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, 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 furtherdecline in real estate values in the operating market areas of the Company; (14) the effects of terrorism, the threat of terrorism or the impact of the current military conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria, 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 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, and San Francisco. The Bank also has a loan production office in Sunnyvale. 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 as a national bank 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 2012 were $80,014 and $74,582, respectively, which represented an increase of 19.6% and a decrease of 14.1%, respectively, over 2009 levels. Management believes per capita income levels grew at single digit growth rates during the year ended December 31, 2013, based upon expected economic activity levels and overall employment prospects. Unemployment data published by the California Employment Development Department report sun employment levels of 4.8% in San Francisco County, 4.6% in San Mateo County, and 7.9% for the State of California, in December 2013. For December 2012, San Francisco County showed 6.5%, San Mateo County showed 6.0%, and the State of California 9.7%.

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 2013 2nd Edition, lists the following major employers in San Francisco County: Bechtel, Deloitte, Federal Reserve Bank, 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, UCSF-Medical Center, US Veterans Medical Center and University of California-San Francisco. The following were listed as major employers in San Mateo County: Gilead Sciences, Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Mills-PeninsulaMedical Center, San Mateo County Human Resources, Oracle Corp., SRI International, Stanford Linear Accelerator, U.S. Interior Department, and Visa International Services Association. The major labor force in both counties is represented by the service industries, including financial services, 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. The Bank also makes available commercial loans and standby letters of credit and construction, accounts receivable, inventory, automobile, home improvement, residential real estate, and commercial real estate loans,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 cashier’s 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, 2013, the Bank had a total of 22,540 deposit accounts. The Bank has obtained deposits through deposit brokers for which it pays a broker fee. As of December 31, 2013, The Bank had $4,905,000 in such deposits. There is no concentration of deposits or any customer with 5% or more of the Bank’s total deposits.

At December 31, 2013, the Company had total assets of $891,930,000, net loans of $552,343,000, deposits of $773,615,000 and stockholders’ equity of $94,249,000. The Company competes with approximately 34 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 2.66%, and 0.07% in the San Francisco County marketarea (based upon the most recent information available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation through June 30, 2013). See “Competitive Data” below.

Employees

At December 31, 2013, the Company employed 184 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. Simply select the “Investor Relations” menu item and then click on “Financial Statements.” 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 non-bank 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 the 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 further 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 guidelines, the Company and the Bank are required to maintain capital equal to at least 8% of its assets and commitments to extend credit, weighted by risk, of which at least 4% must consist primarily of common equity (including retained earnings) and the remainder may consist of subordinated debt, cumulative preferred stock, or a limited amount of loan and lease loss reserves.

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.

The Bank and the Company are 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 (“Leverage Ratio.”) The Leverage ratio minimums have been established at 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.

At December 31, 2013, the Company and the Bank were in compliance with the risk-based capital and leverage ratios described above. See “Capital” under Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and the Results of Operations” below. Also see Note 20 to the Financial Statements incorporated by reference in Item 8 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.”FDICIA also restricts the solicitation and acceptance of and interest rates payable on brokered deposits by insured depository institutions that are not “well capitalized” and 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.

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.

Effective January 1, 2015, the risk-based-capital regulations and prompt corrective regulations, described above under “Capital Standards” and “Prompt Corrective Action,” have been amended to the extent described below under Basel III Capital.

Basel III Capital

In July 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued interim final rules that revise and replace the current risk-based capital requirements. These rules implement the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Basel III reforms reflected in the final rules include an increase in the risk-based capital requirements and certain changes to capital components and the calculation of risk-weighted assets.

 Effective January 1, 2015, banking organizations like the Company and the Bank must comply with new minimum capital ration requirements to be phased in between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2019, which would consist of the following: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital to total risk weighted assets ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a total capital to total risk weighted assets ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital to total risk weighted assets ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); a Tier 1 capital to adjusted average total assers (“leverage”) ratio of 4%.

In addition, a “capital conservation buffer” is established which when fully phased-in will require maintenance of a minimum of 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to total risk weighted assets in excess of the regulatory minimum capital ratio requirements described above. The 2.5% buffer would increase the minimum capital ratios to (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. The new buffer requirement would be phased in between January 2016 and January 2019. An institution would be subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, discretionary payments under Tier 1 instruments and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital ratio level fell below the buffer amount.

The federal bank regulatory agencies have also proposed changes to the prompt corrective action framework (described above under “Prompt Corrective Action”) which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions if their capital ratios begin to show signs of weakness. These changes will take effect January 1, 2015 and will require insured depository institutions to meet the following increased capital ratio 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%).

Assuming the Basel III interim final rules were in effect at December 31, 2013, and based upon the Company’s capital position at December 31, 2013, management believes that the Company and the Bank would be in compliance with the minimum capital requirements, including the fully phased-in capital conservation buffer requirement, of the interim final rules.

Uniform Rating System

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 non-depository 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. 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 will 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.

  CRA Compliance

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 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“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”). All depository accounts of the Bank are covered by FDIC insurance up to established maximum limits.

The amount of FDIC assessments paid by each DIF member institution for insurance coverage is based on its risk profile as measured by regulatory capital ratios and other supervisory factors. In 2011, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC revised the assessment rates and the deposit insurance assessment base used to calculate premiums paid to DIF. The FDIC also increased the minimum designated reserve ratio (“DRR”) to 2.0 percent.

If economic conditions continue to negatively impact financial institutions and there are additional bank and other financial institutions failures, or if the FDIC otherwise determines, the Bank may be required to pay higher FDIC premiums in the future (including the possibility of special assessments and the requirement to prepay estimated quarterly risk-based assessments), which could have a material and adverse effect on the earnings of the Company.

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 has been required to make dividend payments to the U. S. Treasury on the shares of Series C, Senior Non-cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock that were issued on September 15, 2011 as part of the Small Business Lending Fund program established under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. See discussion under “Small Business Jobs Act of 2010,” below. On January 23, 2014, the Company redeemed all of the remaining outstanding preferred shares that had been issued to the U.S. Treasury through the Small Business Lending Fund, in a cash redemption transaction.

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 neither a corporation nor any of its subsidiaries shall make a distribution to the corporation’s shareholders unless the board of directors has determined in good faith either of the following: (1) the amount of retained earnings of the corporation immediately prior to the distribution equals or exceeds the sum of (A) the amount of the proposed distribution plus (B) the preferential dividends arrears amount; or (2) immediately after the distribution, the value of the corporation’s assets would equal or exceed the sum of its total liabilities plus the preferential rights amount. The good faith determination of the board of directors may be based upon (1) financial statements prepared on the basis of reasonable accounting practices and principles, (2) a fair valuation, or (3) any other method reasonable under the circumstances; provided, that a distribution may not be made if the corporation or subsidiary making the distribution is, or is likely to be, unable to meet its liabilities (except those whose payment is otherwise adequately provided for) as they mature. The term “preferential dividends arrears amount” means the amount, if any, of cumulative dividends in arrears on all shares having a preference with respect to payment of dividends over the class or series to which the applicable distribution is being made, provided that if the articles of incorporation provide that a distribution can be made without regard to preferential dividends arrears amount, then the preferential dividends arrears amount shall be zero. The term “preferential rights amount” means the amount that would be needed if the corporation were to be dissolved at the time of the distribution to satisfy the preferential rights, including accrued but unpaid dividends, of other shareholders upon dissolution that are superior to the rights of the shareholders receiving the distribution, provided that if the articles of incorporation provide that a distribution can be made without regard to any preferential rights, then the preferential rights amount shall be zero.

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 the Bank’s 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 FDIC. 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 FDIC 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.

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 other insured financial institutions, retaining the portion of such loans which is within its lending limits. As of December 31, 2013, the Bank’s aggregate legal lending limits to a single borrower and such borrower’s related parties were $14,437,000 on an unsecured basis and $24,061,000 on a fully secured basis, based on regulatory Total Risk-Based Capital of $96,247,000. The Bank’s business is concentrated in its service area, which primarily encompasses San Mateo County and 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 FDIC Summary of Deposits at June 30, 2013, there were 29 commercial and savings banking institutions in San Mateo County with a total of $25,416,244,000 in deposits at June 30, 2013. The Bank had a total of 9 offices in the county with total deposits of $676,236,000 at the same date, or 2.66% of the San Mateo County totals. There were 52 banking and savings institutions in the County of San Francisco with a total of $186,573,327,000 in deposits at June 30, 2013. The Bank had a total of 4 offices in the county with total deposits of $126,984,000, or 0.07% of the County of San Francisco totals. Offices of First National Bank in San Mateo County and the City and County of San Francisco have averaged deposit growth of 6.01% over the last two years. Some of this growth was related to the Company’s acquisition of Oceanic Bank, which occurred in September, 2012.

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 investment 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.

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, but also by statutes, as implemented by federal agencies. 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 Banks. 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.

Impact of Certain Legislation and Regulation

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 of 1999 (the “Act”), eliminated most of the remaining depression-era “firewalls” between banks, securities firms and insurance companies which were 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.

  Volker Rule

On December 10, 2013, the federal banking agencies jointly issued a final rule implementing the so-called “Volker Rule” (set forth in Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act). The Volker rule prohibits depository institutions, companies that control such institutions, bank holding companies, and the affiliates and subsidiaries of such banking entities, from engaging as principal for the trading account of the banking entity in any purchase or sale of one or more covered financial instruments (so-called “proprietary trading”) and imposes limitations upon retaining ownership interests in, sponsoring, investing in and transacting with certain investment funds, including hedge funds and private equity funds. Certain activities involving underwriting, risk mitigation hedging, and transactions on behalf of customers as a fiduciary or riskless principal are not prohibited proprietary trading, including purchases and sales of financial instruments which are either obligations of or issued or guaranteed by (i) the United States or agencies thereof; (ii) a State or political subdivision including municipal securities; or (iii) the FDIC. Notwithstanding these permissible activities, no such activities are permitted if they would (i) involve or result in a material conflict of interest between the banking entity and its clients, customers, or counterparties; (ii) result, directly or indirectly, in a material exposure by the banking entity to a high-risk asset or a high-risk trading strategy; or (iii) pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the banking entity or the financial stability of the United States. The effective date of the final rule is delayed to July 21, 2015 in order to provide a transitional period for banking entities to conform their activities and policies to the final rule. Neither the Company nor the Bank engages in activities prohibited by the Volker Rule and management does not expect the Volker Rule to have a material impact upon the Company or the Bank.

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 the 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.

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 at various times. On May 26, 2011, Congress approved a four–year extension of three expiring provisions, which are now set to expire June 1, 2015.

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:

The Company’s securities are not currently listed on any exchange. They are traded on the NASDAQ Other the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB). In the event of such a listing in the future, in addition to the rules promulgated by the SEC pursuant to the Act, the Company would be required to comply with the listing standards applicable to all exchange listed companies.

The Company has incurred and it is anticipated that it will continue to incur costs to comply with the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act by the Securities and Exchange Commission of approximately $100,000 annually.

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:

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”).

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. The Company no longer participates in the CPP, so the restrictions and standards set forth in Section 7001 of the ARRA are no longer applicable to the Company. (See “Small Business Jobs Act of 2010” below.)

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 down-streamed 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.

On September 15, 2011, as part of the Small Business Lending Fund (“SBLF”) program established under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Company entered into and consummated a SBLF Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with the Secretary of the Treasury (“Treasury”), pursuant to which the Company (i) issued and sold to Treasury a total of 12,600 shares of the Company’s Senior Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series C (the “Series C Preferred Stock”), having a liquidation preference amount of $1,000 per share, for a purchase price of $12,600,000. The Series C Preferred Stock qualifies as Tier 1 capital.

All of the proceeds $12,600,000 from the Company’s sale of its Series C Preferred Stock were immediately applied to the Company’s repurchase of outstanding shares of preferred stock which were issued to the United States Department of the Treasury on February 27, 2009, pursuant to the TARP Capital Purchase Program authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The aggregate redemption price for the outstanding shares of preferred stock was $12,654,500. The $54,500 price differential was paid by the Company in cash.

Subject to the prior approval of the appropriate Federal Banking Agency, the Series C Preferred Stock may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at any time at the option of the Company, at a redemption price of 100% of the liquidation preference amount plus any accrued and unpaid dividends for the then current period, to the date of redemption.

On May 6, 2013, the Company redeemed 25% of the original issue $12,600,000 of Series C Preferred Stock for a cash payment of $3,150,000. Subsequently, on January 23, 2014, the remaining $9,450,000 of Series C Preferred Stock was redeemed, also in a cash transaction. See Note 23 to the Financial Statements incorporated in Item 8 below.

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

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-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 created Financial Stability Oversight 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 the Company and the Bank.

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 counter cyclical 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 (“DRR”) 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 thresholds; 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-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve Board was required to establish standards for reasonable and proportional fees which may take into account the costs of preventing fraud. The restrictions on interchange 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 state 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 only 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 the Company’s 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 enactment and at least 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 of $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 profitability 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.

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.