Item 1. Business.

General

German American Bancorp, Inc., is a NASDAQ-traded (symbol: GABC) financial services holding company based in Jasper, Indiana. German American, through its banking subsidiary German American Bancorp, operates 37 retail and commercial banking offices in 13 southern Indiana counties. The Company also owns a trust, brokerage, and financial planning subsidiary (German American Financial Advisors & Trust Company) and a full line property and casualty insurance agency (German American Insurance, Inc.).

Throughout this report, when we use the term “Company”, we will usually be referring to the business and affairs (financial and otherwise) of German American Bancorp, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as a whole. Occasionally, we will refer to the term “parent company” or “holding company” when we mean to refer to only German American Bancorp, Inc. and the term “Bank” when we mean to refer only to the Company’s bank subsidiary.

The Company’s lines of business include retail and commercial banking, comprehensive financial planning, full service brokerage and trust administration, and a full range of personal and corporate insurance products. Financial and other information by segment is included in Note 15 – Segment Information of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Report and is incorporated into this Item 1 by reference. Substantially all of the Company’s revenues are derived from customers located in, and substantially all of its assets are located in, the United States.

Business Development

The Company opened a loan production office in Columbus, Indiana, during the second quarter of 2012 as an entry point into the Columbus market. During the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company’s opened a full service retail and commercial branch location in Columbus and vacated the loan production office. The Company continues its focus on growing its base of operations in the Columbus, Indiana, market.

The Company acquired by merger (effective October 1, 2013) United Commerce Bancorp and its subsidiary, United Commerce Bank. United Commerce Bank provided a full range of commercial and consumer banking services in the Bloomington, Indiana, market, from two banking offices. During the fourth quarter of 2013, one of those branch locations was consolidated into an existing branch banking location of German American Bancorp. United Commerce had consolidated assets and deposits (unaudited) as of October 1, 2013 that totaled $119.7 million and $106.6 million, respectively. The Company continues its focus on growing its base of operations in the Bloomington, Indiana, market.

The Company expects to continue to evaluate opportunities to expand its business through opening of new banking, insurance or trust, brokerage and financial planning offices, and through acquisitions of other banks, bank branches, portfolios of loans or other assets, and other financial-service-related businesses and assets in the future.

Office Locations

The Indiana map below illustrates the locations of the Company’s 39 retail and commercial banking, insurance and investment offices as of March 1, 2014.

Competition

The industries in which the Company operates are highly competitive. The Bank competes for commercial and retail banking business within its core banking segment not only with financial institutions that have offices in the same counties but also with financial institutions that compete from other locations in Southern Indiana and elsewhere. Further, the Bank competes for loans and deposits not only with commercial banks but also with savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, production credit associations, federal land banks, finance companies, credit card companies, personal loan companies, investment brokerage firms, insurance agencies, insurance companies, lease finance companies, money market funds, mortgage companies, and other non-depository financial intermediaries. There are numerous alternative providers (including national providers that advertise extensively via television and the Internet and that provide their services through direct mail, telephone and the Internet) for the insurance products and services offered by German American Insurance, Inc., and the trust, brokerage and financial planning products and services offered by German American Financial Advisors & Trust Company. Many of these competitors have substantially greater resources than the Company.

Employees

At March 1, 2014 the Company and its subsidiaries employed approximately 480 full-time equivalent employees. There are no collective bargaining agreements, and employee relations are considered to be good.

Regulation and Supervision

Overview

The Company is subject to regulation and supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”) under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHC Act”), and is required to file with the FRB annual reports and such additional information as the FRB may require. The FRB may also make examinations or inspections of the Company. The Bank is under the supervision of and subject to examination by the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). Regulation and examination by banking regulatory agencies are primarily for the benefit of depositors rather than shareholders.

Under FRB policy and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a complex and wide-ranging statute that was enacted by Congress and signed into law during July 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), the Company is required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to the Bank, and to commit resources to support the Bank, even in circumstances where the Company might not do so absent such a requirement. Under current federal law, the FRB may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank. It may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices if the bank holding company fails to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank or if it undertakes actions that the FRB believes might jeopardize the bank holding company’s ability to commit resources to such subsidiary bank.

With certain exceptions, the BHC Act prohibits a bank holding company from engaging in (or acquiring direct or indirect control of more than 5 percent of the voting shares of any company engaged in) nonbanking activities. One of the principal exceptions to this prohibition is for activities deemed by the FRB to be “closely related to banking.” Under current regulations, bank holding companies and their subsidiaries are permitted to engage in such banking-related business ventures as consumer finance; equipment leasing; credit life insurance; computer service bureau and software operations; mortgage banking; and securities brokerage.

Under the BHC Act, certain well-managed and well-capitalized bank holding companies may elect to be treated as a “financial holding company” and, as a result, be permitted to engage in a broader range of activities that are “financial in nature” and in activities that are determined to be incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature. These activities include underwriting and dealing in and making a market in securities (subject to certain limits and compliance procedures required by the so-called Volcker Rule provisions added by the Dodd-Frank Act, described below under “Other Aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act”); insurance underwriting, and merchant banking. Banks may also engage through financial subsidiaries in certain of the activities permitted for financial holding companies, subject to certain conditions. The Company has not elected to become a financial holding company and its subsidiary bank has not elected to form financial subsidiaries.

The Bank and the subsidiaries of the Bank may generally engage in activities that are permissible activities for state chartered banks under Indiana banking law, without regard to the limitations that might apply to such activities under the BHC Act if the Company were to engage directly in such activities at the parent company level or through parent company subsidiaries that were not also bank subsidiaries.

Indiana law and the BHC Act restrict certain types of expansion by the Company and its bank subsidiary. The Company and its subsidiaries may be required to apply for prior approval from (or give prior notice and an opportunity for review to) the FRB, the DFI, and/or other bank regulatory or other regulatory agencies, as a condition to the acquisition or establishment of new offices, or the acquisition (by merger or consolidation, purchase or otherwise) of the stock, business or properties of other banks or other companies.

The earnings of commercial banks and their holding companies are affected not only by general economic conditions but also by the policies of various governmental regulatory authorities. In particular, the FRB regulates money and credit conditions and interest rates in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open-market operations in U.S. Government securities, varying the discount rate on bank borrowings, and setting reserve requirements against bank deposits. These policies have a significant influence on overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and affect interest rates charged on loans and earned on investments or paid for time and savings deposits. FRB monetary policies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and this is expected to continue in the future. The general effect, if any, of such policies upon the future business and earnings of the Company cannot accurately be predicted.

Capital Requirements Generally

The FRB has issued risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies. Under the guidelines and related policies, bank holding companies must maintain capital sufficient to meet both a risk-based asset ratio test and a leverage ratio test on a consolidated basis. The risk-based ratio is determined by allocating assets and specified off-balance sheet commitments into four weighted categories, with higher weighting assigned to categories perceived as representing greater risk. The risk-based ratio represents total capital divided by total risk-weighted assets. The leverage ratio is core capital divided by total assets adjusted as specified in the guidelines. Our bank subsidiary is subject to substantially similar capital requirements under regulations and policies adopted by the FDIC and the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions. The FRB and FDIC during 2013 issued final rules (or interim final rules) to comprehensively revise the regulatory capital framework for US banking institutions and their affiliates, as discussed below.

Current Capital Requirements

Current guidelines that continue to apply throughout 2014 (prior to the phase-in of the new rules effective January 1, 2015) require all bank holding companies and federally regulated banks to maintain a minimum risk-based total capital ratio equal to 8%, of which at least 4% of risk-weighted assets must be Tier I Capital. Tier I Capital, which includes common shareholders’ equity, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, and a limited amount of cumulative perpetual preferred stock and certain trust preferred securities, less certain goodwill items and other intangible assets, is required to equal at least 4% of risk-weighted assets. The remainder (“Tier II Capital”) may consist of (i) an allowance for loan losses of up to 1.25% of risk-weighted assets, (ii) excess of qualifying perpetual preferred stock, (iii) hybrid capital instruments, (iv) perpetual debt, (v) mandatory convertible securities, and (vi) subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock up to 50% of Tier I Capital. Total capital is the sum of Tier I and Tier II Capital less reciprocal holdings of other banking organizations’ capital instruments, investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries and any other deductions as determined by the appropriate regulator (determined on a case by case basis or as a matter of policy after formal rule making).

In computing total risk-weighted assets, bank holding company assets are given risk-weights of 0%, 20%, 50% and 100%. In addition, certain off-balance sheet items are given similar credit conversion factors to convert them to asset equivalent amounts to which an appropriate risk-weight will apply. Most loans will be assigned to the 100% risk category, except for performing first mortgage loans fully secured by 1- to 4-family and certain multi-family residential property, which carry a 50% risk rating. Most investment securities (including, primarily, general obligation claims on states or other political subdivisions of the United States) will be assigned to the 20% category, except for municipal or state revenue bonds, which have a 50% risk-weight, and direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury or obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, which have a 0% risk-weight. In covering off-balance sheet items, direct credit substitutes, including general guarantees and standby letters of credit backing financial obligations, are given a 100% conversion factor. Transaction-related contingencies such as bid bonds, standby letters of credit backing non-financial obligations, and undrawn commitments (including commercial credit lines with an initial maturity of more than one year) have a 50% conversion factor. Short-term commercial letters of credit are converted at 20% and certain short-term unconditionally cancelable commitments have a 0% factor.

The federal bank regulatory authorities have also adopted regulations that supplement the risk-based guidelines. These regulations generally require banks and financial holding companies to maintain a minimum level of Tier I Capital to total assets less goodwill of either 3% or 4%, depending upon factors such as the regulatory ratings, earnings and financial condition of the institution (the “leverage ratio”). Banking organizations experiencing or anticipating significant growth will be required to maintain higher minimum leverage ratios and may be required to commit to achieve or maintain higher minimum ratios (including “tangible Tier I leverage ratios”) in order to secure regulatory approvals needed for such organizations to acquire other banks or other businesses or engage in new activities. The tangible Tier I leverage ratio is the ratio of a banking organization’s Tier I Capital, less deductions for intangibles otherwise includable in Tier I Capital, to total tangible assets.

New Capital Requirements Applicable to Us in the Future

In July 2013, the federal banking agencies released final rules that will implement in the United States certain regulatory capital reforms based upon international banking supervision principles adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Generally, under these final rules, (a) minimum requirements will increase for both the quality and quantity of capital held by banking organizations, (b) new and stricter criteria for determining the eligibility for inclusion in regulatory capital of capital instruments (other than common equity) will be applied, and (c) the methodology for calculating risk-weighted assets will change. The rules include, among other requirements:

The new capital measure “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”) Capital consists of common stock instruments that meet the eligibility criteria in the final rules, retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) and common equity Tier 1 minority interest. Tier 1 Capital will consist of CET1 and “additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, plus, in the case of smaller holding companies like ours, trust preferred securities in accordance with prior requirements for their inclusion in Tier I Capital. A number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1 will apply. Changes will apply to the calculation of Tier 2 Capital and to the types of capital elements that will be eligible for inclusion as Tier 2 capital.

Under current capital standards, the effects of AOCI items included in capital are excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios; under the new rules, we and our bank subsidiary will have a one-time election (the “Opt-out Election”) to filter certain AOCI components, comparable to their treatment under the current general risk-based capital rule. The AOCI Opt-out Election must be made in connection with the regulatory financial reports that we and our bank subsidiary will file with banking agencies for our fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2015.

Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer will technically comply with minimum capital requirements, but will face limitations on the payment of dividends, common stock repurchases and discretionary cash payments to executive officers based on the amount of the shortfall.

As applied to us, these rules will generally become effective January 1, 2015; the new Common Equity Tier 1 Capital conservation buffer, however, will be phased in from 2016 through 2019.

Capital Classifications

Federal law and regulations establish a capital-based regulatory framework designed to promote early intervention for troubled banks and require the FDIC to choose the least expensive resolution of bank failures. The capital-based regulatory framework contains five categories of compliance with regulatory capital requirements, including “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” To qualify as a “well-capitalized” institution, a bank under current guidelines must have a leverage ratio of no less than 5%, a Tier I Capital ratio of no less than 6%, and a total risk-based capital ratio of no less than 10%, and the bank must not be under any order or directive from the appropriate regulatory agency to meet and maintain a specific capital level. Generally, a financial institution must be “well capitalized” before the Federal Reserve will approve an application by a bank holding company to acquire or merge with a bank or bank holding company.

Under the regulations, the applicable agency can treat an institution as if it were in the next lower category if the agency determines (after notice and an opportunity for hearing) that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or is engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice. The degree of regulatory scrutiny of a financial institution will increase, and the permissible activities of the institution will decrease, as it moves downward through the capital categories. Institutions that fall into one of the three undercapitalized categories may be required to (i) submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) raise additional capital; (iii) restrict their growth, deposit interest rates, and other activities; (iv) improve their management; (v) eliminate management fees; or (vi) divest themselves of all or a part of their operations. Bank holding companies can be called upon to boost the capital of the financial institutions that they control, and to partially guarantee the institutions’ performance under their capital restoration plans.

The minimum ratios referred to above are merely guidelines and the bank regulators possess the discretionary authority to require higher capital ratios.

As of December 31, 2013, we exceeded the requirements contained in the applicable regulations, policies and directives pertaining to capital adequacy to be classified as “well capitalized”, and are unaware of any material violation or alleged violation of these regulations, policies or directives.

Failure to meet applicable capital guidelines could subject the financial institution to a variety of enforcement remedies available to the federal regulatory authorities. These include limitations on the ability to pay dividends, the issuance by the regulatory authority of a directive to increase capital, and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. In addition, the financial institution could be subject to the measures described below under a regulatory program known as Prompt Corrective Action as applicable to Under-capitalized institutions.

The risk-based capital standards of the FRB and the FDIC specify that evaluations by the banking agencies of a bank’s capital adequacy will include an assessment of the exposure to declines in the economic value of a bank’s capital due to changes in interest rates. These banking agencies issued a joint policy statement on interest rate risk describing prudent methods for monitoring such risk that rely principally on internal measures of exposure and active oversight of risk management activities by senior management.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvements Act (enacted in 1991) (FDICIA) requires federal banking regulatory authorities to take regulatory enforcement actions known as Prompt Corrective Action with respect to depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. For these purposes, FDICIA establishes five capital tiers: Well-capitalized, Adequately-capitalized, Under-capitalized, Significantly under-capitalized, and Critically under-capitalized.

Throughout 2013, the Company’s consolidated regulatory capital ratios and those of the Bank were in excess of the levels established for Well-capitalized institutions for purposes of the Prompt Corrective Action provisions under FDICIA. An institution is deemed to be Well-capitalized under the current FDICIA tiers if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% or greater and is not subject to a regulatory order, agreement, or directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. For a tabular presentation of our regulatory capital ratios and those of the Bank as of December 31, 2013, see Note 8 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements that are presented in Item 8 of this Report, which Note 8 is incorporated herein by reference.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution, including payment of a cash dividend or paying any management fee to its holding company, if the depository institution would become Under-capitalized after such payment. Under-capitalized institutions are also subject to growth limitations and are required by the appropriate federal banking agency to submit a capital restoration plan. If any depository institution subsidiary of a holding company is required to submit a capital restoration plan, the holding company would be required to provide a limited guarantee regarding compliance with the plan as a condition of approval of such plan.

Depending upon the severity of the under capitalization, the Under-capitalized institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become Adequately-capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks, and restrictions on making any payment of principal or interest on their subordinated debt. Critically under-capitalized institutions are subject to appointment of a receiver or conservator within 90 days of becoming so classified.

Under FDICIA, a depository institution that is not Well-capitalized is generally prohibited from accepting brokered deposits and offering interest rates on deposits higher than the prevailing rate in its market. Since the Bank is Well-capitalized, the FDICIA brokered deposit rule did not adversely affect its ability to accept brokered deposits. The Bank had no such brokered deposits at December 31, 2013. Further, a depository institution or its holding company that is not Well-capitalized will generally not be successful in seeking regulatory approvals that may be necessary in connection with any plan or agreement to expand its business, such as through the acquisition (by merger or consolidation, purchase or otherwise) of the stock, business or properties of other banks or other companies.

The new Basel capital rules revised the “Prompt Corrective Action” requirements applicable to our bank subsidiary effective January 1, 2015, by (i) introducing a CET1 ratio requirement at each level (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required CET1 ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio for well-capitalized status being 8.0% (as compared to the current 6.0%); (iii) creating a minimum leverage ratio requirement of 5% for well-capitalized status; and (iv) eliminating the current provision that provides that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3.0% leverage ratio and still be well-capitalized.

Future rulemaking and regulatory changes on capital requirements may impact the Company as it continues to grow and evaluate potential mergers and acquisitions.

Restrictions on Bank Dividends or Loans to, or other Transactions with, the Parent Company, and on Parent Company Dividends

German American Bancorp, Inc., which is the publicly-held parent of the Bank (German American Bancorp), is a corporation that is separate and distinct from the Bank and its other subsidiaries. Most of the parent company’s revenues historically have been comprised of dividends, fees, and interest paid to it by the Bank, and this is expected to continue in the future. There are, however, statutory limits under Indiana law on the amount of dividends that the Bank can pay to its parent company without regulatory approval. The Bank may not, without the approval of the DFI, pay a dividend in an amount greater than its undivided profits. In addition, the prior approval of the DFI is required for the payment of a dividend by an Indiana state-chartered bank if the total of all dividends declared in a calendar year would exceed the total of its net income for the year combined with its retained net income for the two preceding years, unless such a payment qualifies under certain exemptive criteria that exempt certain dividend payments by certain qualified banks from the prior approval requirement. At December 31, 2013, the Bank was eligible for payment of dividends under the exemptive criteria established by DFI policy for this purpose, and could have declared and paid to the holding company $39,000,000 of its undivided profits without approval by the DFI in accordance with such criteria. See Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Report for further discussion.

In addition, the FRB and other bank regulatory agencies have issued policy statements or advisories that provide that insured banks and bank holding companies should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings.

In addition to these statutory restrictions, if, in the opinion of the applicable regulatory authority, a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice, such authority may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from such practice. Accordingly, if the Bank were to experience financial difficulties, it is possible that the applicable regulatory authority could determine that the Bank would be engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice if the Bank were to pay dividends and could prohibit the Bank from doing so, even if availability existed for dividends under the statutory formulae.

Further, the Bank is subject to affiliate transaction restrictions under federal laws, which limit certain transactions generally involving the transfer of funds by a subsidiary bank or its subsidiaries to its parent corporation or any nonbank subsidiary of its parent corporation, whether in the form of loans, extensions of credit, investments, or asset purchases, or otherwise undertaking certain obligations on behalf of such affiliates. Furthermore, covered transactions that are loans and extensions of credit must be secured within specified amounts. In addition, all covered transactions and other affiliate transactions must be conducted on terms and under circumstances that are substantially the same as such transactions with unaffiliated entities.

Other Aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd-Frank Act (in addition to the regulatory changes discussed elsewhere in this “Regulation and Supervision” discussion and below under “Federal Deposit Insurance Premiums and Assessments”) made a variety of changes that will affect the business and affairs of the Company and the Bank in other ways. For instance, the Dodd-Frank Act (or agency regulations adopted and implemented (or to be adopted and implemented) under the Dodd-Frank Act) altered the authority and duties of the federal banking and securities regulatory agencies, implemented certain corporate governance requirements for all public companies including financial institutions with regard to executive compensation, proxy access by shareholders, and certain whistleblower provisions; restricted certain proprietary trading and hedge fund and private equity activities of banks and their affiliates; eliminated the former statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts; limited interchange fees on debit card transactions by certain large processors; and established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”).

The CFPB was granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act authorized the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition, Dodd-Frank allows borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

The CFPB issued a rule, effective as of January 14, 2014, designed to clarify for lenders how they can avoid monetary damages under the Dodd-Frank Act, which would hold lenders accountable for ensuring a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage. Loans that satisfy this “qualified mortgage” safe-harbor will be presumed to have complied with the new ability-to-repay standard. Under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule, a “qualified mortgage” loan must not contain certain specified features, and the borrower’s total monthly debt-to-income ratio may not exceed a specified percentage. Lenders must also verify and document the income and financial resources relied upon to qualify the borrower for the loan and underwrite the loan based on a fully amortizing payment schedule and maximum interest rate during the first five years, taking into account all applicable taxes, insurance and assessments.

On December 10, 2013, five financial regulatory agencies, including the FRB and FDIC, adopted final rules implementing the so-called Volcker Rule added to banking law by Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act. These final rules prohibit banking entities from, among other things, (1) engaging in short-term proprietary trading for their own accounts, and (2) having certain ownership interests in and relationships with hedge funds or private equity funds (“covered funds”). Community banks like us have been afforded some relief under these final rules from onerous compliance obligations created by the rules; if banks are engaged only in exempted proprietary trading, such as trading in U.S. government, agency, state and municipal obligations, they are exempt entirely from compliance program requirements. Moreover, even if a community bank engages in proprietary trading or covered fund activities under the rule, they need only incorporate references to the Volcker Rule into their existing policies and procedures. The Final Rules are effective April 1, 2014, but the conformance period has been extended from its statutory end date of July 21, 2014 until July 21, 2015. We are currently evaluating the Final Rules, which are lengthy and detailed.

Certain Other Laws and Regulations

In November 2009, the FRB amended its Regulation E under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit banks from charging overdraft fees for ATM or point-of-sale debit card transactions that overdrew the account unless the customer opt-in to the discretionary overdraft service and to require banks to explain the terms of their overdraft services and their fees for the services. Compliance with this Regulation E amendment was required by July 1, 2010.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or the CRA, requires depository institutions to assist in meeting the credit needs of their market areas consistent with safe and sound banking practice. Under the CRA, each depository institution is required to help meet the credit needs of its market areas by, among other things, providing credit to low- and moderate-income individuals and communities. These factors are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions and applications to open a branch or facility. The applicable federal regulators regularly conduct CRA examinations to assess the performance of financial institutions and assign one of four ratings to the institution’s records of meeting the credit needs of its community. During its last examination, a rating of “satisfactory” was received by the Bank.

In accordance with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999, or the GLB Act, federal banking regulators adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party. The privacy provisions of the GLB Act affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors.

A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions over the past decade has been combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, or the USA Patriot Act, substantially broadened the scope of United States anti-money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The U.S. Treasury Department has issued a number of regulations that apply various requirements of the USA Patriot Act to financial institutions such as the Bank. These regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing and to verify the identity of their customers. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution.

The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. These are typically known as the “OFAC” rules based on their administration by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The OFAC-administered sanctions targeting countries take many different forms. Generally, however, they contain one or more of the following elements: (i) restrictions on trade with or investment in a sanctioned country, including prohibitions against direct or indirect imports from and exports to a sanctioned country and prohibitions on “U.S. persons” engaging in financial transactions relating to making investments in, or providing investment-related advice or assistance to, a sanctioned country; and (ii) a blocking of assets in which the government or specially designated nationals of the sanctioned country have an interest, by prohibiting transfers of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including property in the possession or control of U.S. persons). Blocked assets (e.g., property and bank deposits) cannot be paid out, withdrawn, set off or transferred in any manner without a license from OFAC. Failure to comply with these sanctions could have serious legal and reputational consequences.

Federal Deposit Insurance Premiums and Assessments

Our bank subsidiary’s deposit accounts are currently insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund, or the DIF, of the FDIC. The insurance benefit generally covers up to a maximum of $250,000 per separately insured depositor. As an FDIC-insured bank, our bank subsidiary is subject to deposit insurance premiums and assessments to maintain the DIF. The Bank’s deposit insurance premium assessment rate depends on the capital category and supervisory category to which it is assigned. The FDIC has authority to raise or lower assessment rates on insured banks in order to achieve statutorily required reserve ratios in the DIF and to impose special additional assessments.

Under the current assessment system, the FDIC assigns a banking institution to one of four risk categories designed to measure risk. Total base assessment rates currently range from 0.025% of deposits for an institution in the highest rated sub-category of the highest rated category to 0.45% of deposits for an institution in the lowest rated category. The FDIC may increase or decrease its rates by 2.0 basis points without further rulemaking. In an emergency, the FDIC may also impose a special assessment.

In addition, all FDIC insured institutions are required to pay assessments to the FDIC at an annual rate of approximately six tenths of a basis point of insured deposits to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation, an agency of the federal government established to recapitalize the predecessor to the Savings Association Insurance Fund. These assessments will continue until the Financing Corporation bonds mature in 2017 through 2019.

Internet Address; Internet Availability of SEC Reports

The Company’s Internet address is www.germanamerican.com .

The Company makes available, free of charge through the Investor Relations – Financial Information section of its Internet website, the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K, its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, its current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after those reports are filed with or furnished to the SEC.

Forward-Looking Statements and Associated Risks

The Company from time to time in its oral and written communications makes statements relating to its expectations regarding the future. These types of statements are considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements can include statements about the Company’s net interest income or net interest margin; adequacy of allowance for loan losses, and the quality of the Company’s loans, investment securities and other assets; simulations of changes in interest rates; litigation results; dividend policy; acquisitions or mergers; estimated cost savings, plans and objectives for future operations; and expectations about the Company’s financial and business performance and other business matters as well as economic and market conditions and trends. All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this report, including statements regarding our financial position, business strategy and the plans and objectives of our management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. When used in this report, words such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “expect”, “intend”, and similar expressions, as they relate to us or our management, identify forward-looking statements.

Such forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs of our management, as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to our management, and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors.

Actual results may differ materially and adversely from the expectations of the Company that are expressed or implied by any forward-looking statement. The discussions in Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” and in Item 7 of this Form 10-K, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” list some of the factors that could cause the Company’s actual results to vary materially from those expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements. Other risks, uncertainties, and factors that could cause the Company’s actual results to vary materially from those expressed or implied by any forward-looking statement include but not limited to:

Such statements reflect our views with respect to future events and are subject to these and other risks, uncertainties and assumptions relating to the operations, results of operations, growth strategy and liquidity of the Company. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. It is intended that these forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. We do not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect future events or circumstances or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.