at par value of any stock in excess of the minimum required investment. Stock redemptions are at the discretion of the FHLB.

Loans

The Bank concentrates its lending activities in four principal areas: real estate mortgage loans (residential and commercial loans), consumer loans, commercial loans (including agricultural loans), and real estate construction loans. The interest rates charged for the loans made by the Bank vary with the degree of risk, the size and maturity of the loans, the borrower’s relationship with the Bank and prevailing money market rates indicative of the Bank’s cost of funds.

The majority of the Bank’s loans are direct loans made to individuals, farmers and local businesses. The Bank relies substantially on local promotional activity and personal contacts by bank officers, directors and employees to compete with other financial institutions. The Bank makes loans to borrowers whose applications include a sound purpose, a viable repayment source and a plan of repayment established at inception and generally backed by a secondary source of repayment.

Loan Portfolio Composite

The following table shows the Company’s loan balances, including net deferred loan costs, at the dates indicated:

The following table shows the Company’s loan balances, including net deferred loan costs, as a percentage of total loans at the dates indicated:

At December 31, 2013 loans, including net deferred loan costs, totaled $1,672,007,000 which was a 6.8% ($107,184,000) increase over the balances at the end of 2012. Demand for commercial real estate (real estate mortgage) loans was weak to modest during 2013. During 2013, the Company purchased $62,698,000 of residential (real estate mortgage) loans. Demand for home equity loans and lines of credit were weak during 2013. Real estate construction loans increased during 2013 primarily due to one large loan that was originated during 2013.

32

Table of Contents

At December 31, 2012 loans, including net deferred loan costs, totaled $1,564,823,000 which was a 0.9% ($13,791,000) increase over the balances at the end of 2011. Demand for commercial real estate (real estate mortgage) loans was weak to modest during 2012. Demand for home equity loans and lines of credit were weak during 2012. Real estate construction loans declined during 2012 as did auto dealer loans.

At December 31, 2011 loans, including net deferred loan costs, totaled $1,551,032,000 which was a 9.3% ($131,461,000) increase over the balances at the end of 2010. This increase in loans during 2011 included $167,484,000 of loans acquired in the Citizens acquisition on September 23, 2011. Demand for commercial real estate (real estate mortgage) loans was weak during 2011. Demand for home equity loans and lines of credit was weak to modest during 2011. Real estate construction loans declined during 2011 as did auto dealer loans.

Asset Quality and Nonperforming Assets

Nonperforming Assets

Loans originated by the Company, i.e., not purchased or acquired in a business combination, are referred to as originated loans. Originated loans are reported at the principal amount outstanding, net of deferred loan fees and costs. Loan origination and commitment fees and certain direct loan origination costs are deferred, and the net amount is amortized as an adjustment of the related loan’s yield over the actual life of the loan. Originated loans on which the accrual of interest has been discontinued are designated as nonaccrual loans.

Originated loans are placed in nonaccrual status when reasonable doubt exists as to the full, timely collection of interest or principal, or a loan becomes contractually past due by 90 days or more with respect to interest or principal and is not well secured and in the process of collection. When an originated loan is placed on nonaccrual status, all interest previously accrued but not collected is reversed. Income on such loans is then recognized only to the extent that cash is received and where the future collection of principal is probable. Interest accruals are resumed on such loans only when they are brought fully current with respect to interest and principal and when, in the judgment of Management, the loan is estimated to be fully collectible as to both principal and interest.

An allowance for loan losses for originated loans is established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense. Originated loans and deposit related overdrafts are charged against the allowance for loan losses when Management believes that the collectability of the principal is unlikely or, with respect to consumer installment loans, according to an established delinquency schedule. The allowance is an amount that Management believes will be adequate to absorb probable losses inherent in existing loans and leases, based on evaluations of the collectability, impairment and prior loss experience of loans and leases. The evaluations take into consideration such factors as changes in the nature and size of the portfolio, overall portfolio quality, loan concentrations, specific problem loans, and current economic conditions that may affect the borrower’s ability to pay. The Company defines an originated loan as impaired when it is probable the Company will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Impaired originated loans are measured based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate. As a practical expedient, impairment may be measured based on the loan’s observable market price or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. When the measure of the impaired loan is less than the recorded investment in the loan, the impairment is recorded through a valuation allowance.

In situations related to originated loans where, for economic or legal reasons related to a borrower’s financial difficulties, the Company grants a concession for other than an insignificant period of time to the borrower that the Company would not otherwise consider, the related loan is classified as a troubled debt restructuring (TDR). The Company strives to identify borrowers in financial difficulty early and work with them to modify to more affordable terms before their loan reaches nonaccrual status. These modified terms may include rate reductions, principal forgiveness, payment forbearance and other actions intended to minimize the economic loss and to avoid foreclosure or repossession of the collateral. In cases where the Company grants the borrower new terms that result in the loan being classified as a TDR, the Company measures any impairment on the restructuring as noted above for impaired loans. TDR loans are classified as impaired until they are fully paid off or charged off. Loans that are in nonaccrual status at the time they become TDR loans, remain in nonaccrual status until the borrower demonstrates a sustained period of performance which the Company generally believes to be six consecutive months of payments, or equivalent. Otherwise, TDR loans are subject to the same nonaccrual and charge-off policies as noted above with respect to their restructured principal balance.

Credit risk is inherent in the business of lending. As a result, the Company maintains an allowance for loan losses to absorb losses inherent in the Company’s originated loan portfolio. This is maintained through periodic charges to earnings. These charges are included in the Consolidated Statements of Income as provision for loan losses. All specifically identifiable and quantifiable losses are immediately charged off against the allowance. However, for a variety of reasons, not all losses are immediately known to the Company and, of those that are known, the full extent of the loss may not be quantifiable at that point in time. The balance of the Company’s allowance for originated loan losses is meant to be an estimate of these unknown but probable losses inherent in the portfolio.

33

Table of Contents

The Company formally assesses the adequacy of the allowance for originated loan losses on a quarterly basis. Determination of the adequacy is based on ongoing assessments of the probable risk in the outstanding originated loan portfolio, and to a lesser extent the Company’s originated loan commitments. These assessments include the periodic re-grading of credits based on changes in their individual credit characteristics including delinquency, seasoning, recent financial performance of the borrower, economic factors, changes in the interest rate environment, growth of the portfolio as a whole or by segment, and other factors as warranted. Loans are initially graded when originated. They are re-graded as they are renewed, when there is a new loan to the same borrower, when identified facts demonstrate heightened risk of nonpayment, or if they become delinquent. Re-grading of larger problem loans occurs at least quarterly. Confirmation of the quality of the grading process is obtained by independent credit reviews conducted by consultants specifically hired for this purpose and by various bank regulatory agencies.

The Company’s method for assessing the appropriateness of the allowance for originated loan losses includes specific allowances for impaired originated loans and leases, formula allowance factors for pools of credits, and allowances for changing environmental factors (e.g., interest rates, growth, economic conditions, etc.). Allowance factors for loan pools were based on historical loss experience by product type and prior risk rating.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, management changed some of the assumptions utilized in the Allowance for Loan Losses estimate calculation. These changes were intended to more accurately reflect the current risk in the loan portfolio and to better estimate the losses inherent but not yet quantifiable. These changes included the conversion to a historical loss migration analysis intended to better determine the appropriate formula reserve ratio by loan category and risk rating, the addition of an environmental factor related to the delinquency rate of loans not classified as impaired by loan category, the elimination of an unspecified reserve allocation previously intended to account for imprecision inherent in the overall calculation, and the reclassification of risk rating of certain consumer loans based on current credit score in an attempt to better identify the risk in the portfolio. The financial effect of these changes resulted in a net reduction in the calculated Allowance for Loan Losses of $1,388,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2012. Allowances for impaired loans are based on analysis of individual credits. Allowances for changing environmental factors are Management’s best estimate of the probable impact these changes have had on the originated loan portfolio as a whole. The allowance for originated loans is included in the allowance for loan losses.

During the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company changed the method it uses to estimate net sale proceeds from real estate collateral sales when calculating the allowance for loan losses associated with impaired real estate collateral dependent loans. Previously, the Company used the greater of fifteen percent or actual estimated selling costs. Currently, the Company uses the actual estimated selling costs, and an adjustment to appraised value based on the age of the appraisal. These changes are intended to more accurately reflect the estimated net sale proceeds from the sale of impaired collateral dependent real estate loans. This change in methodology resulted in the allowance for loan losses as of March 31, 2013 being $494,000 more than it would have been without this change in methodology.

During the three months ended June 30, 2013, the Company modified its loss migration analysis methodology used to determine the formula allowance factors. When the Company originally established its loss migration analysis methodology during the quarter ended March 31, 2012, it reviewed the loss experience of each rolling twelve month period over the previous three years in order to calculate an annualized loss rate by loan category and risk rating. The use of three years of loss experience data was originally used because that was the extent of the detailed loss data, by loan category and risk rating that was available at the time. This three year historical look-back period was used through the quarter ended March 31, 2013. Starting with the quarter ended June 30, 2013, the Company reviews all available detailed loss experience data, going back to, and including, the twelve month period ended June 30, 2009, and does not limit the look-back period to the most recent three years of historical loss data. Using this data, the Company calculates loss factors for each quarter from the quarter ended June 30, 2009 to the most recent quarter. The Company then calculates a weighted average formula allowance factor for each loan category and risk rating with the most recent quarterly loss factor being weighted 125%, the quarter ended June 30, 2009 loss factor being weighted 75%, and the loss factors for all the quarters between the most recent quarter and the quarter ended June 30, 2009, being weighted on a linear scale from 75% to 125%. This change is intended to more accurately reflect the risk inherent in the loan portfolio by considering historical loss data for all years as the data for new periods becomes available. This change in methodology resulted in the allowance for loan losses as of June 30, 2013 being $1,314,000 more than it would have been without this change in methodology.

During the three months ended September 30, 2013, the Company modified its methodology used to determine the allowance for changing environmental factors. Previously, the Company compared the current value of each environmental factor to a fixed baseline value. The deviation of the current value from the baseline value was then multiplied by a conversion factor to determine the required allowance related to each environmental factor. As of September 30, 2013, the Company replaced the fixed baseline values with average baseline values derived from historical averages, and adjusted the conversion factors. This change is intended to more accurately reflect the risk inherent in the portfolio by recognizing that baseline, or normal, levels for environmental factors may change over time. This change in methodology resulted in the allowance for loan losses as of September 30, 2013 being $1,665,000 more than it would have been without this change in methodology.

34

Table of Contents

Loans purchased or acquired in a business combination are referred to as acquired loans. Acquired loans are valued as of acquisition date in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification (“FASB ASC”) Topic 805, Business Combinations. Loans acquired with evidence of credit deterioration since origination for which it is probable that all contractually required payments will not be collected are referred to as purchased credit impaired (PCI) loans. PCI loans are accounted for under FASB ASC Topic 310-30, Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality. Under FASB ASC Topic 805 and FASB ASC Topic 310-30, PCI loans are recorded at fair value at acquisition date, factoring in credit losses expected to be incurred over the life of the loan. Accordingly, an allowance for loan losses is not carried over or recorded as of the acquisition date. Fair value is defined as the present value of the future estimated principal and interest payments of the loan, with the discount rate used in the present value calculation representing the estimated effective yield of the loan. Default rates, loss severity, and prepayment speed assumptions are periodically reassessed and our estimate of future payments is adjusted accordingly. The difference between contractual future payments and estimated future payments is referred to as the nonaccretable difference. The difference between estimated future payments and the present value of the estimated future payments is referred to as the accretable yield. The accretable yield represents the amount that is expected to be recorded as interest income over the remaining life of the loan. If after acquisition, the Company determines that the estimated future cash flows of a PCI loan are expected to be more than the originally estimated, an increase in the discount rate (effective yield) would be made such that the newly increased accretable yield would be recognized, on a level yield basis, over the remaining estimated life of the loan. If, after acquisition, the Company determines that the estimated future cash flows of a PCI loan are expected to be less than the previously estimated, the discount rate would first be reduced until the present value of the reduced cash flow estimate equals the previous present value however, the discount rate may not be lowered below its original level at acquisition. If the discount rate has been lowered to its original level and the present value has not been sufficiently lowered, an allowance for loan loss would be established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense to decrease the present value to the required level. If the estimated cash flows improve after an allowance has been established for a loan, the allowance may be partially or fully reversed depending on the improvement in the estimated cash flows. Only after the allowance has been fully reversed may the discount rate be increased. PCI loans are put on nonaccrual status when cash flows cannot be reasonably estimated. PCI loans on nonaccrual status are accounted for using the cost recovery method or cash basis method of income recognition. PCI loans are charged off when evidence suggests cash flows are not recoverable. Foreclosed assets from PCI loans are recorded in foreclosed assets at fair value with the fair value at time of foreclosure representing cash flow from the loan. ASC 310-30 allows PCI loans with similar risk characteristics and acquisition time frame to be “pooled” and have their cash flows aggregated as if they were one loan. The Company elected to use the “pooled” method of ASC 310-30 for PCI – other loans in the acquisition of certain assets and liabilities of Granite and Citizens.

Acquired loans that are not PCI loans are referred to as purchased not credit impaired (PNCI) loans. PNCI loans are accounted for under FASB ASC Topic 310-20, Receivables – Nonrefundable Fees and Other Costs, in which interest income is accrued on a level-yield basis for performing loans. For income recognition purposes, this method assumes that all contractual cash flows will be collected, and no allowance for loan losses is established at the time of acquistion. Post-acquisition date, an allowance for loan losses may need to be established for acquired loans through a provision charged to earnings for credit losses incurred subsequent to acquisition. Under ASC 310-20, the loss would be measured based on the probable shortfall in relation to the contractual note requirements, consistent with our allowance for loan loss policy for similar loans.

When referring to PNCI and PCI loans we use the terms “nonaccretable difference”, “accretable yield”, or “purchase discount”. Nonaccretable difference is the difference between undiscounted contractual cash flows due and undiscounted cash flows we expect to collect, or put another way, it is the undiscounted contractual cash flows we do not expect to collect. Accretable yield is the difference between undiscounted cash flows we expect to collect and the value at which we have recorded the loan on our financial statements. On the date of acquisition, all purchased loans are recorded on our consolidated financial statements at estimated fair value. Purchase discount is the difference between the estimated fair value of loans on the date of acquisition and the principal amount owed by the borrower, net of charge offs, on the date of acquisition. We may also refer to “discounts to principal balance of loans owed, net of charge-offs”. Discounts to principal balance of loans owed, net of charge-offs is the difference between principal balance of loans owed, net of charge-offs, and loans as recorded on our financial statements. Discounts to principal balance of loans owed, net of charge-offs arise from purchase discounts, and equal the purchase discount on the acquisition date.

Loans are also categorized as “covered” or “noncovered”. Covered loans refer to loans covered by a FDIC loss sharing agreement. Noncovered loans refer to loans not covered by a FDIC loss sharing agreement.

Originated loans and PNCI loans are reviewed on an individual basis for reclassification to nonaccrual status when any one of the following occurs: the loan becomes 90 days past due as to interest or principal, the full and timely collection of additional interest or principal becomes uncertain, the loan is classified as doubtful by internal credit review or bank regulatory agencies, a portion of the principal balance has been charged off, or the Company takes possession of the collateral. Loans that are placed on nonaccrual even though the borrowers continue to repay the loans as scheduled are classified as “performing nonaccrual” and are included in total nonperforming loans. The reclassification of loans as nonaccrual does not necessarily reflect Management’s judgment as to whether they are collectible.

35

Table of Contents

Interest income on originated nonaccrual loans that would have been recognized during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, if all such loans had been current in accordance with their original terms, totaled $1,524,000, $5,281,000 and $5,422,000, respectively. Interest income actually recognized on these originated loans during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $273,000, $936,000 and $1,497,000,000, respectively. Interest income on PNCI nonaccrual loans that would have been recognized during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, if all such loans had been current in accordance with their original terms, totaled $295,000, $284,000 and $4,000. Interest income actually recognized on these PNCI loans during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $38,000, $136,000 and $5,000.

The Company’s policy is to place originated loans and PNCI loans 90 days or more past due on nonaccrual status. In some instances when an originated loan is 90 days past due Management does not place it on nonaccrual status because the loan is well secured and in the process of collection. A loan is considered to be in the process of collection if, based on a probable specific event, it is expected that the loan will be repaid or brought current. Generally, this collection period would not exceed 30 days. Loans where the collateral has been repossessed are classified as foreclosed assets. Management considers both the adequacy of the collateral and the other resources of the borrower in determining the steps to be taken to collect nonaccrual loans. Alternatives that are considered are foreclosure, collecting on guarantees, restructuring the loan or collection lawsuits.

The following table sets forth the amount of the Bank’s nonperforming assets as of the dates indicated. For purposes of the following table, “PCI – other” loans that are 90 days past due and still accruing are not considered nonperforming loans. “Performing nonaccrual loans” are loans that may be current for both principal and interest payments, or are less than 90 days past due, but for which payment in full of both principal and interest is not expected, and are not well secured and in the process of collection: