UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10

GENERAL FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES

Pursuant to Section 12(b) or (g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (410) 374-1510

Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, Par Value $.01 Per Share

(Title of class)

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Farmers and Merchants Bancshares, Inc. is filing this registration statement on Form 10 (this “Registration Statement”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), on a voluntary basis to provide current information to the investment community. In this Registration Statement, the terms “Company”, “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to Farmers and Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, its consolidated subsidiaries. The securities to be registered hereby are shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, of Farmers and Merchants Bancshares, Inc. Once this Registration Statement is effective, we will be subject to the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, including the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, which will require us, among other things, to file Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and we will be required to comply with all other obligations of the Exchange Act applicable to issuers filing registration statements pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Some of the statements contained in this Registration Statement may include projections, predictions, expectations or statements as to beliefs or future events or results or refer to other matters that are not historical facts. Such statements constitute forward-looking statements and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by the statements. The forward-looking statements are based on various factors and were derived using numerous assumptions. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words like “may”, “will”, “should”, “expect”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “believe”, “estimate”, “predict”, “potential”, or “continue” or the negative of those words and other comparable words. You should be aware that those statements reflect only our predictions. If known or unknown risks or uncertainties should materialize, or if underlying assumptions should prove inaccurate, actual results could differ materially from past results and those anticipated, estimated or projected. You should bear this in mind when reading this Registration Statement and not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Factors or events that could cause our actual results to differ from our forward-looking statements may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of them. In addition, we cannot assess the impact of each factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements.

The factors discussed in the section of this Registration Statement entitled “RISK FACTORS”, starting on page 13, as well as any cautionary language in this Registration Statement, provide examples of risks, uncertainties and events that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations we describe in the forward-looking statements contained in this Registration Statement. The occurrence of the events described in these risk factors and elsewhere in this Registration Statement could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial position. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors. Consequently, you should not consider such disclosures to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties. Stockholders are advised to consult any additional disclosures that we may make directly to our stockholders or through reports that we in the future may file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K.

The following factors are among those that may cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements in this Registration Statement:

Any forward-looking statements made in this Registration Statement speak only as of the date on which they are made, and, except to the extent required by federal securities laws, we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN REGISTRATION STATEMENT

General

Farmers and Merchants Bancshares, Inc. is a Maryland corporation chartered on August 8, 2016 and a financial holding company registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”). Effective November 1, 2016, the Company consummated a bank holding company reorganization involving Farmers and Merchants Bank, a Maryland commercial bank chartered on October 24, 1919 (the “Bank”), pursuant to which the Bank became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and all of the Bank’s stockholders became stockholders of the Company (the “Reorganization”).

The Company’s primary business activities are serving as the parent company of the Bank and holding a series investment in First Community Bankers Insurance Co., LLC, a Tennessee “series” limited liability company and licensed protected cell captive insurance company (“FCBI”). The Company’s owns 100% of one series of membership interests issued by FCBI, which series is deemed a “protected cell” under Tennessee law and has been designated “Series Protected Cell FCB-4” (such series investment is hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Subsidiary”).

The Bank is a Maryland commercial bank chartered on October 24, 1919 that is engaged in a general commercial and retail banking business. The Bank has had one inactive subsidiary, Reliable Community Financial Services, Inc., a Maryland corporation that was incorporated in April 1992 to facilitate the sale of fixed rate annuity products and later positioned to sell a full array of investment and insurance products.

The Insurance Subsidiary represents one protected cell of a protected cell captive insurance company (FCBI) that was formed on November 9, 2016 to better manage our risk programs, provide insurance efficiencies, and add operating income by both keeping our insurance premiums within our affiliated group of entities and realizing certain tax benefits that are unique to captive insurance companies. The Company’s investment in the Insurance Subsidiary represents one series of membership interests in FCBI. As a “series” limited liability company, FCBI is authorized by state law and its governing instruments to issue one or more series of membership interests, each of which, for all purposes under state law, is deemed to be a legal entity separate and apart from FCBI and its other series.

Banking Activities

The Bank has been doing business in Maryland since 1919 and is engaged in both the commercial and consumer banking business. At December 31, 2016, the Bank had approximately 14,685 deposit accounts, representing $303 million in deposits. At December 31, 2016, the Bank had $296 million in loans, representing 78% of its total assets of $380 million.

The Bank’s general market area runs along the Route 30, Route 795, and Route 140 corridors south from Owings Mills and north to the Pennsylvania line including the areas of Reisterstown, Upperco, Hampstead and Manchester. The Bank’s western area includes the communities of Finksburg and Westminster, while the eastern side includes Sparks, Hereford and Parkton. All of these communities are located in Carroll County or Baltimore County, Maryland.

This market area serves as a bedroom community to large employment areas such as Owings Mills, Hunt Valley, Towson, White Marsh, Columbia and Baltimore City. The market area is primarily residential with retail, commercial and light-manufacturing activity. The opening of Interstate 795 in the 1980’s made it convenient to enjoy a rural lifestyle while still being able to commute to work in a reasonable time.

The Bank’s main office is located in Upperco, Maryland, and it has five additional full service branches located in the Maryland communities of Hampstead, Greenmount, Reisterstown, Owings Mills, and Westminster. In addition, the Bank has one satellite branch located in a senior living community (the “Atrium”) in Owings Mills, Maryland.

As a convenience to its customers, the Bank offers drive through automated teller machines (“ATMs”) at the Upperco, Owings Mills, Hampstead, Reisterstown, and Westminster locations and walk-up ATMs at the Greenmount and Atrium offices. The Greenmount In-Store location is open 7-days a week while the other five full service offices offer convenient banking hours which include Saturday mornings. The satellite branch is opened three days a week with limited business hours. Drive-thru windows are available at the Upperco, Owings Mills, Hampstead, Reisterstown, and Westminster branches. The Bank offers 24-hour on-line, internet banking for account balance inquiries, bill paying, or transferring funds between accounts. The Bank provides mobile baking functionality to its internet services. In addition, the 24-hour Dial-A-Bank automated telephone service is available. Debit cards are another service the Bank provides to its customers. The Bank joined Allpoint, America’s largest surcharge-free ATM network, to enable Bank customers to have access to over 55,000 ATMs, surcharge-free.

The Bank provides a wide range of personal banking services designed to meet the needs of local consumers. Among the deposit services provided are checking accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts, certificates of deposit and individual retirement accounts. The Bank also offers repurchase agreements and remote check deposits.

The Bank grants available credit for residential mortgages (including FHA and VA loans), construction loans, home equity lines, personal installment loans and other consumer financing.

The Bank also is engaged in financing commerce and industry by providing credit and deposit services for small to medium size businesses and the agricultural community in the Bank’s market area. The Bank offers many forms of commercial lending, including commercial mortgages, land acquisition and development loans, lines of credit, accounts receivable financing, term loans for fixed asset purchases, as well as loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Farm Services Agency (FSA).

In addition, commercial depositors may take advantage of many different services including checking accounts, remote deposit banking services, sweep accounts, money market accounts, savings accounts and certificates of deposit.

The Bank also has strategic alliances that allow for the issuance of credit cards to retail customers and to provide merchant services so commercial customers can accept credit cards and debit cards as payment for their goods and services.

The Bank has adopted policies and procedures designed to mitigate credit risk and maintain the quality of the loan portfolio. These policies include underwriting standards for new credits as well as the continuous monitoring and reporting of asset quality and the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. These policies, coupled with continuous training efforts, have provided effective checks and balances for the risk associated with the lending process. Lending authority is based on the level of risk, size of the loan, and the experience of the lending officer. The Bank’s policy is to make the majority of its loan commitments in the market area it serves. This tends to reduce risk because Management is familiar with the credit histories of loan applicants and has in-depth knowledge of the risk to which a given credit is subject. No material portion of the Bank’s loans is concentrated within a single industry or group of related industries. Most of the Bank’s loans are, however, made to Maryland customers and many are secured by real estate located in or around Maryland. Although Management believes that the loan portfolio is diversified, its performance will be influenced by the economy of the region.

Investment Activities

The Bank maintains a portfolio of investment securities to provide liquidity and income. The current portfolio of $52 million equals approximately 14% of the total assets at December 31, 2016 and is invested primarily in U.S. government agency bonds, state and municipal bonds and mortgage-backed securities.

A key objective of the investment portfolio is to provide a balance in the Bank’s asset mix of investments and loans consistent with its liability structure, and to assist in management of interest rate risk. The investments augment the Bank’s capital position, providing the necessary liquidity to meet fluctuations in credit demand of the community and fluctuations in deposit levels. In addition, the portfolio provides collateral for pledging against public funds and repurchase agreements and an opportunity to minimize income tax liability. Finally, the investment portfolio is designed to provide income for the Bank. In view of the above objectives, only securities that meet conservative investment criteria are purchased.

Insurance Activities

As noted above, the Insurance Subsidiary is one protected cell of a protected cell captive insurance company. It reinsures certain risks of the Company and the Bank as well as other groups of related entities that are not affiliated with the Bank for which it receives premiums. The insurance policies that are the subject of this reinsurance obligation are issued each year. Once the claim deadline passes for a particular policy year, the premium earned by the Insurance Subsidiary may be retained as earnings (subject to any regulatory capital and surplus requirements imposed by applicable law). As the sole owner of the Insurance Subsidiary, the Company may choose to terminate the Insurance Subsidiary’s participation in this reinsurance arrangement with respect to a future year at any time.

Competition

The banking business, in all of its phases, is highly competitive. Within our market areas, we compete with commercial banks, (including local banks and branches or affiliates of other larger banks), savings and loan associations and credit unions for loans and deposits, with consumer finance companies for loans, and with other financial institutions for various types of products and services. There is also competition for commercial and retail banking business from banks and financial institutions located outside our market areas and on the internet.

The primary factors in competing for deposits are interest rates, personalized services, the quality and range of financial services, convenience of office locations and office hours. The primary factors in competing for loans are interest rates, loan origination fees, the quality and range of lending services and personalized services.

To compete with other financial services providers, we rely principally upon local promotional activities, personal relationships established by officers, directors and employees with customers, and specialized services tailored to meet customers’ needs. In those instances in which we are unable to accommodate a customer’s needs, we attempt to arrange for those services to be provided by other financial services providers with which we have a relationship.

Supervision and Regulation

The following is a summary of the material regulations and policies applicable to the Company and its subsidiaries and is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion. Changes in applicable laws and regulations may have a material effect on our business.

General

The Company is registered with the Federal Reserve as a financial holding company under the BHC Act and, as such, is subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the BHC Act and the regulations of the Federal Reserve. As a holding company of a Maryland-chartered Bank, the Company is also subject to supervision by the Office of the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation (the “Maryland Commissioner”). After this Registration Statement is declared effective, the Company will be be subject to regulation and supervision by the SEC.

The Bank is a Maryland commercial bank subject to the banking laws of Maryland and to regulation by the Maryland Commissioner, who is required by statute to make at least one examination in each calendar year (or at 18-month intervals if the Maryland Commissioner determines that an examination is unnecessary in a particular calendar year). As a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), the Bank is also subject to certain provisions of federal laws and regulations regarding deposit insurance and activities of insured state-chartered banks, including those that require examination by the FDIC. In addition to the foregoing, there are a myriad of other federal and state laws and regulations that affect, or govern the business of banking, including consumer lending, deposit-taking, and trust operations.

All non-bank subsidiaries of the Company are subject to examination by the Federal Reserve, and, as affiliates of the Bank, are subject to examination by the FDIC and the Maryland Commissioner. In addition, the Insurance Subsidiary is subject to licensing and regulation by the Tennessee Insurance Department, and, as a captive insurance company, is subject to certain restrictions and requirements imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “IRC”).

Regulatory Reforms

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which was enacted in July 2010, significantly restructured the financial regulatory regime in the United States. Although the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions that have received the most public attention generally have been those applying to or more likely to affect larger institutions such as banks and bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, it contains numerous other provisions that affect all financial institutions, including the Bank. The Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”), discussed below, and contains a wide variety of provisions (many of which are not yet effective) affecting the regulation of depository institutions, including fair lending, fair debt collection practices, mortgage loan origination and servicing obligations, bankruptcy, military service member protections, use of credit reports, privacy matters, and disclosure of credit terms and correction of billing errors. Local, state and national regulatory and enforcement agencies continue efforts to address perceived problems within the mortgage lending and credit card industries through broad or targeted legislative or regulatory initiatives aimed at lenders’ operations in consumer lending markets. There continues to be a significant amount of legislative and regulatory activity, nationally, locally and at the state level, designed to limit certain lending practices while mandating certain servicing procedures. Federal bankruptcy and state debtor relief and collection laws, as well as the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act affect the ability of banks, including the Bank, to collect outstanding balances.

Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt stricter consumer protection laws and states’ attorneys general may enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB. Recently, U.S. financial regulatory agencies have increasingly used a general consumer protection statute to address unethical or otherwise bad business practices that may not necessarily fall directly under the purview of a specific banking or consumer finance law. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, there was little formal guidance to provide insight to the parameters for compliance with the “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” (“UDAP”) law. However, the UDAP provisions have been expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to apply to “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices”, which has been delegated to the CFPB for supervision.

Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions are subject to final rulemaking by the U.S. financial regulatory agencies, and the Dodd-Frank Act’s impact on our business will depend to a large extent on how and when such rules are adopted and implemented by the primary U.S. financial regulatory agencies. We continue to analyze the impact of rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act on our business, but the full impact will not be known until the rules and related regulatory initiatives are finalized and their combined impact can be understood. We do anticipate that the Dodd-Frank Act will increase our regulatory compliance burdens and costs and may restrict the financial products and services that we offer to our customers in the future. In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act will require us to invest significant management attention and resources so that we can evaluate the impact of and ensure compliance with this law and its rules.

Regulation of Bank Holding Companies

The Company and its affiliates are subject to the provisions of Section 23A and Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. Section 23A limits the amount of loans or extensions of credit to, and investments in, the Company and its non-bank affiliates by the Bank. Section 23B requires that transactions between the Bank and the Company and its non-bank affiliates be on terms and under circumstances that are substantially the same as with non-affiliates.

Under Federal Reserve policy, the Company is expected to act as a source of strength to the Bank, and the Federal Reserve may charge the Company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to a subsidiary bank when required. This support may be required at times when the bank holding company may not have the resources to provide the support. Under the prompt corrective action provisions, if a controlled bank is undercapitalized, then the regulators could require the bank holding company to guarantee the bank’s capital restoration plan. In addition, if the Federal Reserve believes that a bank holding company’s activities, assets or affiliates represent a significant risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of a controlled bank, then the Federal Reserve could require the bank holding company to terminate the activities, liquidate the assets or divest the affiliates. The regulators may require these and other actions in support of controlled banks even if such actions are not in the best interests of the bank holding company or its stockholders. Because the Company is a bank holding company, it is viewed as a source of financial and managerial strength for any controlled depository institutions, like the Bank.

On December 10, 2013, to implement Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd Frank Act”), the four federal banking regulatory agencies and the SEC adopted the Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule prohibits a banking institution from acquiring or retaining an “ownership interest” in a “covered fund”. A “covered fund” is (i) an entity that would be an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, but for the exemptions contained in Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7) of that Act, (ii) a commodity pool with certain characteristics, and/or (iii) a non-US entity with certain characteristics that is sponsored or owned by a banking entity located or organized in the US. The term “ownership interest” is defined as “any equity, partnership, or other similar interest.”

During 2013, significant media attention was given to the Dodd-Frank Act’s amendment of the BHC Act to require the U.S. financial regulatory agencies to adopt rules that prohibit banking institutions and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment companies (defined as hedge funds and private equity funds). The statutory provision is commonly called the “Volcker Rule”. The U.S. financial regulatory agencies adopted final rules implementing the Volcker Rule on December 10, 2013. The Volcker Rule became effective on July 21, 2012 and the final rules initially had an effective date of April 1, 2014, but the U.S. financial regulatory agencies issued an order extending the period during which institutions have to conform their activities and investments to the requirements of the Volcker Rule to July 21, 2015. On December 18, 2014, the Federal Reserve granted an additional one year extension to July 21, 2016, for certain “legacy covered fund” investments and relationships entered into by banking entities prior to December 31, 2013. The Federal Reserve also indicated that it planned to grant an additional one year extension to July 21, 2017, at a later date. We completed our evaluation of the impact of the Volcker Rule and the final rules adopted thereunder and determined that they will not have a material effect on our operations, as we believe that we do not engage in the businesses prohibited by the Volcker Rule. We may incur costs related to the adoption of additional policies and systems to ensure compliance with the Volcker Rule, but we do not expect that such costs would be material.

In addition, under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), depository institutions insured by the FDIC can be held liable for any losses incurred by, or reasonably anticipated to be incurred by, the FDIC in connection with (i) the default of a commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institution or (ii) any assistance provided by the FDIC to a commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institution in danger of default. Accordingly, in the event that any insured subsidiary of the Company causes a loss to the FDIC, other insured subsidiaries of the Company could be required to compensate the FDIC by reimbursing it for the estimated amount of such loss. Such cross guaranty liabilities generally are superior in priority to obligations of a financial institution to its shareholders and obligations to other affiliates.

Federal Banking Regulation

Federal banking regulators, such as the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, may prohibit the institutions over which they have supervisory authority from engaging in activities or investments that the agencies believe are unsafe or unsound banking practices. Federal banking regulators have extensive enforcement authority over the institutions they regulate to prohibit or correct activities that violate law, regulation or a regulatory agreement or which are deemed to be unsafe or unsound practices. Enforcement actions may include the appointment of a conservator or receiver, the issuance of a cease and desist order, the termination of deposit insurance, the imposition of civil money penalties on the institution, its directors, officers, employees and institution-affiliated parties, the issuance of directives to increase capital, the issuance of formal and informal agreements, the removal of or restrictions on directors, officers, employees and institution-affiliated parties, and the enforcement of any such mechanisms through restraining orders or other court actions.

The Bank is subject to certain restrictions on extensions of credit to executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders or any related interest of such persons, which generally require that such credit extensions be made on substantially the same terms as those available to persons who are not related to the Bank and not involve more than the normal risk of repayment. Other laws tie the maximum amount that may be loaned to any one customer and its related interests to capital levels.

As part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), each federal banking regulator adopted non-capital safety and soundness standards for institutions under its authority. These standards include internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, and compensation, fees and benefits. An institution that fails to meet those standards may be required by the agency to develop a plan acceptable to meet the standards. Failure to submit or implement such a plan may subject the institution to regulatory sanctions. We believe that the Bank meets substantially all standards that have been adopted. FDICIA also imposes capital standards on insured depository institutions.

The Community Reinvestment Act requires the FDIC, in connection with its examination of financial institutions within its jurisdiction, to evaluate the record of those financial institutions in meeting the credit needs of their communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with principles of safe and sound banking practices. These factors are also considered by all regulatory agencies in evaluating mergers, acquisitions and applications to open a branch or facility. As of the date of its most recent examination report, the Bank had a CRA rating of “Satisfactory”.

The Bank is also subject to a variety of other laws and regulations with respect to the operation of its business, including, but not limited to, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Expedited Funds Availability (Regulation CC), Reserve Requirements (Regulation D), Privacy of Consumer Information (Regulation P), Margin Stock Loans (Regulation U), the Right To Financial Privacy Act, the Flood Disaster Protection Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the CAN-SPAM Act, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act.

Capital Requirements

In addition to operational requirements, the Bank and the Company are subject to risk-based capital regulations, which were adopted and are monitored by federal banking regulators. These regulations are used to evaluate capital adequacy and require an analysis of an institution’s asset risk profile and off-balance sheet exposures, such as unused loan commitments and stand-by letters of credit.

On July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve approved final rules that substantially amended the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to the Company. The FDIC subsequently approved the same rules, which are applicable to the Bank. The final rules implement the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act and were implemented as of March 31, 2015. 

The Basel III capital rules include new risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which will be phased in from 2015 to 2019, and which refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The new minimum capital level requirements applicable to the Company under the final rules are: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The final rules also establish a “capital conservation buffer” above the new regulatory minimum capital requirements, which must consist entirely of common equity Tier 1 capital. The capital conservation buffer will be phased-in over four years beginning on January 1, 2016, as follows: the maximum buffer will be 0.625% of risk-weighted assets for 2016, 1.25% for 2017, 1.875% for 2018, and 2.5% for 2019 and thereafter. This will result in the following minimum ratios beginning in 2019: (a) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (b) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% and (c) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Under the final rules, institutions are subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital level falls below the buffer amount. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions.

The Basel III capital final rules also implement revisions and clarifications consistent with Basel III regarding the various components of Tier 1 capital, including common equity, unrealized gains and losses, as well as certain instruments that no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, some of which will be phased out over time. Under the final rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive items are not excluded; however, banking organizations like the Company and the Bank that are not considered “advanced approaches” banking organizations may make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company and the Bank made this election in their first quarter 2015 regulatory filings in order to avoid significant variations in the level of capital depending upon the impact of interest rate fluctuations on the fair value of the Company’s available-for-sale securities portfolio.

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

The Basel III capital rules set forth certain changes for the calculation of risk-weighted assets. These changes include (i) an increased number of credit risk exposure categories and risk weights; (ii) an alternative standard of creditworthiness consistent with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act; (iii) revisions to recognition of credit risk mitigation; (iv) rules for risk weighting of equity exposures and past due loans, and (v) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo-style transactions.

Regulators may require higher capital ratios when warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profile of a given banking organization. In the current regulatory environment, banking organizations must stay well-capitalized in order to receive favorable regulatory treatment on acquisition and other expansion activities and favorable risk-based deposit insurance assessments. Our capital policy establishes guidelines meeting these regulatory requirements and takes into consideration current or anticipated risks as well as potential future growth opportunities.

As of December 31, 2016, we are in compliance with the applicable requirements of the new rules.

Additional information about our capital ratios and requirements is contained in Item 2 of this Registration Statement under the heading, “Capital Resources”.

Prompt Corrective Action

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDI Act”) requires, among other things, the federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” in respect of depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The FDI Act includes the following five capital tiers: “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon how its capital levels compare with various relevant capital measures and certain other factors, as established by regulation. The relevant capital measures are the total capital ratio, the Tier 1 capital ratio and the leverage ratio.

A bank will be (i) “well capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater, and is not subject to any order or written directive by any such regulatory authority to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure, (ii) “adequately capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 4.0% or greater and is not “well capitalized”, (iii) “undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%, (iv) “significantly undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%, and (v) “critically undercapitalized” if the institution’s tangible equity is equal to or less than 2.0% of average quarterly tangible assets. An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes.

Effective January 1, 2015, the Basel III capital rules revised the prompt corrective action requirements by (i) introducing the 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 (other than critically undercapitalized), with the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio for well-capitalized status being 8%; and (iii) eliminating the provision that permitted a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 but a leverage ratio of at least 3% to be deemed adequately capitalized. The Basel III Capital Rules did not change the total risk-based capital requirement for any prompt corrective action category.

The FDI Act generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” “Undercapitalized” institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The agencies may not accept such a 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 bank holding company must also provide appropriate assurances of performance. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5.0% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized and (ii) the amount which 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 is “significantly undercapitalized.” Significantly undercapitalized” depository 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, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator.

The appropriate federal banking agency may, under certain circumstances, reclassify a well-capitalized insured depository institution as adequately capitalized. The FDI Act provides that an institution may be reclassified if the appropriate federal banking agency determines (after notice and opportunity for hearing) that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or deems the institution to be engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice.

The appropriate agency is also permitted to require an adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution to comply with the supervisory provisions as if the institution were in the next lower category (but not treat a significantly undercapitalized institution as critically undercapitalized) based on supervisory information other than the capital levels of the institution.

As of December 31, 2016, the Bank was “well capitalized” based on the aforementioned ratios.

Liquidity Requirements

We require cash to fund loans, satisfy our obligations under the Bank’s letters of credit, meet the deposit withdrawal demands of the Bank’s customers, and satisfy our other monetary obligations. To the extent that deposits are not adequate to fund these requirements, we can rely on the funding sources identified in Item 2 of this Registration Statement under the heading, “Liquidity Management”. At December 31, 2016, the Bank had $9 million available through unsecured lines of credit with correspondent banks, $30 million available through a secured line of credit with the Fed Discount Window and approximately $53 million available through the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”). Management is not aware of any demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that are likely to materially affect our ability to meet our future capital requirements.

Historically, the regulation and monitoring of bank liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, without required formulaic measures. The Basel III liquidity framework requires banks to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests that, although similar in some respects to liquidity measures historically applied by banks and regulators for management and supervisory purposes, going forward would be required by regulation. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”), is designed to ensure that the banking entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets equal to the entity’s expected net cash outflow for a 30-day time horizon (or, if greater, 25% of its expected total cash outflow) under an acute liquidity stress scenario. The other test, referred to as the net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”), is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banking entities over a one-year time horizon. These requirements will incent banking entities to increase their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets and increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source. In October 2013, the federal banking agencies proposed rules implementing the LCR for advanced approaches banking organizations and a modified version of the LCR for bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets that are not advanced approach banking organizations, neither of which would apply to the Company. The NSFR requirement is currently in an international observation period. Based on the results of the observation period, the Basel Committee and U.S. banking regulators may make further changes to the NSFR. The U.S. regulators have not yet proposed rules to implement the NSFR for U.S. banks and bank holding companies but are expected to do so well in advance of the NSFR’s scheduled global implementation by January 1, 2018.

Deposit Insurance

The Bank is a member of the FDIC and pays an insurance premium to the FDIC based upon its assessable deposits on a quarterly basis. Deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the FDIC and such insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Deposits are insured by the FDIC through the Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”) and such insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, a permanent increase in deposit insurance to $250,000 was authorized. The coverage limit is per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, which created the DIF, gave the FDIC greater latitude in setting the assessment rates for insured depository institutions which could be used to impose minimum assessments. The FDIC has the flexibility to adopt actual rates that are higher or lower than the total base assessment rates adopted without notice and comment, if certain conditions are met.

The Dodd-Frank Act also set a new minimum DIF reserve ratio at 1.35% of estimated insured deposits. The FDIC is required to attain this ratio by September 30, 2020. The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to redefine the deposit insurance assessment base for an insured depository institution. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, an institution’s assessment base has historically been its domestic deposits, with some adjustments. As redefined pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, an institution’s assessment base is now an amount equal to the institution’s average consolidated total assets during the assessment period minus average tangible equity. Institutions with less than $1.0 billion in assets at the end of a fiscal quarter, like the Bank, are permitted to report their average consolidated total assets on a weekly basis (rather than on a daily basis) and to report their average tangible equity on an end-of-quarter balance (rather than on an end-of-month balance).

DIF-insured institutions pay a Financing Corporation (“FICO”) assessment in order to fund the interest on bonds issued in the 1980s in connection with the failures in the thrift industry. For the fourth quarter of 2015, the annualized FICO assessment was equal to 0.600 basis points computed on assets as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. These assessments will continue until the bonds mature in 2019. The Bank expensed $147,940 and $168,135 in FDIC insurance premiums, including FICO assessments, in 2016 and 2015, respectively.

The FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of and require reporting by FDIC-insured institutions. It is also authorized to terminate a depository bank’s deposit insurance upon a finding by the FDIC that the bank’s financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices or has violated any applicable rule, regulation, order or condition enacted or imposed by the bank’s regulatory agency. The termination of deposit insurance would have a material adverse effect on our earnings, operations and financial condition.

The FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of and require reporting by FDIC-insured institutions. It is also authorized to terminate a depository bank’s deposit insurance upon a finding by the FDIC that the bank’s financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices or has violated any applicable rule, regulation, order or condition enacted or imposed by the bank’s regulatory agency. The termination of deposit insurance for our bank subsidiary would have a material adverse effect on our earnings, operations and financial condition.

Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering

The Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), which is intended to require financial institutions to develop policies, procedures, and practices to prevent and deter money laundering, mandates that every insured depository institution have a written, board-approved program that is reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance with the BSA.

The program must, at a minimum: (i) provide for a system of internal controls to assure ongoing compliance; (ii) provide for independent testing for compliance; (iii) designate an individual responsible for coordinating and monitoring day-to-day compliance; and (iv) provide training for appropriate personnel. In addition, state-chartered banks are required to adopt a customer identification program as part of its BSA compliance program. State-chartered banks are also required to file Suspicious Activity Reports when they detect certain known or suspected violations of federal law or suspicious transactions related to a money laundering activity or a violation of the BSA.

In addition to complying with the BSA, the Bank is subject to the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”). The USA Patriot Act is designed to deny terrorists and criminals the ability to obtain access to the United States’ financial system and has significant implications for depository institutions, brokers, dealers, and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The USA Patriot Act mandates that financial service companies implement additional policies and procedures and take heightened measures designed to address any or all of the following matters: customer identification programs, money laundering, terrorist financing, identifying and reporting suspicious activities and currency transactions, currency crimes, and cooperation between financial institutions and law enforcement authorities.

Mortgage Lending and Servicing

In January 2013, the CFPB issued eight final regulations governing mainly consumer mortgage lending. These regulations became effective in January 2014.

One of these rules, effective on January 10, 2014, requires mortgage lenders to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. This rule also defines “qualified mortgages.” In general, a “qualified mortgage” is a mortgage loan without negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, or a term exceeding 30 years, where the lender determines that the borrower has the ability to repay, and where the borrower’s points and fees do not exceed 3% of the total loan amount. Qualified mortgages that that are not “higher-priced” are afforded a safe harbor presumption of compliance with the ability to repay rules. Qualified mortgages that are “higher-priced” garner a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ability to repay rules.

The CFPB regulations also: (i) require that “higher-priced” mortgages must have escrow accounts for taxes and insurance and similar recurring expenses; (ii) expand the scope of the high-rate, high-cost mortgage provisions by, among other provisions, lowering the rates and fees that lead to coverage and including home equity lines of credit; (iii) revise rules for mortgage loan originator compensation; (iv) add prohibitions against mandatory arbitration provisions and financing single premium credit insurances; and (v) impose a broader requirement for providing borrowers with copies of all appraisals on first-lien dwelling secured loans.

Effective January 10, 2014, the CFPB’s final Truth-in-Lending Act rules relating to mortgage servicing impose new obligations to credit payments and provide payoff statements within certain time periods and provide new notices prior to interest rate and payment adjustments. Effective on that same date, the CFPB’s final Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act rules add new obligations on the servicer when a mortgage loan is default.

On November 20, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule on integrated mortgage disclosures under the Truth-in-Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, for which compliance was required by October 3, 2015. As of December 31, 2015, we believe that we are in compliance with this new rule.

Consumer Lending – Military Lending Act

The Military Lending Act (the “MLA”), which was initially implemented in 2007, was amended and its coverage significantly expanded in 2015. The Department of Defense (the “DOD”) issued a final rule under the MLA that took effect on October 15, 2015, but financial institutions were not required to take action until October 3, 2016. The types of credit covered under the MLA were expanded to include virtually all consumer loan and credit card products (except for loans secured by residential real property and certain purchase-money motor vehicle/personal property secured transactions). Lenders must now provide specific written and oral disclosures concerning the protections of the MLA to active duty members of the military and dependents of active duty members of the military (“covered borrowers”). The rule imposes a 36% “Military Annual Percentage Rate” cap that includes costs associated with credit insurance premiums, fees for ancillary products, finance charges associated with the transactions, and application and participation charges. In addition, loan terms cannot include (i) a mandatory arbitration provision, (ii) a waiver of consumer protection laws, (iii) mandatory allotments from military benefits, or (iv) a prepayment penalty. The revised rule also prohibits “roll-over” or refinances of the same loan unless the new loan provides more favorable terms for the covered borrower. Lenders may verify covered borrower status using a DOD database or information provided by credit bureaus. We believe that we are in compliance with the revised rule.

Laws Related to the Insurance Subsidiary

The Insurance Subsidiary is treated as a separate legal entity for state law purposes and is licensed and supervised by the Tennessee Insurance Department as a protected cell of a protected cell captive insurance company. Tennessee insurance law requires a protected cell to possess and maintain unimpaired paid-in capital and surplus of at least $25,000, and the Tennessee Insurance Department has the authority to prescribe additional requirements based on the type, volume and nature of insurance business to be conducted. No captive insurance company may pay a dividend out of, or other distribution with respect to, capital or surplus without the prior approval of the Tennessee Insurance Department.

In addition to these state law requirements, our ability to realize the anticipated tax benefits of operating the Insurance Subsidiary is conditioned on the Insurance Subsidiary being deemed a “captive insurance company” under the IRC. Under federal tax law, an insurance company will be deemed a “captive insurance company” only if the risks assumed by the insurance company on behalf of its owners and their affiliates constitute less than 50% of all risks insured or reinsured by the insurance company. Provided that the Insurance Subsidiary satisfies this requirement, it will not pay federal or state income taxes on the premium income that it receives from the Bank and its other affiliates so long as (under current law) the aggregate amount of those premiums does not exceed $2.2 million per year. To achieve the benefits for which the Insurance Subsidiary was formed, we must ensure that its operations are structured in a manner that satisfies this risk allocation requirement.

Federal Securities Laws

Upon the effectiveness of this Registration Statement, the shares of the Company’s common stock will be registered with the SEC under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act and the Company will be subject to the information reporting requirements, proxy solicitation requirements, insider trading restrictions and other requirements of the Exchange Act, including the requirements imposed under the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Among other things, loans to and other transactions with insiders are subject to restrictions and heightened disclosure.

Governmental Monetary and Credit Policies and Economic Controls

The earnings and growth of the banking industry and ultimately of the Bank are affected by the monetary and credit policies of governmental authorities, including the Federal Reserve. An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the national supply of bank credit in order to control recessionary and inflationary pressures. Among the instruments of monetary policy used by the Federal Reserve to implement these objectives are open market operations in U.S. Government securities, changes in the federal funds rate, changes in the discount rate of member bank borrowings, and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth of bank loans, investments and deposits and may also affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve authorities have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to have such an effect in the future. In view of changing conditions in the national economy and in the money markets, as well as the effect of actions by monetary and fiscal authorities, including the Federal Reserve, no prediction can be made as to possible future changes in interest rates, deposit levels, loan demand or their effect on our businesses and earnings.

Seasonality

Management does not believe that our business activities are seasonal in nature. Deposit and loan demand may vary depending on local and national economic conditions, but management believes that any variation will not have a material impact on our planning or policy-making strategies.

Employees

At February 28, 2017, we employed 84 individuals, of whom 68 were full-time employees.

The significant risks and uncertainties related to us, our business and our securities of which we are aware are discussed below. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties before making investment decisions in respect of our securities. Any of these factors could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects and could negatively impact the market price of our securities. If any of these risks materialize, you could lose all or part of your investment in the Company. Additional risks and uncertainties that we do not yet know of, or that we currently think are immaterial, may also impair our business operations. You should also consider the other information contained in this Registration Statement, including our financial statements and the related notes, before making investment decisions in respect of our securities.

Risks Relating to the Company and its Affiliates

The Company’s future success depends on the successful growth of its subsidiaries.

The Company’s primary business activity for the foreseeable future will be to act as the holding company of the Bank and the Insurance Subsidiary. Therefore, the Company’s future profitability will depend on the success and growth of these subsidiaries. In the future, part of our growth may come from buying other banks and buying or establishing other companies. Such entities may not be profitable after they are purchased or established, and they may lose money, particularly at first. A new bank or company may bring with it unexpected liabilities, bad loans, or bad employee relations, or the new bank or company may lose customers.

Interest rates and other economic conditions will impact our results of operations.

Our results of operations may be materially and adversely affected by changes in prevailing economic conditions, including declines in real estate values, rapid changes in interest rates and the monetary and fiscal policies of the federal government. Our profitability is in part a function of the spread between the interest rates earned on assets and the interest rates paid on deposits and other interest-bearing liabilities ( i.e. , net interest income), including advances from FHLB. Interest rate risk arises from mismatches (i.e., the interest sensitivity gap) between the dollar amount of repricing or maturing assets and liabilities. If more assets reprice or mature than liabilities during a falling interest rate environment, then our earnings could be negatively impacted. Conversely, if more liabilities reprice or mature than assets during a rising interest rate environment, then our earnings could be negatively impacted. Fluctuations in interest rates are not predictable or controllable. There can be no assurance that our attempts to structure our asset and liability management strategies to mitigate the impact on net interest income of changes in market interest rates will be successful in the event of such changes.

The majority of our business is concentrated in Maryland, much of which involves real estate lending, so a decline in the real estate and credit markets could materially and adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations.

Most of the Bank’s loans are made to borrowers located in Maryland, and many of these loans, including construction and land development loans, are secured by real estate. At December 31, 2016, approximately 5%, or $14 million, of our total loans were real estate acquisition, construction and development loans that were secured by real estate. Accordingly, a decline in local economic conditions would likely have an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations, and the impact on us would likely be greater than the impact felt by larger financial institutions whose loan portfolios are geographically diverse. We cannot guarantee that any risk management practices we implement to address our geographic and loan concentrations will be effective to prevent losses relating to our loan portfolio.

The national and local economies were significantly and adversely impacted by the banking crisis and resulting economic recession that began around 2008, and these conditions have caused a host of challenges for financial institutions, including the Bank. For example, these conditions have made it more difficult for real estate owners and owners of loans secured by real estate to sell their assets at desirable times and prices. Not only have these conditions impacted the demand for credit to finance the acquisition and development of real estate, but it has also impaired the ability of banks, including the Bank, to sell real estate acquired through foreclosure. In the case of real estate acquisition, construction and development projects that we have financed, these challenging economic conditions have caused some of our borrowers to default on their loans. Because of the deterioration in the market values of real estate collateral caused by the recession, banks, including the Bank, have been unable to recover the full amounts due under many of their loans when forced to foreclose on and sell the real estate collateral. The national and local economies and real estate markets have seen marked improvement since 2008, but we could again be faced with these challenges and their consequences if these recoveries were to stall or deteriorate.

The Bank’s concentrations of commercial real estate loans could subject it to increased regulatory scrutiny and directives, which could force us to preserve or raise capital and/or limit future commercial lending activities.

The Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the other federal banking regulators issued guidance in December 2006 entitled “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices” directed at institutions who have particularly high concentrations of CRE loans within their lending portfolios. This guidance suggests that these institutions face a heightened risk of financial difficulties in the event of adverse changes in the economy and CRE markets. Accordingly, the guidance suggests that institutions whose concentrations exceed certain percentages of capital should implement heightened risk management practices appropriate to their concentration risk. The guidance provides that banking regulators may require such institutions to reduce their concentrations and/or maintain higher capital ratios than institutions with lower concentrations in CRE.

The Bank may experience loan losses in excess of its allowance, which would reduce our earnings.

The risk of credit losses on loans varies with, among other things, general economic conditions, the type of loans being made, the creditworthiness of the borrowers over the term of the loans and, in the case of collateralized loans, the value and marketability of the collateral for the loans. Management of the Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses based upon, among other things, historical experience, an evaluation of economic conditions and regular reviews of delinquencies and loan portfolio quality. Based upon such factors, management makes various assumptions and judgments about the ultimate collectability of the loan portfolio and provides an allowance for loan losses based upon a percentage of the outstanding balances and for specific loans when their ultimate collectability is considered questionable. If management’s assumptions and judgments prove to be incorrect and the allowance for loan losses is inadequate to absorb future losses, or if the bank regulatory authorities require us to increase the allowance for loan losses as a part of its examination process, our earnings and capital could be significantly and adversely affected. Although management continually monitors our loan portfolio and makes determinations with respect to the allowance for loan losses, future adjustments may be necessary if economic conditions differ substantially from the assumptions used or adverse developments arise with respect to our non-performing or performing loans. Material additions to the allowance for loan losses could result in a material decrease in our net income and capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

The market value of our investments could decline.

As of December 31, 2016, investment securities in our investment portfolio having a cost basis of $35 million and a market value of $34 million were classified as available-for-sale pursuant to FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 320, Investments – Debt and Equity Securities, relating to accounting for investments. Topic 320 requires that unrealized gains and losses in the estimated value of the available-for-sale portfolio be “marked to market” and reflected as a separate item in shareholders’ equity (net of tax) as accumulated other comprehensive gain or loss. There can be no assurance that future market performance of our investment portfolio will enable us to realize income from sales of securities. Stockholders’ equity will continue to reflect the unrealized gains and losses (net of tax) of these investments. Moreover, there can be no assurance that the market value of our investment portfolio will not decline, causing a corresponding decline in shareholders’ equity.

Management believes that several factors could affect the market value of our investment portfolio. These include, but are not limited to, changes in interest rates or expectations of changes, the degree of volatility in the securities markets, inflation rates or expectations of inflation and the slope of the interest rate yield curve (the yield curve refers to the differences between shorter-term and longer-term interest rates; a positively sloped yield curve means shorter-term rates are lower than longer-term rates). Also, the passage of time will affect the market values of our investment securities, in that the closer they are to maturing, the closer the market price should be to par value. These and other factors may impact specific categories of the portfolio differently, and management cannot predict the effect these factors may have on any specific category.

Impairment of investment securities or deferred tax assets could require charges to earnings, which could result in a negative impact on our results of operations.

In assessing whether the impairment of investment securities is other-than-temporary, management considers the length of time and extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, and the intent and ability to retain our investment in the security for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value in the near term. See the discussion under the heading “Estimates and Critical Accounting Policies – Other-Than-Temporary Impairment of Investment Securities” in Item 2 of this Registration Statement for further information.

In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. Assessing the need for, or the sufficiency of, a valuation allowance requires management to evaluate all available evidence, both negative and positive, including the recent trend of quarterly earnings. Positive evidence necessary to overcome the negative evidence includes whether future taxable income in sufficient amounts and character within the carryback and carry forward periods is available under the tax law, including the use of tax planning strategies. When negative evidence (e.g., cumulative losses in recent years, history of operating loss or tax credit carry forwards expiring unused) exists, more positive evidence than negative evidence will be necessary. At December 31, 2016, our net deferred tax assets were valued at $1.4 million.

The impact of each of these impairment matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

We could have a material write down related to our deferred tax asset as a result of a decrease in our corporate tax rate.

Since the 2016 presidential election, there has been a great deal of discussion relating to possible changes to the IRC and corporate tax rates. A number of proposals for broad reform of the corporate tax system are under evaluation by various legislative and administrative bodies, but it is not possible to accurately determine the overall impact of such proposals on our tax rate at this time. As of December 31, 2016, the balance of our net deferred tax asset was $1.4 million. Any decrease in our corporate tax rate would result in an immediate decrease in the deferred tax asset and a related charge to earnings that could materially affect our financial results.

We operate in a competitive environment, and our inability to effectively compete could adversely and materially impact our financial condition and results of operations.

We operate in a competitive environment, competing for loans, deposits, and customers with commercial banks, savings associations and other financial entities. Competition for deposits comes primarily from other commercial banks, savings associations, credit unions, money market and mutual funds and other investment alternatives. Competition for loans comes primarily from other commercial banks, savings associations, mortgage banking firms, credit unions and other financial intermediaries. Competition for other products, such as securities products, comes from other banks, securities and brokerage companies, and other non-bank financial service providers in our market area. Many of these competitors are much larger in terms of total assets and capitalization, have greater access to capital markets, and/or offer a broader range of financial services than those that we offer. In addition, banks with a larger capitalization and financial intermediaries not subject to bank regulatory restrictions have larger lending limits and are thereby able to serve the needs of larger customers.

In addition, changes to the banking laws over the last several years have facilitated interstate branching, merger and expanded activities by banks and holding companies. For example, the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “GLB Act”) revised the BHC Act and repealed the affiliation provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which, taken together, limited the securities and other non-banking activities of any company that controls an FDIC insured financial institution. As a result, the ability of financial institutions to branch across state lines and the ability of these institutions to engage in previously-prohibited activities are now accepted elements of competition in the banking industry. These changes may bring us into competition with more and a wider array of institutions, which may reduce our ability to attract or retain customers. Management cannot predict the extent to which we will face such additional competition or the degree to which such competition will impact our financial conditions or results of operations.

The banking industry is heavily regulated; significant regulatory changes could adversely affect our operations.

Our operations will be impacted by current and future legislation and by the policies established from time to time by various federal and state regulatory authorities. The Company is subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve. The Bank is subject to supervision and periodic examination by the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation and the FDIC. The Insurance Subsidiary is subject to supervision and periodic examination by the Tennessee Insurance Department. Banking regulations, designed primarily for the safety of depositors, and insurance regulations, designed primarily for the safety of insureds, may limit a financial institution’s growth and the return to its investors by restricting such activities as the payment of dividends, mergers with or acquisitions by other institutions, investments, loans and interest rates, interest rates paid on deposits, expansion of branch offices, and the offering of securities or trust services. The Company and the Bank are also subject to capitalization guidelines established by federal law and the Insurance Subsidiary is subject to capitalization guidelines established by Tennessee law, and could be subject to enforcement actions to the extent that they are found by regulatory examiners to be undercapitalized. It is not possible to predict what changes, if any, will be made to existing federal and state legislation and regulations or the effect that such changes may have on our future business and earnings prospects. Management also cannot predict the nature or the extent of the effect on our business and earnings of future fiscal or monetary policies, economic controls, or new federal or state legislation. Further, the cost of compliance with regulatory requirements may adversely affect our ability to operate profitably.

The full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act is unknown because significant rule making efforts are still required to fully implement all of its requirements, but it will likely materially increase our regulatory expenses.

The Dodd-Frank Act represents a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry within the United States and affects the lending, investment, trading and operating activities of all financial institutions. Significantly, the Dodd-Frank Act includes the following provisions that affect the Bank:

Based on the text of the Dodd-Frank Act and the implementing regulations (both effective and yet-to-be-published), it is anticipated that the costs to banks may increase or fee income may decrease significantly, which could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may reshape the consumer financial laws through rulemaking and enforcement of the prohibitions against unfair, deceptive and abusive business practices. Compliance with any such change may impact our business operations.

The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority to administer and carry out the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to financial institutions that offer covered financial products and services to consumers. The CFPB has also been directed to adopt rules identifying practices or acts that are unfair, deceptive or abusive in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service. The concept of what may be considered to be an “abusive” practice is new under the law. The full scope of the impact of this authority has not yet been determined as the CFPB has not yet released significant supervisory guidance.

As discussed above, the CFPB issued several rules in 2013 relating to mortgage operations and servicing, including a rule requiring mortgage lenders to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms, or to originate “qualified mortgages” that meet specific requirements with respect to terms, pricing and fees. These new rules have required the Bank to dedicate significant personnel resources and could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Bank regulators and other regulations, including the Basel III Capital Rules, may require higher capital levels, impacting our ability to pay dividends or repurchase our stock.

The capital standards to which we are subject, including the standards created by the Basel III Capital Rules, may materially limit our ability to use our capital resources and/or could require us to raise additional capital by issuing common stock. The issuance of additional shares of common stock could dilute existing stockholders.

We may be adversely affected by other recent legislation and rule-making efforts.

In November 2009, the Federal Reserve announced amendments to Regulation E that prohibit financial institutions from charging fees to consumers for paying overdrafts on automated teller machine and one-time debit card transactions unless a consumer consents, or opts-in, to the overdraft service for those types of transactions. These amendments became effective on July 1, 2010 for new consumer accounts and August 15, 2010 for existing consumer accounts.

In addition, the Federal Reserve has issued rules pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act governing debit card interchange fees that apply to institutions with greater than $10 billion in assets. Although we are not subject to these rules, market forces may effectively require the Bank to adopt a debit card interchange fee structure that complies with these rules, in which case our non-interest income for future periods could be materially and adversely affected.

As discussed above, the GLB Act repealed restrictions on banks affiliating with securities firms and it also permitted certain bank holding companies to become financial holding companies. Financial holding companies are permitted to engage in a host of financial activities, and activities that are incidental to financial activities, that are not permitted for bank holding companies who have not elected to become financial holding companies, including insurance and securities underwriting and agency activities, merchant banking, and insurance company portfolio investment activities. Although the Company is a financial holding company, we may face significant competition from other financial holding companies that are larger than the Company or otherwise have more resources to deploy with respect to these expanded financial products and services.

The federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires management of every publicly traded company to perform an annual assessment of the company’s internal control over financial reporting and to report on whether the system is effective as of the end of the company’s fiscal year. Following the effective date of this Registration Statement, the Company will become subject to these assessment requirements. If our management were to discover and report significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, then the market value of our securities and stockholder value could decline.

The USA Patriot Act requires certain financial institutions, such as the Bank, to maintain and prepare additional records and reports that are designed to assist the government’s efforts to combat terrorism. This law includes sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and required additional regulations, including, among other things, standards for verifying client identification when opening an account and rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering. If we fail to comply with this law, we could be exposed to adverse publicity as well as fines and penalties assessed by regulatory agencies.

Customer concern about deposit insurance may cause a decrease in deposits held at the Bank.

Due to the large number of bank failures that have occurred since the 2008 recession, banking customers across the country have become increasingly concerned about the extent to which their deposits are insured by the FDIC. This concern could cause the Bank’s customers to withdraw deposits from the Bank in an effort to ensure that the amount they have on deposit with us is fully-insured. Because the Bank relies heavily on deposits to fund loans and purchase other interest-earning assets, a decrease in deposits could have a materially adverse effect on our funding costs and net income.

The Bank’s funding sources may prove insufficient to replace deposits and support our future growth.

The Bank relies on customer deposits, advances from the FHLB, lines of credit at other financial institutions and brokered funds to fund our operations. Although the Bank has historically been able to replace maturing deposits and advances if desired, no assurance can be given that the Bank would be able to replace such funds in the future if our financial condition or the financial condition of the FHLB or market conditions were to change. Our financial flexibility will be severely constrained and/or our cost of funds will increase if we are unable to maintain our access to funding or if financing necessary to accommodate future growth is not available at favorable interest rates. Finally, if we are required to rely more heavily on more expensive funding sources to support future growth, our revenues may not increase proportionately to cover our costs. In that case, our profitability would be adversely affected.

The loss of key personnel could disrupt our operations and result in reduced earnings.

Our growth and profitability will depend upon our ability to attract and retain skilled managerial, marketing and technical personnel. Competition for qualified personnel in the financial services industry is intense, and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in attracting and retaining such personnel. Our current executive officers provide valuable services based on their many years of experience and in-depth knowledge of the banking industry and the market areas we serve. Due to the intense competition for financial professionals, these key personnel would be difficult to replace and an unexpected loss of their services could result in a disruption to the continuity of operations and a possible reduction in earnings.

The Bank’s lending activities subject the Bank to the risk of environmental liabilities.

A significant portion of the Bank’s loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, the Bank may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, the Bank may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require the Bank to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit the Bank’s ability to use or sell the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase the Bank’s exposure to environmental liability. Although the Bank has policies and procedures to perform an environmental review before initiating any foreclosure action on real property, these reviews may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to claims and the costs of defensive actions, and such claims and costs could materially and adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations.

Our customers may sue us for losses due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, errors and omissions of employees, officers and agents, incomplete documentation, our failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, or many other reasons. Also, our employees may knowingly or unknowingly violate laws and regulations. Management may not be aware of any violations until after their occurrence. This lack of knowledge may not insulate us from liability. Claims and legal actions will result in legal expenses and could subject us to liabilities that may reduce our profitability and hurt our financial condition.

We may not be able to keep pace with developments in technology.

We use various technologies in conducting our businesses, including telecommunication, data processing, computers, automation, internet-based banking, and debit cards. Technology changes rapidly. Our ability to compete successfully with other financial institutions may depend on whether we can exploit technological changes. We may not be able to exploit technological changes, and any investment we do make may not make us more profitable.

Safeguarding our business and customer information increases our cost of operations. To the extent that we, or our third party vendors, are unable to prevent the theft of or unauthorized access to this information, our operations may become disrupted, we may be subject to claims, and our net income may be adversely affected.

Our business depends heavily on the use of computer systems, the Internet and other means of electronic communication and recordkeeping. Accordingly, we must protect our computer systems and network from break-ins, security breaches, and other risks that could disrupt our operations or jeopardize the security of our business and customer information. Moreover, we use third party vendors to provide products and services necessary to conduct our day-to-day operations, which exposes us to risk that these vendors will not perform in accordance with the service arrangements, including by failing to protect the confidential information we entrust to them. Any security measures that we or our vendors implement, including encryption and authentication technology that we use to effect secure transmissions of confidential information, may not be effective to prevent the loss or theft of our information or to prevent risks associated with the Internet, such as cyber-fraud. Advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries in the field of cryptography, or other developments could permit unauthorized persons to gain access to our confidential information in spite of the use of security measures that we believe are adequate. Any compromise of our security measures or of the security measures employed by our vendors of our third party could disrupt our business and/or could subject us to claims from our customers, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not achieve the expected benefits from our captive insurance company.

We formed the Insurance Subsidiary as a captive insurance company in late 2016 to insure or reinsure certain risks faced by the Company and the Bank. The Insurance Subsidiary is part of our enterprise-wide, multi-year insurance strategy that is intended to better position our risk programs and provide us with increased flexibility in the management of our insurance programs as well as contribute to efficiencies relating to our insurance programs over time. We may experience unanticipated events that could reduce or eliminate the benefits, both operational and financial, that we hope to realize through this entity, including, without limitation, significant insurance claims and/or changes in tax laws. In particular, we may not realize the tax benefits of owning a captive insurance company. The Insurance Subsidiary will qualify as a “captive insurance company” under the IRC only if the risks assumed by the Insurance Subsidiary on behalf of the Company and its other affiliates constitute less than 50% of all risks insured or reinsured by the Insurance Subsidiary. If it qualifies as such, then, under current law, it will not pay federal or state income taxes on the premium income that it receives from the Company and its other affiliates so long as the aggregate amount of those premiums does not exceed $2.2 million per year. Although we have structured the Insurance Subsidiary’s operations so that it qualifies as a captive insurance company under federal and state tax laws, no assurance can be given that we will be able to achieve that structure in any future year. In that case, we would likely suspend the operations of the Insurance Subsidiary.

It should be noted that the operation by financial holding companies of captive insurance companies having a structure similar to the Insurance Subsidiary and FCBI is a relatively new development. Moreover, we have no experience operating a captive insurance company. If we are not able to successfully manage the Insurance Subsidiary, either due to our lack of experience or otherwise, then our financial condition and/or results of operations could be materially and adversely impacted. 

Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Our ability to pay dividends on the common stock is limited by applicable law, and the payment of dividends is at the discretion of our board of directors.

Although the Bank had a history of paying dividends on its common stock prior to the Reorganization, the Company was incorporated in August 2016 and has paid only $596,540 cash dividends since its incorporation. Because the Company is not engaged in any direct business activities, the Company expects to fund dividends, if and when declared by the Company’s board of directors, using cash received from the Bank and the Insurance Subsidiary. No assurance can be given that the Bank or the Insurance Subsidiary will be able to pay dividends to the Company for these purposes at times and/or in amounts requested by the Company. Both federal and Maryland laws impose restrictions on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends, and Tennessee law imposes restrictions on the Insurance Subsidiary’s ability to pay dividends. Further information about these limitations is contained in Item 11 of this Registration Statement under the heading, “Dividends and Other Distributions”.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, stockholders must understand that the declaration and payment of dividends and the amounts thereof are at the discretion of the Company’s board of directors. Thus, even at times when the Company could pay cash dividends on its common stock, neither the payment of such dividends nor the amounts thereof can be guaranteed.

The shares of common stock are not insured.

The shares of our common stock are not deposits and are not insured against loss by the FDIC or any other governmental or private agency.

Our common stock is not heavily traded, and the stock price may fluctuate significantly.

Our common stock is not traded on any exchange. Certain brokers currently make a market in the common stock by trading shares in the over-the-counter market, but such transactions are infrequent and the volume of shares traded is relatively small. Management cannot predict whether these or other brokers will continue to make a market in our common stock. Prices on stock that is not heavily traded, such as our common stock, can be more volatile than stock trading in an active public market. Factors such as our financial results, the introduction of new products and services by us or our competitors, publicity regarding the banking industry, and various other factors affecting the banking industry may have a significant impact on the market price of the shares the common stock. Management also cannot predict the extent to which an active public market for our common stock will develop or be sustained in the future. Accordingly, stockholders may not be able to sell their shares of our common stock at the volumes, prices, or times that they desire.

The Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and Maryland law may discourage a corporate takeover.

The Company’s Articles of Incorporation (the “Charter”) and Bylaws contain certain provisions designed to enhance the ability of the Company’s board of directors to deal with attempts to acquire control of the Company. First, the board of directors is classified into four classes. Directors of each class serve for staggered four-year periods, and no director may be removed except for cause, and then only by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding voting stock. Second, the board has the authority to classify and reclassify unissued shares of stock of any class or series of stock by setting, fixing, eliminating, or altering in any one or more respects the preferences, rights, voting powers, restrictions and qualifications of, dividends on, and redemption, conversion, exchange, and other rights of, such securities. The board could use this authority, along with its authority to authorize the issuance of securities of any class or series, to issue shares having terms favorable to management to a person or persons affiliated with or otherwise friendly to management. In addition, the Bylaws require any stockholder who desires to nominate a director to abide by strict notice requirements.

Maryland law also contains anti-takeover provisions that apply to the Company. The Maryland Business Combination Act generally prohibits, subject to certain limited exceptions, corporations from being involved in any “business combination” (defined as a variety of transactions, including a merger, consolidation, share exchange, asset transfer or issuance or reclassification of equity securities) with any “interested shareholder” for a period of five years following the most recent date on which the interested shareholder became an interested shareholder. An interested shareholder is defined generally as a person who is the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the voting power of the outstanding voting stock of a corporation after the date on which that corporation had 100 or more beneficial owners of its stock or who is an affiliate or associate of that corporation and was the beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of 10% percent or more of the voting power of the then outstanding stock of that corporation at any time within the two-year period immediately prior to the date in question and after the date on which that corporation had 100 or more beneficial owners of its stock. The Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act applies to acquisitions of “control shares”, which, subject to certain exceptions, are shares the acquisition of which entitle the holder, directly or indirectly, to exercise or direct the exercise of the voting power of shares of stock of a corporation in the election of directors within any of the following ranges of voting power: one-tenth or more, but less than one-third of all voting power; one-third or more, but less than a majority of all voting power or a majority or more of all voting power. Control shares have limited voting rights.

Although these provisions do not preclude a takeover, they may have the effect of discouraging, delaying or deferring a tender offer or takeover attempt that a shareholder might consider in his or her best interest, including those attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for the common stock. Such provisions will also render the removal of the Company’s board of directors and of management more difficult and, therefore, may serve to perpetuate current management. These provisions could potentially adversely affect the market prices of the Company’s securities.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table sets forth certain selected financial data for each of the last five calendar years and is qualified in its entirety by the detailed information and financial statements, including notes thereto, included elsewhere or incorporated by reference in this annual report.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion is qualified in its entirety by the more detailed information and the financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this registration statement.

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, which are included in Item 13 of this registration statement.

The Company was incorporated on August 8, 2016 for the purpose of becoming the bank holding company of the Bank in a share exchange transaction that was intended to constitute a tax-free exchange under Section 351 of the IRC. As discussed in Item 1 of this Registration Statement, the Reorganization was consummated on November 1, 2016, at which time the Bank became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and all of the Bank’s stockholders became stockholders of the Company by virtue of the conversion of their shares of common stock of the Bank into an equal number of shares of common stock of the Company. Although we use the terms “Company”, “we”, “us”, and “our” in this Item, the discussion and analysis with respect to periods ending prior to November 1, 2016 relate to the operations of the Bank and its consolidated subsidiaries, and the discussion and analysis with respect to periods ending on and after November 1, 2016 relate to the operations of the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, including the Bank.

Application of Critical Accounting Policies

The consolidated financial statements of the Company are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and follow general practices within the industry in which the Company operates. Application of these principles requires management to make estimates, assumptions, and judgments that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. These estimates, assumptions, and judgments are based on information available as of the date of the consolidated financial statements; accordingly, as this information changes, the consolidated financial statements could reflect different estimates, assumptions, and judgments. Certain policies inherently have a greater reliance on the use of estimates, assumptions, and judgments and as such have a greater possibility of producing results that could be materially different than originally reported. Estimates, assumptions, and judgments are necessary when assets and liabilities are required to be recorded at fair value, when a decline in the value of an asset not carried on the consolidated financial statements at fair value warrants an impairment write-down or valuation reserve to be established, or when an asset or liability needs to be recorded contingent upon a future event. Carrying assets and liabilities at fair value inherently results in more financial statement volatility. The fair values and information used to record valuation adjustments for certain assets and liabilities are based either on quoted market prices or are provided by other third-party sources, when available.

The most significant accounting policies followed by the Company are presented in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements presented elsewhere in this registration statement. These policies, along with the disclosures presented in the other financial statement notes and in this financial review, provide information on how significant assets and liabilities are valued in the financial statements and how those values are determined. Based on the valuation techniques used and the sensitivity of financial statement amounts to the methods, assumptions, and estimates underlying those amounts, management has identified the determination of the allowance for loan losses as the accounting area that requires the most subjective or complex judgments, and as such could be most subject to revision as new information becomes available.

The allowance for loan losses represents management’s estimate of probable loan losses inherent in the loan portfolio. Determining the amount of the allowance for loan losses is considered a critical accounting estimate because it requires significant judgment and the use of estimates related to the amount and timing of expected future cash flows on impaired loans, estimated losses on pools of homogeneous loans based on historical loss experience, and consideration of current economic trends and conditions, all of which may be susceptible to significant change. The loan portfolio also represents the largest asset type on the balance sheet. Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements describes the methodology used to determine the allowance for loan losses.

Financial Condition

Total assets increased by $34,915,098 or 10.1% during 2016 to $380,225,094 at December 31, 2016 from $345,309,996 at December 31, 2015. The increase in total assets was due primarily to increases of $27,037,170 in loans and $12,124,916 in securities available for sale and securities held for investment, offset by an aggregate decrease of $5,710,201 in cash and cash equivalents

Total liabilities increased $31,732,447 or 10.3% during 2016 to $340,819,082 at December 31, 2016 from $309,086,635 at December 31, 2016. The increase was due primarily to increases of $26,750,399 in deposits and $6,735,540 in securities sold under repurchase agreements, offset by a $2,000,000 decrease in FHLB advances. The increase in deposits was comprised of a $22,002,506 increase in interest-bearing accounts and a $4,747,893 increase in noninterest-bearing accounts.

Stockholders’ equity increased by $3,182,651 during 2016 to $39,406,012 at December 31, 2016 from $36,223,361 at December 31, 2015. The increase was due to net income for the period of $4,302,864, offset by dividends paid, net of reinvestments, of $942,031 and a decrease in accumulated other comprehensive income of $178,182.

The Company had no foreign loans for any of the years presented.

Loans increased by $27,037,170 or 10.1% to $295,286,572 at December 31, 2016 from $268,249,402 at December 31, 2015. The growth was due to increases in commercial real estate loans of $19,441,208, construction/land development loans of $1,572,827, residential real estate loans of $3,419,981, and commercial loans of $2,590,471, offset by a decrease in consumer loans of $160,906. The allowance for loan losses decreased $220,359 to $2,363,086 at December 31, 2016 as compared to $2,583,445 at December 31, 2015.

The following table sets forth at December 31, 2016 the maturity and rate repricing distribution of the loan portfolio. Demand loans and overdrafts are reported as due in one year or less. The table does not include prepayment or scheduled principal repayment assumptions, which could shorten the average loan life.

The Company has adopted policies and procedures that seek to mitigate credit risk and to maintain the quality of the loan portfolio. These policies include underwriting standards for new credits as well as the continuous monitoring and reporting of asset quality and the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. These policies, coupled with continuous training efforts, have provided effective checks and balances for the risk associated with the lending process. Lending authority is based on the level of risk, size of the loan, and the experience of the lending officer. The Company’s policy is to make the majority of its loan commitments in the market area it serves. Management believes that this tends to reduce risk because management is familiar with the credit histories of loan applicants and has in-depth knowledge of the risk to which a given credit is subject. Although the loan portfolio is diversified, its performance will be influenced by the economy of the region.

An age analysis of past due loans, segregated by class of loans, as of year-end, is as follows:

It is the Company’s policy to place a loan in nonaccrual status whenever there is substantial doubt about the ability of the borrower to pay principal or interest on any outstanding credit. Management considers such factors as payment history, the nature of the collateral securing the loan, and the overall economic situation of the borrower when making a nonaccrual decision. Management closely monitors nonaccrual loans. A non-accruing loan is restored to current status when the prospects of future contractual payments are not in doubt.

Year-end non-accrual loans, segregated by class of loans, were as follows:

At December 31, 2016, the Company had two nonaccrual construction and land development loans to one borrower totaling $752,889. The loans were secured by real estate and business assets, and were personally guaranteed. Gross interest income of $38,028 would have been recorded in 2016 if these nonaccrual loans had been current and performing in accordance with the original terms. The Company allocated $16,587 of its allowance for loan losses for these nonaccrual loans. The balance of nonaccrual loans was net of charge-offs of $400,000 at December 31, 2016.

At December 31, 2015, the Company had two nonaccrual construction and land development loans to one borrower totaling $956,813. The loans were secured by real estate and business assets, and were personally guaranteed. Gross interest income of $35,631 would have been recorded in 2015 if these nonaccrual loans had been current and performing in accordance with the original terms. The Company allocated $167,211 of its allowance for loan losses for these nonaccrual loans. The balance of nonaccrual loans was net of charge-offs of $200,000 at December 31, 2015.

At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Company had no loans delinquent 90 days or greater other than the nonaccrual loans noted above.

Year-end impaired loans are set forth in the following table:

At December 31, 2016, the Company had three loans classified as a troubled debt restructuring. All are included in impaired loans above. The first is a commercial real estate loan with a balance of $2,183,509. The second is a commercial loan with a balance of $164,766. These two loans are paying as agreed. The third loan was restructured in 2016 with a balance of $271,580. The loan is a commercial real estate loan with a balance of $241,580 at December 31, 2016 which is net of a $30,000 charge-off. The Company has allocated $7,580 of its allowance for loan losses for this loan.

At December 31, 2015, the Company had two loans classified as a troubled debt restructuring. Both are included in impaired loans above. The first is a commercial real estate loan with a balance of $2,240,046. The second is a commercial loan with a balance of $203,635. Both loans were paying as agreed.

As part of our portfolio risk management, the Company assigns a risk grade to each loan. The factors used to determine the grade are the payment history of the loan and the borrower, the value of the collateral and net worth of any guarantor, and cash flow projections of the borrower. Special mention, Substandard, and Doubtful grades are assigned to loans with a higher frequency of delinquent payments and/or the collateral and/or cash flow are insufficient to support the loan and such loans are included on the Company’s watch list:

The allowance for loan losses is a reserve established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense.  The allowance for loan losses represents an amount which, in management’s judgment, will be adequate to absorb probable losses on existing loans and other extensions of credit that may become uncollectible. The Company's allowance for loan loss methodology includes allowance allocations calculated in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 310, "Receivables" and allowance allocations calculated in accordance with ASC Topic 450, "Contingencies." Accordingly, the methodology is based on historical loss experience by type of credit and internal risk grade, specific homogeneous risk pools and specific loss allocations, with adjustments for current events and conditions.

The Company's process for determining the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses is designed to account for credit deterioration as it occurs. The provision for loan losses reflects loan quality trends, including the levels of and trends related to non-accrual loans, past due loans, potential problem loans, classified and criticized loans and net charge-offs or recoveries, among other factors.

Although management believes that, based on information currently available, the Company’s allowance for loan losses is sufficient to cover losses inherent in its loan portfolio at this time, no assurances can be given that the Company’s level of allowance for loan losses will be sufficient to cover future loan losses incurred by the Company or that future adjustments to the allowance for loan losses will not be necessary if economic and other conditions differ substantially from the economic and other conditions at the time management determined the current level of the allowance for loan losses.

The following table details activity in the allowance for loan losses by portfolio for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012. Allocation of a portion of the allowance to one category of loans does not preclude its availability to absorb losses in other categories.