Notes to Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements (UNAUDITED)

March 31, 2018 and 2017

First Defiance Financial Corp. (“First Defiance” or the “Company”) is a unitary thrift holding company that conducts business through its three wholly owned subsidiaries, First Federal Bank of the Midwest (“First Federal” or the “Bank”), First Insurance Group of the Midwest, Inc. (“First Insurance”), and First Defiance Risk Management Inc. (“First Defiance Risk Management”). All significant intercompany transactions and balances are eliminated in consolidation.

First Federal is primarily engaged in attracting deposits from the general public through its offices and using those and other available sources of funds to originate loans primarily in the counties in which its offices are located. First Federal’s traditional banking activities include originating and servicing residential, non-residential real estate, commercial, home improvement and home equity and consumer loans and providing a broad range of depository, trust and wealth management services. In addition, First Federal invests in U.S. Treasury and federal government agency obligations, obligations of the State of Ohio and its political subdivisions, mortgage-backed securities that are issued by federal agencies, including real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”) and collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), and corporate bonds. First Insurance is an insurance agency that conducts business through offices located in the Defiance, Sylvania, Bryan, Lima, Archbold, Fostoria, Tiffin, Findlay and Bowling Green, Ohio areas. First Insurance offers property and casualty insurance, life insurance and group health insurance. First Defiance Risk Management is a wholly-owned insurance company subsidiary of the Company that insures the Company and its subsidiaries against certain risks unique to the operations of the Company and for which insurance may not be currently available or economically feasible in today’s insurance marketplace. First Defiance Risk Management pools resources with several other similar insurance company subsidiaries of financial institutions to spread a limited amount of risk among themselves.

The consolidated condensed statement of financial condition at December 31, 2017, has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date, which were included in First Defiance’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

The accompanying consolidated condensed financial statements as of March 31, 2018, and for the three month periods ended March 31, 2018 and 2017 have been prepared by First Defiance without audit and do not include information or footnotes necessary for the complete presentation of financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. These consolidated condensed financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in First Defiance's 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. However, in the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of only normal recurring items, necessary for the fair presentation of the financial statements have been made. The results for the three month period ended March 31, 2018 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. These estimates and assumptions affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and the disclosures provided, and actual results could differ.

Earnings Per Common Share

Basic earnings per common share is computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. All outstanding unvested share-based payment awards that contain rights to nonforfeitable dividends are considered participating securities for the calculation. Diluted earnings per common share include the dilutive effect of additional potential common shares issuable under stock options, restricted stock awards and stock grants.

Goodwill and Other Intangibles

Goodwill resulting from business combinations prior to January 1, 2009, represents the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of the net assets of businesses acquired. Goodwill resulting from business combinations after January 1, 2009, is generally determined as the excess of the fair value of the consideration transferred, plus the fair value of any noncontrolling interests in the acquiree, over the fair value of the net assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of the acquisition date. Goodwill and intangible assets acquired in a purchase business combination and determined to have an indefinite useful life are not amortized, but tested for impairment at least annually. The Company has selected November 30 as the date to perform the annual impairment test. Intangible assets with definite useful lives are amortized over their estimated useful lives to their estimated residual values. Goodwill is the only intangible asset with an indefinite life on First Defiance’s balance sheet.

Other intangible assets consist of core deposit and acquired customer relationship intangible assets arising from whole bank, insurance and branch acquisitions. They are initially recorded at fair value and then amortized on an accelerated basis over their estimated lives, which range from five years for non-compete agreements to 10 to 20 years for core deposit and customer relationship intangibles.

Accounting Standards Adopted in 2018

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” The standard’s core principle is that a company will recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In doing so, companies generally will be required to use more judgment and make more estimates than under current guidance. These may include identifying performance obligations in the contract, estimating the amount of variable consideration to include in the transaction price and allocating the transaction price to each separate performance obligation. Subsequent to the issuance of ASU 2014-09, the FASB issued targeted updates to clarify specific implementation issues including ASU No. 2016-08, “Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net),” ASU No. 2016-10, “Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing,” ASU No. 2016-12, “Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients,” and ASU No. 2016-20 “Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” For financial reporting purposes, the standard allows for either full retrospective adoption, meaning the standard is applied to all of the periods presented, or modified retrospective adoption, meaning the standard is applied only to the most current period presented in the financial statements with the cumulative effect of initially applying the standard recognized at the date of initial application. Since the guidance does not apply to revenue associated with financial instruments, including loans and securities that are accounted for under other GAAP, the new guidance did not have a material impact on revenue most closely associated with financial instruments, including interest income and expense. The Company completed its overall assessment of revenue streams and review of related contracts potentially affected by the ASU, including trust and asset management fees, deposit related fees, interchange fees, merchant income, and annuity and insurance commissions. Based on this assessment, the Company concluded that ASU 2014-09 did not materially change the method in which the Company currently recognizes revenue for these revenue streams. The Company adopted ASU 2014-09 and its related amendments on its required effective date of January 1, 2018, utilizing the modified retrospective approach. Since there was no net income impact upon adoption of the new guidance, a cumulative effect adjustment to opening retained earnings was not deemed necessary. See below for additional information related to revenue generated from contracts with customers.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” This ASU addresses certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments by making targeted improvements to GAAP as follows: (1) require equity investments (except those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee) to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income. However, an entity may choose to measure equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values at cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer; (2) simplify the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment. When a qualitative assessment indicates that impairment exists, an entity is required to measure the investment at fair value; (3) eliminate the requirement to disclose the fair value of financial instruments measured at amortized cost for entities that are not public business entities; (4) eliminate the requirement for public business entities to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet; (5) require public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; (6) require an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments; (7) require separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset (that is, securities or loans receivable) on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements; and (8) clarify that an entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. The adoption of ASU No. 2016-01 on January 1, 2018, did not have a material impact on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Also in conjunction with the adoption, our fair value measurement of financial instruments will be based upon an exit price notion as required in ASU 2016-01. The guidance was applied on a prospective approach resulting in prior-periods no longer being comparable.

In February 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-02, “Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.” This ASU allows a reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) to retained earnings for certain income tax effects stranded in AOCI as a result of the Tax Act. Consequently, the reclassification eliminates the stranded tax effects resulting from the Tax Act and is intended to improve the usefulness of information reported to financial statement users. However, because the ASU only relates to the reclassification of the income tax effects of the Tax Act, the underlying guidance that requires the effect of a change in tax laws or rates to be included in income from continuing operations is not affected. The Company adopted ASU No. 2018-02 during the first quarter of 2018, and elected to reclassify the income tax effects of the Tax Act from AOCI to retained earnings. The reclassification increased AOCI and decreased retained earnings by $47,000, with zero net effect on total shareholders’ equity.

Accounting Standards Pending Adoption

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02 — Leases (Topic 842). The objective of the update is to increase transparency and comparability among organizations by recognizing lease assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet and disclosing key information about leasing arrangements. The amendments in this update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company has not yet selected a transition method as it is in the process of determining the effect of the ASU on its consolidated financial statements and disclosures. The Company has several lease agreements, such as branch locations, which are currently considered operating leases, and therefore, not recognized on the Company’s consolidated condensed statements of financial condition. The Company expects the new guidance will require these lease agreements to now be recognized on the consolidated condensed statements of financial condition as a right-of-use asset and a corresponding lease liability. Therefore, the Company’s preliminary evaluation indicates the provisions of ASU No. 2016-02 are expected to impact the Company’s consolidated condensed statements of financial condition, along with our regulatory capital ratios. However, the Company continues to evaluate the extent of potential impact the new guidance will have on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. At March 31, 2018, the Company had contractual operating lease commitments of approximately $11.0 million, before considering renewal options that are generally present.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” This ASU significantly changes how entities will measure credit losses for most financial assets and certain other instruments that aren’t measured at fair value through net income. In issuing the standard, the FASB is responding to criticism that today’s guidance delays recognition of credit losses. The standard will replace today’s “incurred loss” approach with an “expected loss” model. The new model, referred to as the current expected credit loss (“CECL”) model, will apply to: (1) financial assets subject to credit losses and measured at amortized cost, and (2) certain off-balance sheet credit exposures. This includes, but is not limited to, loans, leases, held-to-maturity securities, loan commitments, and financial guarantees. The CECL model does not apply to available-for-sale (“AFS”) debt securities. For AFS debt securities with unrealized losses, entities will measure credit losses in a manner similar to what they do today, except that the losses will be recognized as allowances rather than reductions in the amortized cost of the securities. As a result, entities will recognize improvements to estimated credit losses immediately in earnings rather than as interest income over time, as they do today. The ASU also simplifies the accounting model for purchased credit-impaired debt securities and loans. ASU 2016-13 also expands the disclosure requirements regarding an entity’s assumptions, models, and methods for estimating the allowance for loan and lease losses. In addition, entities will need to disclose the amortized cost balance for each class of financial asset by credit quality indicator, disaggregated by the year of origination. ASU No. 2016-13 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019; early adoption is permitted for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Entities will apply the standard’s provisions as a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective (i.e., modified retrospective approach). The Company has begun its implementation efforts by establishing a Company-wide implementation committee along with engaging a third-party software vendor to assist in the implementation process. The committee’s initial review indicates the Company has maintained sufficient historical loan data to support the requirement of this pronouncement and is currently evaluating the various loss methodologies to determine their correlations to the Company’s loan segments historical performance. Early adoption is permitted, however, the Company does not currently plan to early adopt this ASU.

Revenue Recognition

Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers ("ASC 606"), establishes principles for reporting information about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from the entity's contracts to provide goods or services to customers. The core principle requires an entity to recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration that it expects to be entitled to receive in exchange for those goods or services recognized as performance obligations are satisfied.

The majority of our revenue-generating transactions are not subject to ASC 606, including revenue generated from financial instruments, such as our loans, letters of credit, and investment securities, as well as revenue related to our mortgage servicing activities, as these activities are subject to other GAAP discussed elsewhere within our disclosures. Descriptions of our revenue-generating activities that are within the scope of ASC 606, which are presented in our income statements as components of non-interest income are as follows:

FASB ASC Topic 820 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in an orderly transaction between market participants. A fair value measurement assumes that the transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability occurs in the principal market for the asset or liability or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or liability. The price in the principal (or most advantageous) market used to measure the fair value of the asset or liability shall not be adjusted for transaction costs. An orderly transaction is a transaction that assumes exposure to the market for a period prior to the measurement date to allow for marketing activities that are usual and customary for transactions involving such assets and liabilities; it is not a forced transaction. Market participants are buyers and sellers in the principal market that are (i) independent, (ii) knowledgeable, (iii) able to transact and (iv) willing to transact.

The methods of determining the fair value of assets and liabilities presented in this note are consistent with our methodologies disclosed in Note 22 of the Company’s 2017 Form 10-K, except for the valuation of loans which was impacted by the adoption of ASU 2016-01. Prior to adopting the amendments included in the standard, the Company was permitted to measure fair value under an entry price notion. The entry price notion previously applied by the Company used a discounted cash flows technique to calculate the present value of expected future cash flows for a financial instrument. The exit price notion uses the same approach, but also incorporates other factors, such as enhanced credit risk, illiquidity risk and market factors that sometimes exist in exit prices in dislocated markets. As of March 31, 2018, the technique used by the Company to estimate the exit price of the loan portfolio consists of similar procedures to those used as of December 31, 2017, but with added emphasis on both illiquidity risk and credit risk not captured by the previously applied entry price notion. This credit risk assumption is intended to approximate the fair value that a market participant would realize in a hypothetical orderly transaction. In that regard, FASB ASC Topic 820 established a fair value hierarchy for valuation inputs that gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs. The fair value hierarchy is as follows:

A description of the valuation methodologies used for instruments measured at fair value, as well as the general classification of such instruments pursuant to the valuation hierarchy, is set forth below.

Available for sale securities - Securities classified as available for sale are generally reported at fair value utilizing Level 2 inputs where the Company obtains fair value measurements from an independent pricing service that uses matrix pricing, which is a mathematical technique widely used in the industry to value debt securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices for the specific securities but rather by relying on the securities’ relationship to other benchmark quoted securities (Level 2 inputs). The fair value measurements consider observable data that may include dealer quotes, market spreads, cash flows and the bonds’ terms and conditions, among other things. Securities in Level 2 include U.S. Government agencies, mortgage-backed securities, corporate bonds and municipal securities.

Impaired loans - Fair values for impaired collateral dependent loans are generally based on appraisals obtained from licensed real estate appraisers and in certain circumstances consideration of offers obtained to purchase properties prior to foreclosure.  Appraisals for commercial real estate generally use three methods to derive value: cost, sales or market comparison and income approach.  The cost method bases value on the cost to replace the current property.  Value of market comparison approach evaluates the sales price of similar properties in the same market area.  The income approach considers net operating income generated by the property and an investors required return.  Adjustments are routinely made in the appraisal process by the independent appraisers to adjust for differences between the comparable sales and income data available.  Comparable sales adjustments are based on known sales prices of similar type and similar use properties and duration of time that the property has been on the market to sell.  Such adjustments made in the appraisal process are typically significant and result in a Level 3 classification of the inputs for determining fair value.

Real Estate held for sale - Assets acquired through or instead of loan foreclosure are initially recorded at fair value less costs to sell when acquired, establishing a new cost basis. These assets are then reviewed monthly by members of the asset review committee for valuation changes and are accounted for at lower of cost or fair value less estimated costs to sell. Fair value is commonly based on recent real estate appraisals which may utilize a single valuation approach or a combination of approaches including cost, comparable sales and the income approach. Adjustments are routinely made in the appraisal process by the independent appraisers to adjust for differences between the comparable sales and income data available. Such adjustments may be significant and typically result in a Level 3 classification of the inputs for determining fair value.

Appraisals for both collateral-dependent impaired loans and other real estate owned are performed by certified general appraisers (for commercial properties) or certified residential appraisers (for residential properties) whose qualifications and licenses have been reviewed and verified by the Company.  Once received, a member of the Company’s asset quality or collections department reviews the assumptions and approaches utilized in the appraisal.  Appraisal values are discounted from 0% to 30% to account for other factors that may impact the value of collateral. In determining the value of impaired collateral dependent loans and other real estate owned, significant unobservable inputs may be used, which include:  physical condition of comparable properties sold, net operating income generated by the property and investor rates of return.

Mortgage servicing rights – On a quarterly basis, mortgage servicing rights are evaluated for impairment based upon the fair value of the rights as compared to the carrying amount. If the carrying amount of an individual tranche exceeds fair value, impairment is recorded on that tranche so that the servicing asset is carried at fair value. Fair value is determined at a tranche level based on a model that calculates the present value of estimated future net servicing income. The valuation model utilizes assumptions that market participants would use in estimating future net servicing income and are validated against available market data (Level 2).

Mortgage banking derivative - The fair value of mortgage banking derivatives are evaluated monthly based on derivative valuation models using quoted prices for similar assets adjusted for specific attributes of the commitments and other observable market data at the valuation date (Level 2).

The following table summarizes the financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis segregated by the level of the valuation inputs within the fair value hierarchy utilized to measure fair value:

The following table summarizes the financial assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis segregated by the level of the valuation inputs within the fair value hierarchy utilized to measure fair value:

For Level 3 assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring or nonrecurring basis as of March 31, 2018, the significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurements were as follows:

For Level 3 assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring or nonrecurring basis as of December 31, 2017, the significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurements were as follows:

There were no impaired loans which were measured for impairment using the fair value of collateral at March 31, 2018. Impaired loans, which are measured for impairment using the fair value of the collateral for collateral dependent loans, had a fair value of $4.6 million, with a no valuation allowance December 31, 2017. A provision expense of $134,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and $208,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2017, were included in earnings.

Mortgage servicing rights which are carried at the lower of cost or fair value, had a fair value of $539,000 with a valuation allowance of $395,000 and a fair value of $534,000 with a valuation allowance of $432,000 at March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. A recovery of $37,000 and $33,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2018, and March 31, 2017, respectively, was included in earnings.

Real estate held for sale is determined using Level 3 inputs which include appraisals and are adjusted for estimated costs to sell. The change in fair value of real estate held for sale was $544,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2018, which was recorded directly as an adjustment to current earnings through non-interest expense. The change in fair value of real estate held for sale was not material for the three months ended March 31, 2017.

In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 825, the Fair Value Measurements tables are a comparative condensed consolidated statement of financial condition based on carrying amount and estimated fair values of financial instruments as of March 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017. Accordingly, the aggregate fair value amounts presented do not represent the underlying value of First Defiance.

Much of the information used to arrive at “fair value” is highly subjective and judgmental in nature and therefore the results may not be precise. Subjective factors include, among other things, estimated cash flows, risk characteristics and interest rates, all of which are subject to change. With the exception of investment securities, the Company’s financial instruments are not readily marketable and market prices do not exist. Since negotiated prices for the instruments, which are not readily marketable, depend greatly on the motivation of the buyer and seller, the amounts that will actually be realized or paid per settlement or maturity of these instruments could be significantly different.

The carrying amount of cash and cash equivalents and notes payable, as a result of their short-term nature, is considered to be equal to fair value and are classified as Level 1.

It was not practicable to determine the fair value of Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) stock due to restrictions placed on its transferability.

The Company adopted the amendments to ASU 2016-01 relating to the loan portfolio for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 and an exit price income approach was used to determine the fair value. The loans were valued on an individual basis, with consideration given to the loans' underlying characteristics, including account types, remaining terms (in months), annual interest rates or coupons, interest types, past delinquencies, timing of principal and interest payments, current market rates, loss exposures, and remaining balances. The model utilizes a discounted cash flow approach to estimate the fair value of the loans using assumptions for the coupon rates, remaining maturities, prepayment speeds, projected default probabilities, losses given defaults, and estimates of prevailing discount rates. The discounted cash flow approach models the credit losses directly in the projected cash flows. The model applies various assumptions regarding credit, interest, and prepayment risks for the loans based on loan types, payment types and fixed or variable classifications. As of December 31, 2017, the fair value was estimated by discounting the future cash flows using the rates at which similar notes would be written for the same remaining maturities or an entry price income approach. The market rates used were based on current rates the Company would impose for similar loans and reflect a market participant assumption about risks associated with non-performance, illiquidity, and the structure and term of the loans along with local economic and market conditions. For all periods presented, the estimated fair value of impaired loans is based on the fair value of the collateral, less estimated cost to sell, or the present value of the loan’s expected future cash flows (discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate). All impaired loans are classified as Level 3 and all other loans are classified as Level 2 within the valuation hierarchy.

The fair value of accrued interest receivable is equal to the carrying amounts resulting in a Level 2 or Level 3 classification which is consistent with its underlying value.

The fair value of non-interest bearing deposits are considered equal to the amount payable on demand at the reporting date (i.e. carrying value) and are classified as Level 1. The fair value of savings, NOW and certain money market accounts are equal to their carrying amounts and are a Level 2 classification. Fair values of fixed rate certificates of deposit are estimated using a discounted cash flow calculation that applies interest rates currently being offered on certificates to a schedule of aggregated expected monthly maturities on time deposits resulting in a Level 2 classification.

The fair values of securities sold under repurchase agreements are equal to their carrying amounts resulting in a Level 2 classification. The carrying value of subordinated debentures and deposits with fixed maturities is estimated based discounted cash flow analyses based on interest rates currently being offered on instruments with similar characteristics and maturities resulting in a Level 3 classification.

FHLB advances with maturities greater than 90 days are valued based on discounted cash flow analysis, using interest rates currently being quoted for similar characteristics and maturities resulting in a Level 2 classification. The cost or value of any call or put options is based on the estimated cost to settle the option at March 31, 2018.

First Defiance has established equity based compensation plans for its directors and employees. On March 15, 2010, the Board adopted, and the shareholders approved at the 2010 Annual Shareholders Meeting, the First Defiance Financial Corp. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2010 Equity Plan”). The 2010 Equity Plan replaced all existing plans although the Company’s former equity plans remain in existence to the extent there were outstanding grants thereunder at the time the 2010 Equity Plan was approved. All awards currently outstanding under prior plans will remain in effect in accordance with their respective terms. Any new awards will be made under the 2010 Equity Plan. The 2010 Equity Plan allows for issuance of up to 350,000 common shares through the award of options, stock grants, restricted stock units (“RSU”), stock appreciation rights or other stock-based awards.

As of March 31, 2018, 37,200 options remain outstanding at option prices based on the market value of the underlying shares on the date the options were granted. Options granted vest 20% per year. All options expire ten years from the date of grant. Vested options of retirees expire on the earlier of the scheduled expiration date or three months after the retirement date.

Annually, the Company approves a Short-Term (“STIP”) Equity Incentive Plan and a Long-Term (“LTIP”) Equity Incentive Plan for selected members of management.

Under the 2017 and 2018 STIPs, the participants could earn up to 10% to 45% of their salary for potential payout based on the achievement of certain corporate performance targets during the calendar year. The final amount of benefits under the STIPs is determined as of December 31 of the same year and paid out in cash in the first quarter of the following year. The participants are required to be employed on the day of payout in order to receive such payment.

Under each LTIP, the participants may earn up to 20% to 45% of their salary for potential payout in the form of equity awards based on the achievement of certain corporate performance targets over a three-year period. The Company granted 24,526, 20,657 and 20,838 RSU’s to the participants in the 2016, 2017 and 2018 LTIPs, respectively, effective January 1 in the year the award was made, which represents the maximum target award. The amount of benefit under each LTIP will be determined individually at the end of the 36 month performance period ending December 31. The benefits earned under each LTIP will be paid out in equity in the first quarter following the end of the performance period. The participants are required to be employed on the day of payout in order to receive such payment.

A total of 24,757 RSU’s were issued to the participants of the 2015 LTIP in the first quarter of 2018 for the three year performance period ended December 31, 2017.

In the three months ended March 31, 2018, the Company also granted to employees 7,578 restricted shares, of which 3,578 were restricted stock units and 4,000 were restricted stock grants. The shares all have a three year vesting period. The fair value of all granted restricted shares was determined by the stock price at the date of the grant.

The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes model. Expected volatilities are based on historical volatilities of the Company’s common stock. The Company uses historical data to estimate option exercise and post-vesting termination behavior. The expected term of options granted is based on historical data and represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding, which takes into account that the options are not transferable. The risk-free interest rate for the expected term of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of the grant.

There were no options granted during the three months ended March 31, 2018, or March 31, 2017.

Following is stock option activity under the plans during the three months ended March 31, 2018:

Proceeds, related tax benefits realized from options exercised and intrinsic value of options exercised were as follows (in thousands):

As of March 31, 2018, there was $90,000 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested stock options granted under the Company’s equity plans. The cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.1 years .

At March 31, 2018, 72,197 RSU’s and 14,536 restricted stock grants were unvested. Compensation expense is recognized over the performance period based on the achievements of targets as established under the plan documents. A total expense of $565,000 was recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2018 compared to an expense of $849,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2017. There was approximately $211,000 and $774,000 included within other liabilities at March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively, related to the STIP.

The maximum amount of compensation expense that may be recorded for the 2018 STIP and the 2016, 2017 and 2018 LTIPs at March 31, 2018, is approximately $3.9 million. However, the estimated expense expected to be recorded as of March 31, 2018, based on the performance measures in the plans, is $3.6 million of which $2.0 million is unrecognized at March 31, 2018 and will be recognized over the remaining performance periods.

First Defiance declared and paid a $0.30 per common stock dividend in the first quarter of 2018 and declared and paid a $0.25 per common stock dividend in the first quarter of 2017.

Basic earnings per share are calculated using the two-class method. The two-class method is an earnings allocation formula under which earnings per share is calculated from common stock and participating securities according to dividends declared and participation rights in undistributed earnings. Under this method, all earnings distributed and undistributed, are allocated to participating securities and common shares based on their respective rights to receive dividends. Unvested share-based payment awards that contain non-forfeitable rights to dividends are considered participating securities (i.e. unvested restricted stock), not subject to performance based measures.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common share:

Shares subject to issue upon exercise of options of 3,500 in 2018 and 4,569 in 2017 were excluded from the diluted earnings per common share calculation as they were anti-dilutive.

The following is a summary of available-for-sale and held-to-maturity securities:

* FHLMC, FNMA, and GNMA certificates are residential mortgage-backed securities.

The amortized cost and fair value of the investment securities portfolio at March 31, 2018, are shown below by contractual maturity. Expected maturities will differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties. For purposes of the maturity table, mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”), collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMO”) and REMICs, which are not due at a single maturity date, have not been allocated over the maturity groupings. These securities may mature earlier than their weighted-average contractual maturities because of principal prepayments.

Investment securities with a carrying amount of $151.6 million at March 31, 2018, were pledged as collateral on public deposits, securities sold under repurchase agreements and the Federal Reserve discount window.

As of March 31, 2018, the Company’s investment portfolio consisted of 425 securities, 167 of which were in an unrealized loss position.

The following tables summarize First Defiance’s securities that were in an unrealized loss position at March 31, 2018, and December 31, 2017:

There were no realized gains from the sales and calls of investment securities in the first quarter of 2018 or in the first quarter of 2017.

Management evaluates securities for other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) at least quarterly, and more frequently when economic or market conditions warrant such an evaluation. The investment portfolio is evaluated for OTTI by segregating the portfolio into two general segments. Investment securities classified as available-for-sale or held-to-maturity are generally evaluated for OTTI under FASB ASC Topic 320. Certain collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) are evaluated for OTTI under FASB ASC Topic 325, Investment – Other.

When OTTI occurs under either model, the amount of the OTTI recognized in earnings depends on whether an entity intends to sell the security or more likely than not will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current period credit loss. If an entity intends to sell or more likely than not will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current period credit loss, the OTTI shall be recognized in earnings equal to the entire difference between the investment’s amortized cost basis and its fair value at the balance sheet date. If an entity does not intend to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that the entity will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current period loss, the OTTI shall be separated into the amount representing the credit loss and the amount related to all other factors. The amount of OTTI related to the credit loss is determined based on the present value of cash flows expected to be collected compared to the book value of the security and is recognized in earnings. The amount of OTTI related to other factors shall be recognized in other comprehensive income, net of applicable taxes. The previous amortized cost basis less the OTTI recognized in earnings shall become the new amortized cost basis of the investment.

With the exception of corporate bonds, the above securities all have fixed interest rates, and all securities have defined maturities. Their fair value is sensitive to movements in market interest rates. First Defiance has the ability and intent to hold these investments for a time necessary to recover the amortized cost without impacting its liquidity position and it is not more than likely that the Company will be required to sell the investments before anticipated recovery.

In the first quarter of 2018 and 2017, management determined there was no OTTI.

There were no sales or calls of securities during the three months ended March 31, 2018 or 2017.

Loans receivable consist of the following:

Loan segments have been identified by evaluating the portfolio based on collateral and credit risk characteristics.

The following table discloses allowance for loan loss activity for the quarters ended March 31, 2018 and 2017 by portfolio segment (In Thousands):