ITEM 1. BUSINESS

 

Forward-Looking Statements : Certain matters discussed or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K including, but not limited to, matters described in “Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Such forward-looking statements may contain words related to future projections including, but not limited to, words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” and variations of those words and similar words that are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) variances in the actual versus projected growth in assets; (2) return on assets; (3) loan and lease losses; (4) expenses; (5) changes in the interest rate environment including interest rates charged on loans, earned on securities investments and paid on deposits; (6) competition effects; (7) fee and other noninterest income earned; (8) general economic conditions nationally, regionally, and in the operating market areas of the Company and its subsidiary, including State and local issues being addressed in California; (9) changes in the regulatory environment; (10) changes in business conditions and inflation; (11) changes in securities markets; (12) data processing problems; (13) a further decline in real estate values in the Company’s operating market areas; (14) the effects of terrorism, the threat of terrorism or the impact of the current military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the conduct of the war on terrorism by the United States and its allies, worsening financial and economic conditions, natural disasters, and disruption of power supplies and communications; and (15) changes in accounting standards, tax laws or regulations and interpretations of such standards, laws or regulations, as well as other factors. The factors set forth under “Item 1A – Risk Factors” in this report and other cautionary statements and information set forth in this report should be read carefully, considered and understood as being applicable to all related forward-looking statements contained in this report when evaluating the business prospects of the Company and its subsidiary.

 

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. By their nature, they involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Actual results and shareholder values in the future may differ significantly from those expressed in forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to put undue reliance on any forward-looking statement. Any such statement speaks only as of the date of the report, and in the case of any documents that may be incorporated by reference, as of the date of those documents. We do not undertake any obligation to update or release any revisions to any forward-looking statements, or to report any new information, future event or other circumstances after the date of this report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law. However, your attention is directed to any further disclosures made on related subjects in our subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K.

 

General

 

FNB Bancorp (the “Company”) is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. The Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of California on February 28, 2001.

 

 

As a bank holding company, the Company is authorized to engage in the activities permitted under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and regulations thereunder. Its principal office is located at 975 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, 94080, and its telephone number is (650) 588-6800.

 

The Company owns all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of First National Bank of Northern California, a national banking association (the “Bank”). The Company has no other subsidiary.

 

The Bank was organized in 1963 as “First National Bank of Daly City.” In 1995, the shareholders approved a change in the name to “First National Bank of Northern California.” The administrative headquarters of the Bank is located at 975 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California. The Bank is locally owned and presently operates eleven full service banking offices in the cities of Daly City, South San Francisco, Millbrae, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo, Redwood City, Pescadero, as well as its Financial District and Portola offices in San Francisco. The Bank’s primary business is servicing the business or commercial banking needs of individuals and small to mid-sized businesses within San Mateo and San Francisco Counties.

 

The Bank is chartered under the laws of the United States and is governed by the National Bank Act, and is a member of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures the deposits of the Bank up to the applicable legal limits, currently $250,000 per separately insured depositor. The Bank is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The regulations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency govern many aspects of the Bank’s business and activities, including investments, loans, borrowings, branching, mergers and acquisitions, reporting and numerous other areas. The Bank is also subject to applicable provisions of California law to the extent those provisions are not in conflict with or preempted by federal banking law. See “Supervision and Regulation” below.

 

The Bank’s market areas consist primarily of the counties of San Francisco and San Mateo. Based on latest available reports from the U. S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, per capita income in the counties of San Francisco and San Mateo for the year 2008 were $72,712 and $73,839, respectively, which represented an increase of 33.6% and 37.4%, respectively, over 2003 levels. Management believes per capita income levels will grow at single digit growth rates during the year ending December 31, 2011, based upon expected economic activity levels and overall employment prospects. The following report on unemployment published by the California Employment Development Department shows 9.2% in San Francisco County, 8.3% in San Mateo County, and 12.3% for the state of California, in December 2010. For December 2009, San Francisco County showed 9.4%, San Mateo County showed 8.9%, and the state of California 12.2%.

 

In addition, a report from the California Employment Development Department (“EDD”), based on information published by America’s Labor Market Information System (ALMIS) Employer Database 2011 1 st Edition, lists the following major employers in San Francisco County: Bechtel, Deloitte, GSA Pacific Rim Region, California Pacific Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, San Francisco General Hospital, Pacific Gas & Electric, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco State University, and University of California-San Francisco. The following were listed as major employers in San Mateo County: Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo County Human Resources, San Mateo County Mental Health, Oracle Corp., SRI International, Stanford Linear Accelerator and Visa International Services Association. The major labor force in both counties is represented by the service industries, including financial activities, educational and health services, professional and business services, leisure and hospitality and state government.

 

 

The Bank offers a broad range of services to individuals and businesses in its primary service area, including a full line of business financial products with specialized services such as courier, appointment banking, and business Internet banking. The Bank offers personal and business checking and savings accounts, including individual interest-bearing negotiable orders of withdrawal (“NOW”), money market accounts and/or accounts combining checking and savings accounts with automatic transfer capabilities, IRA accounts, time certificates of deposit, direct deposit services and computer cash management with access through the Internet. First National Bank also makes available commercial loans and standby letters of credit and construction, accounts receivable, inventory, automobile, home improvement, residential real estate, commercial real estate, home equity lines, Small Business Administration loans, office equipment, leasehold improvement and consumer loans as well as overdraft protection lines of credit. In addition, the Bank sells travelers checks and cashiers checks, offers automated teller machine (ATM) services tied in with major statewide and national networks and offers other customary commercial banking services.

 

Most of the Bank’s deposits are obtained from commercial and non-profit businesses, professionals and individuals. As of December 31, 2010, First National Bank had a total of 23,961 deposit accounts. On occasion, the Bank has obtained deposits through deposit brokers for which it pays a broker fee. As of December 31, 2010, First National Bank had no such deposits. There is no concentration of deposits or any customer with 5% or more of First National Bank’s deposits.

 

At December 31, 2010, the Company had total assets of $714,639,000, net loans of $474,828,000, deposits of $628,440,000 and stockholders’ equity of $80,924,000. The Company competes with approximately 78 other banking or savings institutions in its San Francisco and San Mateo County service area. The Company’s market share of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured deposits in the service area of San Mateo County is approximately 2.57%, and 0.05% in the San Francisco County market area (based upon the most recent information available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation through June 30, 2010). See “Competitive Data” below.

 

Employees

 

At December 31, 2010, the Company employed 171 persons on a full-time equivalent basis. The Company believes its employee relations are good. The Company is not a party to any collective bargaining agreement.

 

Available Information

 

The Company and the Bank maintain an Internet website at http://www.FNBNORCAL.com . The Company’s annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, are made available free of charge on or through such website as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Also made available on or through such website are the Section 16 reports of ownership and changes in ownership of the Company’s common stock which are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the directors and executive officers of the Company and by any persons who own more than 10 percent of the outstanding shares of such stock. Information on such website is not incorporated by reference into this report.

 

 

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

 

General

 

FNB Bancorp . The common stock of the Company is subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the qualification requirements of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, as amended. FNB Bancorp has registered its common stock under Section 12 (g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Company is also subject to the periodic reporting requirements of Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which include, but are not limited to, annual, quarterly and other current reports required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “Bank Holding Company Act”), and is registered as such with, and subject to the supervision of, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board of Governors”). The Company is required to obtain the approval of the Board of Governors before it may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of the voting shares of any bank if, after giving effect to such acquisition of shares, FNB Bancorp would own or control more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank. The Bank Holding Company Act prohibits the Company from acquiring any voting shares of, or interest in, all or substantially all of the assets of a bank located outside the State of California unless such an acquisition is specifically authorized by the laws of the state in which such bank is located. Any such interstate acquisition is also subject to the provisions of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994.

 

The Company, and any subsidiary which it may acquire or organize, are deemed to be “affiliates” of the Bank within the meaning of that term as defined in the Federal Reserve Act. This means, for example, that there are limitations (a) on loans by First National Bank to its affiliates, and (b) on investments by the Bank in affiliates’ stock as collateral for loans to any borrower. The Company and the Bank are also subject to certain restrictions with respect to engaging in the underwriting, public sale and distribution of securities.

 

In addition, regulations of the Board of Governors under the Federal Reserve Act require that reserves be maintained by the Bank in conjunction with any liability of the Company under any obligation (promissory note, acknowledgment of advance, banker’s acceptance or similar obligation) with a weighted average maturity of less than seven (7) years to the extent that the proceeds of such obligations are used for the purpose of supplying funds to the Bank for use in its banking business, or to maintain the availability of such funds.

 

 

First National Bank of Northern California . As a national banking association licensed under the national banking laws of the United States, the Bank is regularly examined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and is subject to supervision and regulation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

 

This supervision and regulation includes comprehensive reviews of all major aspects of the Bank’s business and condition, including its capital ratios, allowance for possible loan losses and other factors. However, no inference should be drawn that such authorities have approved any such factors. The Bank is required to file reports with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Bank’s deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to the applicable legal limits.

 

Capital Standards.

 

The Board of Governors, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) have adopted risk-based guidelines for evaluating the capital adequacy of bank holding companies and banks. The guidelines are designed to make capital requirements sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banking organizations, to take into account off-balance sheet exposures and to aid in making the definition of bank capital uniform internationally.

 

Under the risk-based capital guidelines, assets reported on an institution’s balance sheet and certain off-balance sheet items are assigned to risk categories, each of which has an assigned risk weight. Capital ratios are calculated by dividing the institution’s qualifying capital by its period-end risk-weighted assets. The guidelines establish two categories of qualifying capital: Tier 1 capital (defined to include common stockholders’ equity and noncumulative perpetual preferred stock) and Tier 2 capital which includes, among other items, limited life (and in the case of banks, cumulative) preferred stock, mandatory convertible securities, subordinated debt and a limited amount of reserve for credit losses. Tier 2 capital may also include up to 45% of the pretax unrealized gains on certain available-for-sale equity securities having readily determinable fair values (i.e. the excess, if any, of fair market value over the book value or historical cost of the investment security). The federal regulatory agencies reserve the right to exclude all or a portion of the unrealized gains upon a determination that the equity securities are not prudently valued. Unrealized gains and losses on other types of assets, such as bank premises and available-for-sale debt securities, are not included in Tier 2 capital, but may be taken into account in the evaluation of overall capital adequacy. Net unrealized losses on available-for-sale equity securities will continue to be deducted from Tier 1 capital as a cushion against risk.

 

A leverage capital standard was adopted as a supplement to the risk-weighted capital guidelines. Under the leverage capital standard, an institution is required to maintain a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to the sum of its quarterly average total assets and quarterly average reserve for loan losses, less intangibles not included in Tier 1 capital. Period-end assets may be used in place of quarterly average total assets on a case-by-case basis. The Board of Governors and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also adopted a minimum leverage ratio for bank holding companies as a supplement to the risk-weighted capital guidelines. The leverage ratio establishes a minimum Tier 1 ratio of 3% (Tier 1 capital to total assets) for the highest rated bank holding companies or those that have implemented the risk-based capital market risk measure. All other bank holding companies must maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% with higher leverage capital ratios required for bank holding companies that have significant financial and/or operational weakness, a high risk profile, or are undergoing or anticipating rapid growth.

 

 

On May 10, 2010, the Bank entered into an informal Memorandum of Understanding with the OCC which, among other matters, called for the establishment of individual minimum capital ratios (“IMCR’s”). The IMCR’s were considered necessary by the OCC because the Bank’s commercial real estate portfolio was in excess of 300% of capital. On June 9, 2010, the OCC notified the Company that our IMCR’s had been established and required the Bank to maintain a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 9% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 12%. The Memorandum of Understanding and theIMCR’s shall remain effective until notified otherwise, in writing, by the OCC. At December 31, 2010, the Company was in compliance with the IMCR risk-weighted capital and leverage ratios. See “Capital” under Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” below.

 

Prompt Corrective Action

 

The Board of Governors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have adopted regulations implementing a system of prompt corrective action pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and Section 131 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”). The regulations establish five capital categories with the following characteristics:

 

(1) “Well capitalized” – consisting of institutions with a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% or greater and a leverage ratio of 5% or greater, and the institution is not subject to an order, formal written agreement, capital directive or prompt corrective action directive;

 

(2) “Adequately capitalized” – consisting of institutions with a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4% or greater and a leverage ratio of 4% or greater, and the institution does not meet the definition of a “well capitalized” institution;

 

(3) “Undercapitalized” - consisting of institutions with a total risk-based capital ratio less than 8%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4%, or a leverage ratio of less than 4%;

 

(4) “Significantly undercapitalized” – consisting of institutions with a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3%, or a leverage ratio of less than 3%;

 

(5) “Critically undercapitalized” – consisting of an institution with a ratio of tangible equity to total assets that is equal to or less than 2%.

 

 

The regulations established procedures for classification of financial institutions within the capital categories, filing and reviewing capital restoration plans required under the regulations and procedures for issuance of directives by the appropriate regulatory agency, among other matters. The regulations impose restrictions upon all institutions to refrain from certain actions which would cause an institution to be classified within any one of the three “undercapitalized” categories, such as declaration of dividends or other capital distributions or payment of management fees, if following the distribution or payment the institution would be classified within one of the “undercapitalized” categories. In addition, institutions that are classified in one of the three “undercapitalized” categories are subject to certain mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions. Mandatory supervisory actions include:

 

(1) increased monitoring and review by the appropriate federal banking agency;

 

(2) implementation of a capital restoration plan;

 

(3) total asset growth restrictions; and

 

(4) limitation upon acquisitions, branch expansion, and new business activities without prior approval of the appropriate federal banking agency. Discretionary supervisory actions may include:

 

(a) requirements to augment capital;

 

(b) restrictions upon affiliate transactions;

 

(c) restrictions upon deposit gathering activities and interest rates paid;

 

(d) replacement of senior executive officers and directors;

 

(e) restrictions upon activities of the institution and its affiliates;

 

(f) requiring divestiture or sale of the institution; and

 

(g) any other supervisory action that the appropriate federal banking agency determines is necessary to further the purposes of the regulations. Further, the federal banking agencies may not accept a capital restoration plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with such capital restoration plan.

 

The aggregate liability of the parent holding company under the guaranty is limited to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5 percent of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized, and (ii) the amount that is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards applicable with respect to such institution as of the time it fails to comply with the plan. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it were “significantly undercapitalized”. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (“FDICIA”) also restricts the solicitation and acceptance of and interest rates payable on brokered deposits by insured depository institutions that are not “well capitalized.”

 

An “undercapitalized” institution is not allowed to solicit deposits by offering rates of interest that are significantly higher than the prevailing rates of interest on insured deposits in the particular institution’s normal market areas or in the market areas in which such deposits would otherwise be accepted.

 

 

Any financial institution which is classified as “critically undercapitalized” must be placed in conservatorship or receivership within 90 days of such determination unless it is also determined that some other course of action would better serve the purposes of the regulations. Critically undercapitalized institutions are also prohibited from making (but not accruing) any payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt without prior regulatory approval and regulators must prohibit a critically undercapitalized institution from taking certain other actions without prior approval, including (1) entering into any material transaction other than in the usual course of business, including investment expansion, acquisition, sale of assets or other similar actions; (2) extending credit for any highly leveraged transaction; (3) amending articles or bylaws unless required to do so to comply with any law, regulation or order; (4) making any material change in accounting methods; (5) engaging in certain affiliate transactions; (6) paying excessive compensation or bonuses; and (7) paying interest on new or renewed liabilities at rates which would increase the weighted average costs of funds beyond prevailing rates in the institution’s normal market areas.

 

Additional Regulations

 

Under FDICIA, the federal financial institution agencies have adopted regulations which require institutions to establish and maintain comprehensive written real estate policies which address certain lending considerations, including loan-to-value limits, loan administrative policies, portfolio diversification standards, and documentation, approval and reporting requirements. FDICIA further generally prohibits an insured bank from engaging as a principal in any activity that is impermissible for a national bank, absent Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation determination that the activity would not pose a significant risk to the Bank Insurance Fund, and that such bank is, and will continue to be, within applicable capital standards.

 

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (“FFIEC”) utilizes the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (“UFIRS”), commonly referred to as “CAMELS,” to classify and evaluate the soundness of financial institutions. Bank examiners use the CAMELS measurements to evaluate capital adequacy, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity and sensitivity to market risk. Effective January 1, 2005, bank holding companies such as the Company, became subject to evaluation and examination under a revised bank holding company rating system. This so-called BOPEC (Bank, Other subsidiaries, Parent, Earnings, Capital) rating system, implemented in 1979, has been focused primarily on financial condition, consolidated capital and consolidated earnings. The new rating system reflects a change toward analysis of risk management (as reflected in bank examination under the CAMELS measurements), in addition to financial factors and the potential impact of nondepository subsidiaries upon depository institution subsidiaries.

 

The federal financial institution agencies have established bases for analysis and standards for assessing financial institution’s capital adequacy in conjunction with the risk-based capital guidelines, including analysis of interest rate risk, concentrations of credit risk, risk posed by non-traditional activities, and factors affecting overall safety and soundness. The safety and soundness standards for insured financial institutions include analysis of (1) internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems; (2) loan documentation; (3) credit underwriting; (4) interest rate exposure; (5) asset growth; (6) compensation, fees and benefits; and (7) excessive compensation for executive officers, directors or principal shareholders which could lead to material financial loss. If an agency determines that an institution fails to meet any standard, 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. 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.

 

 

Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) regulations evaluate banks’ lending to low and moderate income individuals and businesses across a four-point scale from “outstanding” to “substantial noncompliance,” and are a factor in regulatory review of applications to merge, establish new branches or form bank holding companies. In addition, any bank rated in “substantial noncompliance” with the CRA regulations may be subject to enforcement proceedings. First National Bank has a current rating of “satisfactory” for CRA compliance.

 

FDIC Insurance

 

The FDIC is an independent federal agency that insures deposits of federally insured banks (such as the Bank) and savings institutions up to prescribed limits through the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”). The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) temporarily raised the limit on federal deposit insurance coverage provided by the FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor. The Dodd-Frank Act (described in more detail below) made the $250,000 amount permanent.

 

In addition, on November 9, 2010, the FDIC issued a final rule (implementing the Dodd-Frank Act) which provides temporary unlimited deposit insurance coverage for non-interest bearing transaction accounts, through December 31, 2012. In 2008, the FDIC had implemented a Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (“TLGP”) to strengthen confidence and encourage liquidity in the financial system. The TLGP included a Transaction Account Guarantee Program (“TAGP”). The TAGP offered a full guarantee for non-interest bearing transaction accounts held at FDIC-insured depository institutions. That unlimited deposit coverage was voluntary for eligible institutions and was in addition to the $250,000 FDIC deposit insurance included as part of EESA. The Bank is a participant in the TAGP until the TAGP expires on December 31, 2011.

 

The amount of FDIC assessments paid by each DIF member institution is based on its risk profile as measured by regulatory capital ratios and other supervisory factors. Under the assessment rate system established in 2006, the FDIC set the assessment rates (effective January 1, 2007) for most institutions from $0.05 to $0.07 per $100 of insured deposits and established a Designated Reserve Ratio (“DRR”) for the DIF during 2007 at 1.25% of insured deposits. Since 2008, due to higher levels of bank failures and the need to maintain a strong DIF, the FDIC has increased the assessment rates of insured institutions and may continue to do so in the future. On November 17, 2009, the FDIC amended its regulations and required all insured financial institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, unless they were notified they were exempt from the prepayment. For the year ended December 31, 2010, the assessment rate for the Bank averaged $0.048330 per $100 in assessable deposits, compared to $0.030184 per $100 in assessable deposits for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

 

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has revised the assessment rates, to be effective on April 1, 2011, and the deposit insurance assessment base used to calculate premiums paid to DIF, substituting the average consolidated total assets less average tangible equity of an institution in place of deposits. Also pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC increased the DRR to 2.0 percent, effective January 1, 2011. If economic conditions continue to impact financial institutions and there are additional bank and other financial institution failures, or if the FDIC otherwise determines, the Bank may be required to pay higher FDIC premiums in the future, which could have a material and adverse effect on the earnings of the Company.

 

On December 16, 2008, the FDIC approved an earlier proposed seven basis point rate increase for the first quarter 2009 assessment period effective January 1, 2009 as part of the DIF (Deposit Insurance Fund) restoration plan to achieve a minimum DRR (Designated Reserve Ratio) of 1.15% within five years.

 

On February 28, 2009, the FDIC established increased assessment rates effective as of April 1, 2009 and included adjustments to improve differentiation of risk profiles among institutions. The FDIC concurrently adopted an interim rule that imposed a 20 basis point emergency special assessment effective June 30, 2009, to be collected from all insured depository institutions on September 30, 2009, in addition to the imposition of an emergency special assessment of up to 10 basis points at the end of any calendar quarter after June 30, 2009 if the FDIC determines that the DRR will fall to a level that would adversely affect public confidence, among other factors. The changes to differentiate risk profiles will require riskier institutions to pay higher assessment rates based on classification into one of four risk categories. Within each category, the FDIC will be able to assess higher rates to institutions with a significant reliance on secured liabilities, which generally raises the FDIC’s loss in the event of failure without providing additional assessment revenue. Higher rates will be assessed for institutions with a significant reliance on brokered deposits but, for well-managed and well-capitalized institutions, only when accompanied by rapid asset growth. The changes also provide incentives in the form of a reduction in assessment rates for institutions to hold long-term unsecured debt and, for smaller institutions, high levels of Tier 1 capital. Together, the changes would improve the way the system differentiates risk among insured institutions and help ensure that a minimum DRR of at least 1.15% is achieved by the end of 2013.

 

On November 17, 2009, the FDIC amended its regulations and required all insured financial institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012. The prepaid assessment was collected on December 30, 2009. The FDIC also approved a three basis point increase in the assessment rate applied to insured financial institutions beginning in 2011. The amount of the Company’s prepaid assessment was $3,011,000 as of December 31, 2009.

 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law, which, in part, permanently raised the current standard maximum deposit insurance amount to $250,000.

 

 

Limitation on Dividends

 

FNB Bancorp . The Company’s ability to pay cash dividends is subject to restrictions set forth in the California General Corporation Law. Also, the Company is required to make dividend payments to the U. S. Treasury on the shares of Preferred Stock that were issued on February 27, 2009, before the Company can pay dividends on its Common Stock. In addition, beginning in the second quarter of 2010, the Company must obtain regulatory approval from the OCC before Troubled Assets Relief Program (“TARP”) dividends can be paid. As of December 31, 2010, all dividend payments on our Preferred Stock have been paid in accordance with the Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program.

 

As part of the Company’s and the Bank’s informal agreements with the FRB and the OCC, respectively, which were executed during the second quarter of 2010, all cash dividends must be approved by both the OCC and the FRB before they may be declared. This requirement will remain effective until notified otherwise by the OCC and the FRB.

 

Funds for payment of any cash dividends by the Company would be obtained from its investments as well as dividends and/or management fees from the Bank. The Bank’s ability to pay cash dividends is subject to restrictions imposed under the National Bank Act and regulations promulgated by the OCC.

 

The Company has paid quarterly dividends for each quarter commencing with the second quarter of 2002. Future dividends will continue to be determined after consideration of the Company’s earnings, financial condition, future capital funds, regulatory requirements and other factors such as the Board of Directors may deem relevant. It is the intention of the Company to continue to pay cash dividends, subject to legal restrictions on the payment of cash dividends and depending upon the level of earnings, management’s assessment of future capital needs and other factors to be considered by the Board of Directors.

 

The California General Corporation Law provides that a corporation may make a distribution to its shareholders if the corporation’s retained earnings equal at least the amount of the proposed distribution. The California General Corporation Law further provides that, in the event sufficient retained earnings are not available for the proposed distribution, a corporation may nevertheless make a distribution to its shareholders if, after giving effect to the distribution, it meets two conditions, which generally stated are as follows: (i) the corporation’s assets must equal at least 125% of its liabilities; and (ii) the corporation’s current assets must equal at least its current liabilities or, if the average of the corporation’s earnings before taxes on income and before interest expense for the two preceding fiscal years was less than the average of the corporation’s interest expense for those fiscal years, then the corporation’s current assets must equal at least 125% of its current liabilities.

 

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System generally prohibits a bank holding company from declaring or paying a cash dividend which would impose undue pressure on the capital of subsidiary banks or would be funded only through borrowing or other arrangements that might adversely affect a bank holding company’s financial position. The Federal Reserve Board policy is that a bank holding company should not continue its existing rate of cash dividends on its common stock unless its net income is sufficient to fully fund each dividend and its prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with its capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition.

 

 

First National Bank of Northern California. As the Bank’s sole shareholder, the Company is entitled to receive dividends when and as declared by its Board of Directors, out of funds legally available therefore, subject to the restrictions set forth in the National Bank Act.

 

The payment of cash dividends by the Bank may be subject to the approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, as well as restrictions established by federal banking law and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is required if the total of all dividends declared by the Bank’s board of directors in any calendar year will exceed the Bank’s net profits for that year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfers to surplus or to a fund for the retirement of preferred stock.

 

Additionally, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and/or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, might, under some circumstances, place restrictions on the ability of a bank to pay dividends based upon peer group averages and the performance and maturity of that bank.

 

COMPETITION

 

Competitive Data

 

In its market area, the Bank competes for deposit and loan customers with other banks (including those with much greater resources), thrifts and, to a lesser extent, credit unions, finance companies and other financial service providers.

 

Larger banks may have a competitive advantage because of higher lending limits and major advertising and marketing campaigns, along with significant investment banking, trust and insurance operations. The Bank has made arrangements with its correspondent banks and with others to provide some of these services for its customers. For borrowers requiring loans in excess of the Bank’s legal lending limits, the Bank has offered, and intends to offer in the future, such loans on a participating basis with its correspondent banks and with other independent banks, retaining the portion of such loans which is within its lending limits. As of December 31, 2010, the Bank’s aggregate legal lending limits to a single borrower and such borrower’s related parties were $12,359,000 on an unsecured basis and $20,598,000 on a fully secured basis, based on regulatory capital of $82,392,000. The Bank’s business is concentrated in its service area, which primarily encompasses San Mateo County, but also includes portions of the City and County of San Francisco. The economy of the Bank’s service area is dependent upon government, manufacturing, tourism, retail sales, population growth and smaller service oriented businesses.

 

Based upon the most recent information made available by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Summary of Deposits at June 30, 2010, there were 29 commercial and savings banking institutions in San Mateo County with a total of $21,209,252,000 in deposits at June 30, 2010. The Bank had a total of 9 offices in the county with total deposits of $544,564,000 at the same date, or 2.57% of the San Mateo County totals.Based on the same survey, there were 274 and savings banking institutions in the County of San Francisco with a total of $142,886,097,000 in deposits at June 30, 2010. The Bank had a total of 2 offices in the county with total deposits of $75,668,000, or 0.05% of the County of San Francisco totals. San Mateo County and the City and County of San Francisco have averaged deposit growth of 39.37% over the last two years.

 

 

General Competitive Factors

 

In order to compete with the financial institutions in their primary service areas, community banks use, to the fullest extent possible, the flexibility which is accorded by their independent status. This includes an emphasis on specialized services, local promotional activity, and personal contacts by their respective officers, directors and employees. The Bank’s management and employees develop a thorough knowledge of local businesses and markets.

 

They also seek to provide special services and programs for individuals in their primary service area who are employed in the agricultural, professional and business fields, such as loans for equipment, furniture and tools of the trade or expansion of practices or businesses. In the event there are customers whose loan demands exceed their respective lending limits, they seek to arrange for such loans on a participation basis with other financial institutions. They also assist those customers requiring services not offered by either bank to obtain such services from correspondent banks.

 

Banking is a business that depends on interest rate differentials. In general, the difference between the interest rate paid by a bank to obtain their deposits and other borrowings and the interest rate received by a bank on loans extended to customers and on securities held in a bank’s portfolio comprise the major portion of a bank’s earnings. The Bank competes with savings and loan associations, credit unions, other financial institutions and other entities for funds. For instance, yields on corporate and government debt securities and other commercial paper affect the ability of commercial banks to attract and hold deposits. The Bank also competes for loans with savings and loan associations, credit unions, consumer finance companies, banking and other financial institutions, mortgage companies and other lending institutions.

 

The interest rate differentials of a bank, and therefore its earnings, are affected not only by general economic conditions, both domestic and foreign, but also by statutes, and as implemented by federal agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board can and does implement national monetary policy, such as seeking to curb inflation and combat recession, by its open market operations in United States government securities, and adjustments to the discount rates applicable to borrowing by banks from the Federal Reserve Board. These activities influence the growth of bank loans, investments and deposits and also affect interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits. The nature and timing of any future changes in monetary policies and their impact on the Bank are not predictable.

 

Legislative and Regulatory Impact

 

Since 1996, California law implementing certain provisions of prior federal law has (1) permitted interstate merger transactions; (2) prohibited interstate branching through the acquisition of a branch business unit located in California without acquisition of the whole business unit of the California bank; and (3) prohibited interstate branching through de novo establishment of California branch offices. Initial entry into California by an out-of-state institution must be accomplished by acquisition or merger with an existing whole bank, which has been in existence for at least five years. Recently, the Dodd-Frank Act (enacted on July 21, 2010 and described below) authorized national and state banks to establish branches in other states to the same extent as a bank chartered by that state would be permitted to branch.

 

 

The federal financial institution agencies, especially the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, have taken steps to increase the types of activities in which national banks and bank holding companies can engage, and to make it easier to engage in such activities. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has issued regulations permitting national banks to engage in a wider range of activities through subsidiaries.

 

“Eligible institutions” (those national banks that are well capitalized, have a high overall rating and a satisfactory CRA rating, and are not subject to an enforcement order) may engage in activities related to banking through operating subsidiaries subject to an expedited application process. In addition, a national bank may apply to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to engage in an activity through a subsidiary in which the Bank itself may not engage.

 

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “Act”), eliminated most of the remaining depression-era “firewalls” between banks, securities firms and insurance companies which was established by the Banking Act of 1933, also known as the Glass-Steagall Act (“Glass-Steagall”). Glass-Steagall sought to insulate banks as depository institutions from the perceived risks of securities dealing and underwriting, and related activities. The Act repealed Section 20 of Glass-Steagall, which prohibited banks from affiliating with securities firms. Bank holding companies that can qualify as “financial holding companies” can now, among other matters, acquire securities firms or create them as subsidiaries, and securities firms can now acquire banks or start banking activities through a financial holding company. The Act includes provisions which permit national banks to conduct financial activities through a subsidiary that are permissible for a national bank to engage in directly, as well as certain activities authorized by statute, or that are financial in nature or incidental to financial activities to the same extent as permitted to a “financial holding company” or its affiliates. This liberalization of United States banking and financial services regulation applies both to domestic institutions and foreign institutions conducting business in the United States. Consequently, the common ownership of banks, securities firms and insurance is now possible, as is the conduct of commercial banking, merchant banking, investment management, securities underwriting and insurance within a single financial institution using a structure authorized by the Act.

 

Prior to the Act, significant restrictions existed on the affiliation of banks with securities firms and related securities activities. Banks were also (with minor exceptions) prohibited from engaging in insurance activities or affiliating with insurers. The Act removed these restrictions and substantially eliminated the prohibitions under the Bank Holding Company Act on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. Bank holding companies which qualify as financial holding companies can now, among other matters, insure, guarantee, or indemnify against loss, harm, damage, illness, disability, or death; issue annuities; and act as a principal, agent, or broker regarding such insurance services.

 

In order for a commercial bank to affiliate with a securities firm or an insurance company pursuant to the Act, its bank holding company must qualify as a financial holding company. A bank holding company will qualify if (i) its banking subsidiaries are “well capitalized” and “well managed” and (ii) it files with the Board of Governors a certification to such an effect and a declaration that it elects to become a financial holding company. The amendment of the Bank Holding Company Act now permits financial holding companies to engage in activities, and acquire companies engaged in activities, that are financial in nature or incidental to such financial activities.

 

 

Financial holding companies are also permitted to engage in activities that are complementary to financial activities if the Board of Governors determines that the activity does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system in general. These standards expand upon the list of activities “closely related to banking” which to date have defined the permissible activities of bank holding companies under the Bank Holding Company Act.

 

One further effect of the Act was to require that federal financial institution and securities regulatory agencies prescribe regulation to implement the policy that financial institutions must respect the privacy of their customers and protect the security and confidentiality of customers’ non-public personal information. These regulations require, in general, that financial institutions (1) may not disclose non-public information of customers to non-affiliated third parties without notice to their customers, who must have an opportunity to direct that such information not be disclosed; (2) may not disclose customer account numbers except to consumer reporting agencies; and (3) must give prior disclosure of their privacy policies before establishing new customer relationships.

 

Neither the Company nor the Bank has determined whether or when it may seek to acquire and exercise new powers or activities under the Act, and the extent to which competition will change among financial institutions affected by the Act has not yet become clear.

 

OTHER LEGISLATION

 

The Patriot Act

 

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act (the “Patriot Act”), which included provisions pertaining to domestic security, surveillance procedures, border protection, and terrorism laws to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. Title III of the Patriot Act entitled, “International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001”   includes amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act which expand the responsibilities of financial institutions in regard to anti-money laundering activities with particular emphasis upon international money laundering and terrorism financing activities through designated correspondent and private banking accounts.

 

Effective December 25, 2001, Section 313(a) of the Patriot Act prohibits any insured financial institution such as First National Bank, from providing correspondent accounts to foreign banks which do not have a physical presence in any country (designated as “shell banks”), subject to certain exceptions for regulated affiliates of foreign banks. Section 313(a) also requires financial institutions to take reasonable steps to ensure that foreign bank correspondent accounts are not being used to indirectly provide banking services to foreign shell banks, and Section 319(b) requires financial institutions to maintain records of the owners and agent for service of process of any such foreign banks with whom correspondent accounts have been established.

 

Effective July 23, 2002, Section 312 of the Patriot Act created a requirement for special due diligence for correspondent accounts and private banking accounts. Under Section 312, each financial institution that establishes, maintains, administers, or manages a private banking account or a correspondent account in the United States for a non-United States person, including a foreign individual visiting the United States, or a representative of a non-United States person shall establish appropriate, specific, and, where necessary, enhanced, due diligence policies, procedures, and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and record instances of money laundering through those accounts.

 

 

The Patriot Act contains various provisions in addition to Sections 313(a) and 312 that affect the operations of financial institutions by encouraging cooperation among financial institutions, regulatory authorities and law enforcement authorities with respect to individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. The Company and the Bank are not currently aware of any account relationships between the Bank and any foreign bank or other person or entity as described above under Sections 313(a) or 312 of the Patriot Act.

 

Certain surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, and actions to restrict the use of the Patriot Act surveillance provisions were filed by the ACLU and other organizations. On March 9, 2006, after temporary extensions of the Patriot Act, President Bush signed the “USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005” and the “USA Patriot Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006,” which reauthorized all expiring provisions of the Act and extended certain provisions related to surveillance and production of business records until December 31, 2009. The extended deadline for those provisions was subsequently further extended to February 28, 2010. On February 24 and 25, 2010, the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, voted to further extend the deadline until December 31, 2010. President Obama signed a further three month extension on February 25, 2011.

 

The effects which the Patriot Act and any amendments to the Patriot Act or any additional legislation enacted by Congress may have upon financial institutions is uncertain; however, such legislation could increase compliance costs and thereby potentially may have an adverse effect upon the Company’s results of operations.

 

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

On July 30, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”), legislation designed to address certain issues of corporate governance and accountability. The key provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated by the SEC pursuant to the Act include the following:

 

 

 

California Corporate Disclosure Act

 

Effective January 1, 2003, the California Corporate Disclosure Act (the “CCD Act”) required publicly traded corporations incorporated or qualified to do business in California to disclose information about their past history, auditors, directors and officers. Effective September 28, 2004, the CCD Act, as currently in effect and codified at California Corporations Code Section 1502.1, requires the Company to file with the California Secretary of State and disclose within 150 days after the end of its fiscal year certain information including the following:

 

	●	The name of the company’s independent auditor and a description of services, if any, performed for a company during the previous two fiscal years and the period from the end of the most recent fiscal year to the date of filing;
	●	The annual compensation paid to each director and the five most highly compensated non-director executive officers (including the CEO) during the most recent fiscal year, including all plan and non-plan compensation for all services rendered to a company as specified in Item 402 of Regulation S-K such as grants, awards or issuance of stock, stock options and similar equity-based compensation;
	●	A description of any loans made to a director or executive officer at a “preferential” loan rate during the company’s two most recent fiscal years, including the amount and terms of the loans;
	●	Whether any bankruptcy was filed by a company or any of its directors or executive officers within the previous 10 years;
	●	Whether any director or executive officer of a company has been convicted of fraud during the previous 10 years; and
	●	A description of any material pending legal proceedings other than ordinary routine litigation as specified in Item 103 of Regulation S-K and a description of such litigation where the company was found legally liable by a final judgment or order.

 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

 

On October 3, 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the United States Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury”) was granted the authority to take a range of actions for the purpose of stabilizing and providing liquidity to the U.S. financial markets and has implemented several programs, including the purchase by the U.S. Treasury of certain troubled assets from financial institutions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program” (the “TARP”) and the direct purchase by the U.S. Treasury of equity securities of financial institutions under the Capital Purchase Program (the “CPP”).

 

 

On February 27, 2009, as part of the CPP, the Company entered into a Letter Agreement and Securities Purchase Agreement – Standard Terms (collectively, the “Purchase Agreement”) with the U.S. Treasury. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Company (i) sold to the U.S. Treasury 12,000 shares of the Company’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), having a liquidation preference amount of $1,000 per share, for a purchase price of $12,000,000 in cash, and (ii) issued to the U.S. Treasury a warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase 600 shares of the Company’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series B (the “Series B Preferred Stock”), at an exercise price of $0.01 per share. Immediately after the issuance of the Warrant, the U.S. Treasury exercised the Warrant in a cashless exercise resulting in the net issuance of 600 shares of the Series B Preferred Stock, having a liquidation preference amount of $1,000 per share, to the U.S. Treasury. The Series A Preferred Stock entitles its holder(s) to cumulative dividends on the liquidation preference amount on a quarterly basis at a rate of 5% per annum for the first five years, and 9% per annum thereafter. The Series B Preferred Stock entitles its holder(s) to cumulative dividends on the liquidation preference amount on a quarterly basis at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of issuance. Subject to certain conditions, the Series A and Series B Preferred Stock are redeemable at the option of the Company in whole or in part at a redemption price of 100% of the liquidation preference amount plus any accrued and unpaid dividends. So long as the Series A and Series B Preferred Stock remain outstanding, the Company will be subject to certain executive compensation and corporate governance requirements set forth in the EESA and regulations adopted pursuant to the EESA.

 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

 

On February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “ARRA”) was signed into law. Section 7001 of the ARRA amended Section 111 of the EESA in its entirety. While the U.S. Treasury was required to promulgate regulations to implement the restrictions and standards set forth in Section 7001, the ARRA, among other things, significantly expands the executive compensation restrictions previously imposed by the EESA. Such restrictions apply to any entity that has received or will receive financial assistance under the TARP, and shall generally continue to apply for as long as any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP, including preferred stock issued under the CPP, remains outstanding. These ARRA restrictions do not apply to any TARP recipient during such time when the federal government (i) only holds any warrants to purchase common stock of such recipient or (ii) holds no preferred stock or warrants to purchase common stock of such recipient. Since the Company participates in the CPP, the restrictions and standards set forth in Section 7001 of the ARRA are applicable to the Company.

 

Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.

 

On September 27, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (the “SBJ Act”), which, among other matters, authorizes the U.S. Treasury to buy up to $30 billion in preferred stock or subordinated debt issued by community banks (or their bank holding companies provided 90% of the funds received are downstreamed to the bank subsidiary) with assets less that $10 billion pursuant to the Small Business Lending Fund (the “SBLF”) created under the SBJ Act. Funds received as capital investments will qualify as Tier 1 capital. The SBLF investments are intended to increase the availability of credit for small businesses and thereby induce the creation of jobs in support of economic recovery.

 

 

The participating banks (or bank holding companies) will pay an annual dividend on the preferred stock or subordinated debt purchased by the U.S. Treasury in an amount which ranges between 5% and 1% during the initial measurement period of approximately two years determined by reducing the dividend rate 1% for every 2.5% increase in the bank’s small business lending up to a lending increase of 10%. The dividend rate will be adjusted quarterly during the initial period. If a participant’s lending activity does not increase in the initial period, the dividend rate will increase thereafter to 7%. After 4.5 years, the dividend rate increases to 9% until the SBLF funds are repaid.

 

On December 23, 2010, the federal banking agencies jointly issued guidance on underwriting standards for small business loans originated under the SBLF which require adherence to safe and sound credit standards and risk management processes. It is uncertain whether the SBLF will have the intended effect of creating jobs in sufficient numbers to positively impact the economic recovery.

 

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dod-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). The Dodd-Frank act is intended to restructure the regulation of the financial services sector by, among other things, (i) establishing a framework to identify systemic risks in the financial system implemented by a newly creared Financial Stability Oversignt Council and other federal banking agencies; (ii) expanding the resolution authority of the federal banking agencies over troubled financial institutions; (iii) authorizing changes to capital and liquidity requirements; (iv) changing deposit insurance assessments; and (v) enhancing regulatory supervision to improve the safety and soundness of the financial services sector. The Dodd-Frank Act is expected to have a significant impact upon our business as its provisions are implemented over time. Below is a summary of certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act which, directly or indirectly, may affect us.

 

Changes to Capital Requirements . The federal banking agencies are required to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements for banks and bank holding companies which will not be lower and could be higher than current regulatory capital and leverage standards for insured depository institutions. Under these requirements, trust preferred securities will be excluded from Tier 1 capital unless such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a bank holding company with less than $15 billion in assets. The Dodd-Frank Act requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction consistent with safety and soundness.

 

Enhanced Regulatory Supervision . The Dodd-Frank Act increases regulatory oversight, supervision and examination of banks, bank holding companies and their respective subsidiaries by the appropriate regulatory agency.

 

Consumer Protection . The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) within the Federal Reserve System. The CFPB is responsible for establishing and implementing rules and regulations under various federal consumer protection laws governing certain consumer products and services. The CFPB has primary enforcement authority over large financial institutions with assets of $10 billion or more, while smaller institutions will be subject to the CFPB’s rules and regulations through the enforcement authority of the federal banking agencies. States are permitted to adopt consumer protection laws and regulations that are more stringent than those laws and regulations adopted by the CFPB and state attorneys general are permitted to enforce consumer protection laws and regulations adopted by the CFPB.

 

 

Deposit Insurance . The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increases the deposit insurance limit for insured deposits to $250,000 per depositor and extends unlimited deposit insurance to non-interest bearing transaction accounts through December 31, 2012. Other deposit insurance changes under the Dodd-Frank Act include (i) amendment of the assessment base used to calculate an insured depository institution’s deposit insurance premiums paid to the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) by elimination of deposits and substitution of average consolidated total assets less average tangible equity during the assessment period as the revised assessment base; (ii) increasing the minimum designated reserve ratio of the DIF from 1.15 percent to 1.35 percent of the estimated amount of total insured deposits; (iii) eliminating the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain threshholds; and (iv) repeal of the prohibition upon the payment of interest on demand deposits to be effective one year after the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. In December 2010, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC increased the reserve ratio of the DIF to 2.0 percent effective January 1, 2011.

 

Transactions with Affiliates . The Dodd-Frank Act enhances the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates under Section 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and increasing the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be maintained.

 

Transactions with Insiders . Insider transaction limitations are expanded through the strengthening of loan restrictions to insiders and the expansion of the types of transactions subject to various limits, including derivative transactions, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements and securities lending or borrowing transactions. Restrictions are also placed on certain asset sales to and from an insider to an institution, including requirements that such sales be on market terms and, in certain circumstances, approved by the institution’s board of directors.

 

Enhanced Lending Limitations . The Dodd-Frank Act strengthens the existing limits on a depository institution’s credit exposure to include credit exposure arising from derivative transactions, repurchase agreements, and securities lending and borrowing transactions.

 

Debit Card Interchange Fees . The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. Within nine months of enactment of the Dodd-Franck Act, the Federal Reserve Board is required to establish standards for reasonable and proportional fees which may take into account the costs of preventing fraud. The restrictions on interchage fees, however, do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion.

 

Interstate Branching . The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes national and nstate banks to establish branches in other states to the same extent as a bank chartered by that state would be permitted to branch. Previously, banks could onlly establish branches in other states if the host state expressly permitted out-of-state banks to establish branches in that state. Accordingly, banks will be able to enter new markets more freely.

 

 

Charter Conversions . Effective one year after enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, depository institutions that are subject to a cease and desist order or certain other enforcement actions issued with respect to a significant supervisory matter are prohibited from changing their federal or state charters, except in accordance with certain notice, application and other procedures involving the applicable regulatory agencies.

 

Compensation Practices . The Dodd-Frank Act provides that the appropriate federal banking regulators must establish standards prohibiting as an unsafe and unsound practice any compensation plan of a bank holding company or other “covered financial institution” that provides an insider or other employee with “excessive compensation” or could lead to a material financial loss to such firm. In June 2010, prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the federal bank regulatory agencies jointly issued the Interagency Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies (“Guidance”), which requires that financial institutions establish metrics for measuring the risk to the financial institution of such loss from incentive compensation arrangements and implement policies to prohibit inappropriate risk taking that may lead to material financial loss to the institution. Together, the Frank-Dodd Act and the Guidance may impact our compensation policies and arrangements.

 

Corporate Governance . The Dodd-Frank Act will enhance corporate governance requirements to include (i) requiring publicly traded companies to give shareholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation at their first annual meeting taking place six months after the enamctment and at lease every three years thereafter and on so-called “golden parachute” payments in connection with approvals of mergers and acquisitions unless previously voted on by shareholders; (ii) authorizing the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow shareholders to nominate their own candidates for election as directors using a company’s proxy materials; (iii) directing the federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess od $1.0 billion, regardless of whether or not the company is publicly traded; and (iv) authorizing the SEC to prohibit broker discretionary voting on the election of directors and on executive compensation matters.

 

Many of the requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented over an extended period of time. Therefore, the nature and extent of regulations that will be issued by various regulatory agencies and the impact such regulations will have on the operations of financial institutions such as ours is unclear. Such regulations resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitaility of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage ratio requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make necessary changes in order to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements.

 

Recent Regulatory Developments

 

In response to global credit and liquidity issues involving a number of financial institutions, the United States government, particularly the U.S. Treasury and the Federal financial institution regulatory agencies, have taken a variety of extraordinary measures designed to restore confidence in the financial markets and to strengthen financial institutions, including capital injections, guarantees of bank liabilities and the acquisition of illiquid assets from banks.

 

 

Small Business Lending Fund. Enacted into law as part of the Small Business Jobs Act, the Small Business Lending Fund (“SBLF”) is a $30 billion fund that encourages lending to small businesses by providing Tier 1 capital to qualified community banks with assets of less than $10 billion. Through the SBLF, Main Street banks and small businesses can work together to help create jobs and promote economic growth in local communities across the nation.

 

The SBLF aims to stimulate small business lending by peoviding capital to participating community banks. The price a bank pays for SBLF funding will be reduced as the bank’s small business lending increases..

 

Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program . Among other programs and actions taken by the U.S. Treasury and other regulatory agencies in 2008, the FDIC implemented the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (the “TLGP”) to strengthen confidence and encourage liquidity in the financial system. The TLGP is comprised of the Debt Guarantee Program (the “DGP”) and the Transaction Account Guarantee Program (the “TAGP”). The Bank did not participate in the DGP Program but elected to participate in the TAGP. The DGP guarantees all newly issued senior unsecured debt (e.g., promissory notes, unsubordinated unsecured notes and commercial paper) up to prescribed limits issued by participating entities beginning on October 14, 2008 and continuing through April 30, 2010. For eligible debt issued by that date, the FDIC will provide the guarantee coverage until the earlier of the maturity date of the debt or December 31, 2012. The TAGP offers full guarantee for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts held at FDIC-insured depository institutions. The unlimited deposit coverage was voluntary for eligible institutions and was in addition to the $250,000 FDIC deposit insurance per account that was included as part of the EESA. The TAGP coverage became effective on October 14, 2008 and was extended through December 31, 2011. On November 9, 2010, the FDIC issued a final rule, implementing the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides temporary unlimited deposit insurance coverage for non-interest bearing transaction accounts through December 31, 2012

 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act into law, which, in part, permanently raised the current standard maximum deposit insurance amount to $250,000.

 

Financial Stability Plan . On February 10, 2009, the U.S. Treasury announced a Financial Stability Plan (the “FSP”) as a comprehensive approach to strengthening the financial system and credit crisis.

 

The Plan includes a Capital Assistance Program (the “CAP”) that is intended to serve as a bridge to raising private capital and to ensure sufficient capital to preserve or increase lending in a worse-than-expected economic deterioration. Eligibility to participate in the CAP will be consistent with the criteria for QFI’s under the CPP. Eligible institutions with consolidated assets in excess of $100 billion will be able to obtain capital under the CAP, subject to a supervisory review process and comprehensive stress test assessment of the losses that could occur over a two year period in the future across a range of economic scenarios, including conditions more severe than anticipated or as typically used in capital planning processes.

 

Eligible institutions with consolidated assets below $100 billion will be able to obtain capital under the CAP after a supervisory review. As announced, the CAP includes issuance of a convertible preferred security to the U.S. Treasury at a discount to the participating institution’s stock price as of February 9, 2009, subject to a dividend to be determined. The security instrument was designed to incentivize institutions to replace the CAP capital with private capital or redeem it. Institutions participating in the CPP under TARP may also be permitted to exchange their CPP preferred stock for the convertible preferred CAP security. The Company did not participate in the CAP.

 

 

Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility . On March 3, 2009, the U.S. Treasury and the Board of Governors announced the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (the “TALF”). The TALF is one of the programs under the Financial Stability Plan announced by the U.S. Treasury on February 10, 2009. The TALF is intended to help stimulate the economy by facilitating securitization activities which allow lenders to increase the availability of credit to consumers and businesses.

 

Under the TALF, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”) would lend up to $200 billion to provide financing to investors as support for purchases of certain AAA-rated asset-backed securities (“ABS”) initially for newly and recently originated auto loans, credit card loans, student loans, SBA-guaranteed small business loans, and rental, commercial, and government vehicle fleet leases, small ticket equipment, heavy equipment, and agricultural equipment loans and leases.

 

ABS fundings were held monthly. The loan asset classes may be expanded in the future to include commercial mortgages, non-Agency residential mortgages, and/or other asset classes. Credit extensions under the TALF will be non-recourse loans to eligible borrowers secured by eligible collateral for a three-year term with interest paid monthly. Any U.S. company that owned eligible collateral could borrow from the TALF, provided the company maintained an account with a primary dealer who would act as agent for the borrower and deliver eligible collateral to the FRBNY custodian in connection with the loan funding. The FRBNY would create a special purpose vehicle (“SPV”) to purchase and manage any assets received by the FRBNY in connection with the TALF loans.

 

The U.S. Treasury would provide $20 billion of credit protection to the FRBNY in connection with the TALF through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (the “TARP”) by purchasing subordinated debt issued by the SPV to finance the first $20 billion of asset purchases. If more than $20 billion in assets are purchased by the SPV, the FRBNY would lend additional funds to the SPV to finance such additional purchases. The FRBNY’s loan to the SPV would be senior to the TARP subordinated loan and secured by all of the assets of the SPV. The FRBNY indicated an intention to cease making new loans on June 30, 2010, but loans collateralized by certain types of ABS were scheduled to cease on March 31, 2010, subject to extension of the TALF by the Board of Governors. The Bank did not participate in this program.

 

Future Legislation and Regulations

 

Certain legislative and regulatory proposals that could affect the Company, the Bank, and the banking business in general are periodically introduced before the United States Congress, the California State Legislature and Federal and state government agencies. It is not known to what extent, if any, legislative proposals will be enacted and what effect such legislation would have on the structure, regulation and competitive relationships of financial institutions. It is likely, however, that such legislation could subject the Company and the Bank to increased regulation, disclosure and reporting requirements, competition, and costs of doing business.

 

In addition to legislative changes, the various federal and state financial institution regulatory agencies frequently propose rules and regulations to implement and enforce already existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether or in what form any such rules or regulations will be enacted or the effect that such regulations may have on the Company and the Bank.