NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

March 31, 2015

Note 1 – The Business of Sierra Bancorp

Sierra Bancorp (the “Company”) is a California corporation headquartered in Porterville, California, and is a registered bank holding company under federal banking laws. The Company was formed to serve as the holding company for Bank of the Sierra (the “Bank”), and has been the Bank’s sole shareholder since August 2001. The Company exists primarily for the purpose of holding the stock of the Bank and of such other subsidiaries it may acquire or establish. At the present time, the Company’s only other subsidiaries are Sierra Statutory Trust II and Sierra Capital Trust III, which were formed in March 2004 and June 2006, respectively, solely to facilitate the issuance of capital trust pass-through securities (“TRUPS”). Pursuant to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) standard on the consolidation of variable interest entities, these trusts are not reflected on a consolidated basis in the Company’s financial statements. References herein to the “Company” include Sierra Bancorp and its consolidated subsidiary, the Bank, unless the context indicates otherwise.

The Bank is a California state-chartered bank headquartered in Porterville, California. We offer a full range of retail and commercial banking services primarily in Tulare, Kern, Fresno, and Kings Counties in Central California, and in the rich agricultural corridor stretching from Santa Paula to Santa Clarita in Southern California. Bank of the Sierra was incorporated in September 1977, and opened for business in January 1978 as a one-branch bank with $1.5 million in capital and eleven employees. Our growth in the ensuing years has primarily been organic, but includes two acquisitions: Sierra National Bank in the year 2000, and Santa Clara Valley Bank (“SCVB”) in 2014 (see Note 13 to the financial statements, Recent Developments, for details on the SCVB acquisition). We are now the largest bank headquartered in the South San Joaquin Valley, with more than 400 employees, 28 full-service branch offices, and $1.7 billion in assets at March 31, 2015. We have received regulatory approval for another branch in Bakersfield, California, which is expected to commence operations in the first quarter of 2016. In addition to our full-service branches the Bank has specialized lending units which include a real estate industries center, an agricultural credit center, and an SBA lending unit, and we operate offsite ATMs at six different non-branch locations. The Bank’s deposit accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to maximum insurable amounts.

Note 2 – Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in a condensed format, and therefore do not include all of the information and footnotes required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for complete financial statements. The information furnished in these interim statements reflects all adjustments that are, in the opinion of Management, necessary for a fair statement of the results for such period. Such adjustments can generally be considered as normal and recurring unless otherwise disclosed in this Form 10-Q. In preparing the accompanying financial statements, Management has taken subsequent events into consideration and recognized them where appropriate. The results of operations in the interim statements are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for any other quarter, or for the full year. Certain amounts reported for 2014 have been reclassified to be consistent with the reporting for 2015. The interim financial information should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Note 3 – Current Accounting Developments

In January 2014, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-01, Investments—Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323): Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable Housing Projects , to provide additional flexibility with regard to accounting for investments in qualified affordable housing projects. ASU 2014-01 modifies the conditions that must be met to present the pretax impact and related tax benefits of such investments as a component of income taxes (“net” within income tax expense), to enable more investors to elect to use a net presentation for those investments. Investors that do not qualify for net presentation under the new guidance will continue to account for such investments under the equity method or cost method, which results in losses recognized in pretax income and tax benefits recognized in income taxes (“gross” presentation of investment results). For investments that qualify for the net presentation of investment performance, ASU 2014-01 introduces a “proportional amortization method” that can be elected to amortize the investment basis. If elected, the method is required for all eligible investments in qualified affordable housing projects. ASU 2014-01 also requires enhanced recurring disclosures for all investments in qualified affordable housing projects, regardless of the accounting method used for those investments. It is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014. The Company adopted the enhanced disclosure requirements of ASU 2014-01 as of the first quarter of 2015, as reflected in Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements, but we continue to account for our low-income housing tax credit investments using the equity method so there has been no impact on our income statement or balance sheet.

In January 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-04, Receivables—Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors (Subtopic 310-40): Reclassification of Residential Real Estate Collateralized Consumer Mortgage Loans upon Foreclosure , to resolve diversity in practice with respect to a creditor’s reclassification of a collateralized consumer mortgage loan to other real estate owned (OREO). Current US GAAP requires a loan to be reclassified to OREO upon a troubled debt restructuring that is “in substance a repossession or foreclosure”, where the creditor receives “physical possession” of the debtor's assets regardless of whether formal foreclosure proceedings take place. The terms “in substance a repossession or foreclosure” and “physical possession” are not defined in US GAAP; therefore, questions have arisen about when a creditor should reclassify a collateralized mortgage loan to OREO. ASU 2014-04 requires a creditor to reclassify a collateralized consumer mortgage loan to real estate property upon obtaining legal title to the real estate collateral, or when the borrower voluntarily conveys all interest in the real estate property to the lender to satisfy the loan through a deed in lieu of foreclosure or similar legal agreement. ASU 2014-04 is effective for public business entities for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014. It was adopted by the Company for the first quarter of 2015, without any impact on our financial statements or operations.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) . This ASU is the result of a joint project initiated by the FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue, and to develop a common revenue standard and disclosures for U.S. and international accounting standards that would: (1) remove inconsistencies and weaknesses in revenue requirements; (2) provide a more robust framework for addressing revenue issues; (3) improve comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, industries, jurisdictions, and capital markets; (4) provide more useful information to users of financial statements through improved disclosure requirements; and (5) simplify the preparation of financial statements by reducing the number of requirements to which an entity must refer. The guidance affects any entity that either enters into contracts with customers to transfer goods or services or enters into contracts for the transfer of nonfinancial assets. The core principle is that an entity should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The guidance provides steps to follow to achieve the core principle. An entity should disclose sufficient information to enable users of financial statements to understand the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from contracts with customers. Qualitative and quantitative information is required with regard to contracts with customers, significant judgments and changes in judgments, and assets recognized from the costs to obtain or fulfill a contract. This ASU is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period. Early application is not permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the potential effects of this guidance on its financial statements and disclosures.

In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-11, Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860), Repurchase-to-Maturity Transactions,

Repurchase Financings, and Disclosures. This ASU aligns the accounting for repurchase-to-maturity transactions and repurchase agreements executed as repurchase financings with the accounting for other more typical repurchase agreements, by requiring that all of these transactions be accounted for as secured borrowings. The guidance eliminates sale accounting for repurchase-to-maturity transactions and supersedes the guidance under which a transfer of a financial asset and a contemporaneous repurchase financing could be accounted for on a combined basis as a forward agreement, which has resulted in off-balance-sheet accounting. ASU 2014-11 requires a new disclosure for transactions economically similar to repurchase agreements in which the transferor retains substantially all of the exposure to the economic return on the transferred financial assets throughout the term of the transaction. It also requires expanded disclosures about the nature of collateral pledged in repurchase agreements and similar transactions accounted for as secured borrowings. ASU 2014-11 is effective for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2014. The Company did not have any repurchase transactions outstanding as of March 31, 2015, and any repurchase agreements entered into by the Company in the future will likely be typical in nature (i.e., not repurchase-to-maturity transactions or repurchase agreements executed as a repurchase financing) and will thus be accounted for as secured borrowings. As such, the adoption of ASU 2014-11 for the first quarter of 2015 did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In June 2014 the FASB issued ASU 2014-12, Compensation–Stock Compensation (Topic 718) , which amended existing guidance related to the accounting for share-based payments when the terms of an award provide that a performance target can be achieved after the requisite service period. These amendments require that a performance target be treated as a “performance condition” if it affects vesting and can be achieved after the requisite service period. To account for such awards, a reporting entity should apply existing guidance in Topic 718 as it relates to awards with performance conditions that affect vesting. The total amount of compensation cost recognized during and after the requisite service period should reflect the number of awards that are expected to vest, and should be adjusted to reflect those awards that ultimately vest. The requisite period ends when the employee can cease rendering service and still be eligible to vest in the award if the performance target is achieved. ASU 2014-12 is effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015. It will be adopted by the Company for the first quarter of 2016, and we do not expect any impact upon our financial statements or operations upon adoption.

In August 2014 the FASB issued ASU 2014-14, Receivables–Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors (Subtopic 310-40), Classification of Certain Government-Guaranteed Mortgage Loans upon Foreclosure, which amended existing guidance related to the classification of certain government-guaranteed mortgage loans, including those guaranteed by the FHA and the VA, upon foreclosure. It requires that a mortgage loan be derecognized and a separate “other receivable” be recognized upon foreclosure if the following conditions are met: 1) the loan has a government guarantee that is not separable from the loan before foreclosure; 2) at the time of foreclosure, the creditor has the intent to convey the real estate property to the guarantor and make a claim on the guarantee, and the creditor has the ability to recover under that claim; and 3) at the time of foreclosure, any amount of the claim that is determined on the basis of the fair value of the real estate is fixed. Upon foreclosure, the separate other receivable should be measured based on the amount of the loan balance (principal and interest) expected to be recovered from the guarantor. ASU 2014-14 is effective for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2014. It was adopted by the Company for the first quarter of 2015 with no impact on our financial statements or operations.

Note 4 – Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information

During the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014, cash paid for interest due on interest-bearing liabilities was $612,000 and $777,000, respectively. There was $4.550 million in cash paid for income taxes during the three months ended March 31, 2015, but nothing paid during the three months ended March 31, 2014. Assets totaling $73,000 and $125,000 were acquired in settlement of loans for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and March 31, 2014, respectively. We received $763,000 in cash from the sale of foreclosed assets during the first three months of 2015 relative to $1.339 million during the first three months of 2014, which represents sales proceeds less any loans that might have been extended to finance such sales.

Note 5 – Share Based Compensation

The 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2007 Plan”) was adopted by the Company in 2007. Our 1998 Stock Option Plan (the “1998 Plan”) was concurrently terminated, although options to purchase 91,300 shares that were granted under the 1998 Plan were still outstanding as of March 31, 2015 and remain unaffected by that plan’s termination. The 2007 Plan provides for the issuance of both “incentive” and “nonqualified” stock options to officers and employees, and of “nonqualified” stock options to non-employee directors of the Company. The 2007 Plan also provides for the potential issuance of restricted stock awards to these same classes of eligible participants, on such terms and conditions as are established at the discretion of the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee. The total number of shares of the Company’s authorized but unissued stock reserved for issuance pursuant to awards under the 2007 Plan was initially 1,500,000 shares, although the number remaining available for grant as of March 31, 2015 was 802,660. The dilutive impact of stock options outstanding is discussed below in Note 6, Earnings per Share. No restricted stock awards have been issued by the Company.

Pursuant to FASB’s standards on stock compensation, the value of each option granted is reflected in our income statement as employee compensation or directors’ expense by amortizing the value over the vesting period of such option or by expensing it as of the grant date for immediately vested options. The Company is utilizing the Black-Scholes model to value stock options, and the “multiple option” approach is used to allocate the resulting valuation to actual expense. Under the multiple option approach an employee’s options for each vesting period are separately valued and amortized, which appears to be the preferred method for option grants with graded vesting. A charge of $7,000 was reflected in the Company’s income statement during the first quarter of 2015 and $12,000 was charged during the first quarter of 2014, as expense related to stock options.

Note 6 – Earnings per Share

The computation of earnings per share, as presented in the Consolidated Statements of Income, is based on the weighted average number of shares outstanding during each period. There were 13,678,660 weighted average shares outstanding during the first quarter of 2015, and 14,228,040 during the first quarter of 2014.

Diluted earnings per share include the effect of the potential issuance of common shares, which for the Company is limited to shares that would be issued on the exercise of “in-the-money” stock options. The dilutive effect of options outstanding was calculated using the treasury stock method, excluding anti-dilutive shares and adjusting for unamortized expense and windfall tax benefits. For the first quarter of 2015 the dilutive effect of options outstanding calculated under the treasury stock method totaled 126,012 shares, which were added to basic weighted average shares outstanding for purposes of calculating diluted earnings per share. Likewise, for the first quarter of 2014 shares totaling 144,854 were added to basic weighted average shares outstanding in order to calculate diluted earnings per share.

Note 7 – Comprehensive Income

As presented in the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income, comprehensive income includes net income and other comprehensive income. The Company’s only source of other comprehensive income is unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale investment securities. Gains or losses on investment securities that were realized and included in net income of the current period, which had previously been included in other comprehensive income as unrealized holding gains or losses in the period in which they arose, are considered to be reclassification adjustments that are excluded from other comprehensive income in the current period.

Note 8 – Financial Instruments with Off-Balance-Sheet Risk

The Company is a party to financial instruments with off-balance-sheet risk in the normal course of business, in order to meet the financing needs of its customers. Those financial instruments consist of unused commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit. They involve, to varying degrees, elements of risk in excess of the amount recognized in the balance sheet. The Company’s exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by counterparties for commitments to extend credit and letters of credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments and issuing letters of credit as it does for originating loans included on the balance sheet. The following financial instruments represent off-balance-sheet credit risk (dollars in thousands):

Commitments to extend credit consist primarily of the unused or unfunded portions of the following: home equity lines of credit; commercial real estate construction loans, where disbursements are made over the course of construction; commercial revolving lines of credit; mortgage warehouse lines of credit; unsecured personal lines of credit; and formalized (disclosed) deposit account overdraft lines. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Since many commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the unused portions of committed amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements.

Standby letters of credit are generally unsecured and are issued by the Company to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party, while commercial letters of credit represent the Company’s commitment to pay a third party on behalf of a customer upon fulfillment of contractual requirements. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as the risk involved in extending loans to customers.

The Company is also utilizing an $88 million letter of credit issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank on the Company’s behalf as security for certain deposits. The letter of credit is backed by loans which are pledged to the Federal Home Loan Bank by the Company.

Note 9 – Fair Value Disclosures and Reporting, the Fair Value Option and Fair Value Measurements

FASB’s standards on financial instruments, and on fair value measurements and disclosures, require all entities to disclose in their financial statement footnotes the estimated fair values of financial instruments for which it is practicable to estimate fair values. In addition to disclosure requirements, FASB’s standard on investments requires that our debt securities, which are classified as available for sale, and our equity securities that have readily determinable fair values, be measured and reported at fair value in our statement of financial position. Certain impaired loans are also reported at fair value, as explained in greater detail below, and foreclosed assets are carried at the lower of cost or fair value. FASB’s standard on financial instruments permits companies to report certain other financial assets and liabilities at fair value, but we have not elected the fair value option for any additional financial assets or liabilities.

Fair value measurements and disclosure standards also establish a framework for measuring fair values. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability, in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Further, the standards establish a fair value hierarchy that encourages an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and limit the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair values. The standards describe three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair values:

Fair value estimates are made at a specific point in time based on relevant market data and information about the financial instruments. The estimates do not reflect any premium or discount that could result from offering the Company’s entire holdings of a particular financial instrument for sale at one time, nor do they attempt to estimate the value of anticipated future business related to the instruments. In addition, the tax ramifications related to realized gains and losses could have a significant effect on fair value estimates but have not been considered in any estimates. Because no market exists for a significant portion of the Company’s financial instruments, fair value disclosures are based on judgments regarding current economic conditions, risk characteristics of various financial instruments and other factors. The estimates are subjective and involve uncertainties and matters of significant judgment, and therefore cannot be determined with precision. Changes in assumptions could significantly affect the fair values presented. The following methods and assumptions were used by the Company to estimate the fair value of its financial instruments disclosed at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014:

Estimated fair values for the Company’s financial instruments are as follows, as of the dates noted:

For financial asset categories that were actually reported at fair value at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company used the following methods and significant assumptions:

Assets reported at fair value on a recurring basis are summarized below:

Assets reported at fair value on a nonrecurring basis are summarized below:

The table above includes collateral-dependent impaired loan balances for which a specific reserve has been established or on which a write-down has been taken. Information on the Company’s total impaired loan balances, and specific loss reserves associated with those balances, is included in Note 11 below, and in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation in the “Nonperforming Assets” and “Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses” sections.

The unobservable inputs are based on Management’s best estimates of appropriate discounts in arriving at fair market value. Increases or decreases in any of those inputs could result in a significantly lower or higher fair value measurement. For example, a change in either direction of actual loss rates would have a directionally opposite change in the calculation of the fair value of unsecured impaired loans.

Note 10 – Investments

Investment Securities

Although the Company currently has the intent and the ability to hold the securities in its investment portfolio to maturity, the securities are all marketable and are classified as “available for sale” to allow maximum flexibility with regard to interest rate risk and liquidity management. Pursuant to FASB’s guidance on accounting for debt and equity securities, available for sale securities are carried on the Company’s financial statements at their estimated fair market values, with monthly tax-effected “mark-to-market” adjustments made vis-à-vis accumulated other comprehensive income in shareholders’ equity.

At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company had 131 securities and 134 securities, respectively, with unrealized losses. Management has evaluated those securities as of the respective dates, and does not believe that any of the associated unrealized losses are other than temporary. Gross unrealized losses on our investment securities as of the indicated dates are disclosed in the table below, categorized by investment type and by the duration of time that loss positions on individual securities have continuously existed (over or under twelve months).

The table below summarizes the Company’s gross realized gains and losses as well as gross proceeds from the sales of securities, for the periods indicated:

The amortized cost and estimated fair value of investment securities available-for-sale at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 are shown below, by the remaining time to contractual maturity dates. The expected life of investment securities may not be consistent with contractual maturity dates, since the issuers of the securities could have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without penalties.

At March 31, 2015, the Company’s investment portfolio included securities issued by 273 different government municipalities and agencies located within 27 states with a fair value of $95.5 million. The largest exposure to any single municipality or agency was a $1.1 million (fair value) refunding bond issued by the Columbia River People’s Utility District, to be repaid by future utility revenue.

The Company’s investments in bonds issued by states, municipalities and political subdivisions are evaluated in accordance with Supervision and Regulation Letter 12-15 issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Investing in Securities without Reliance on Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization Ratings,” and other regulatory guidance. Credit ratings are considered in our analysis only as a guide to the historical default rate associated with similarly-rated bonds. There have been no significant differences in our internal analyses compared with the ratings assigned by the third party credit rating agencies.

The following table summarizes the amortized cost and fair values of general obligation and revenue bonds in the Company’s investment securities portfolio at the indicated dates, identifying the state in which the issuing municipality or agency operates for our largest geographic concentrations:

The revenue bonds in the Company’s investment securities portfolios were issued by government municipalities and agencies to fund public services such as utilities (water, sewer, and power), educational facilities, and general public and economic improvements. The primary sources of revenue for these bonds are delineated in the table below, which shows the amortized cost and fair market values for the largest revenue concentrations as of the indicated dates.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) Fund Investments

The Company has the ability to invest in limited partnerships which own housing projects that qualify for federal and/or California state tax credits, by mandating a specified percentage of low-income tenants for each project. The tax credits flow through to investors, augmenting any return that might be derived from an increase in property values. Because rent levels are lower than standard market rents and the projects are generally highly leveraged, each project also typically generates tax-deductible operating losses that are allocated to the limited partners.

The Company invested in seven such LIHTC fund limited partnerships from 2001 through 2007, and may make similar investments in the future. Our investments to date have all been in California-focused funds, which helps the Company meet its obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act. We utilize the equity method of accounting for our LIHTC fund investments. Under the equity method, our balance sheet initially reflects an asset that represents the total cash expected to be invested over the life of the partnership. Any commitments or contingent commitments for future investment are reflected as a liability. The income statement treatment under the equity method reflects tax credits received by the Company “below the line” within the income tax provision, while any fund operating results are included “above the line” in non-interest income. As noted above, operating results are typically losses that are netted against non-interest income.

As of March 31, 2015, our LIHTC investment balance was $5.5 million, and we had no commitments or contingent commitments for additional capital contributions to the limited partnerships. There were $193,000 in tax credits derived from our LIHTC investments which were recognized during the three months ended March 31, 2015, and a pass-through operating loss of $247,000 associated with those investments was included in pre-tax income for the same time period. Our LIHTC investments are evaluated annually for potential impairment, and we have concluded that the carrying value of the investments is fairly stated and is not impaired.

Note 11 – Credit Quality and Nonperforming Assets

Credit Quality Classifications

The Company monitors the credit quality of loans on a continuous basis using the regulatory and accounting classifications of pass, special mention, substandard and impaired to characterize the associated credit risk. Balances classified as “loss” are immediately charged off. The Company conforms to the following definitions for risk classifications utilized:

Credit quality classifications for the Company’s loan balances were as follows, as of the dates indicated:

Past Due and Nonperforming Assets

Nonperforming assets are comprised of loans for which the Company is no longer accruing interest, and foreclosed assets, including mobile homes and OREO. OREO consists of properties acquired by foreclosure or similar means, which the Company is offering or will offer for sale. Nonperforming loans and leases result when reasonable doubt surfaces with regard to the ability of the Company to collect all principal and interest. At that point, we stop accruing interest on the loan or lease in question and reverse any previously-recognized interest to the extent that it is uncollected or associated with interest-reserve loans. Any asset for which principal or interest has been in default for 90 days or more is also placed on non-accrual status even if interest is still being received, unless the asset is both well secured and in the process of collection. An aging of the Company’s loan balances is presented in the following tables, by number of days past due as of the indicated dates:

⁽¹⁾ As of March 31, 2015 there were no loans over 90 days past due and still acrruing.

⁽²⁾ Included in total financing receivables