RISK FACTORS

You should consider carefully the following risk factors, in addition to all other information in this prospectus, in evaluating an investment in the shares of common stock.

Risks Related to Our Business

We rely in part on out-of-market jumbo deposits and borrowings to fund our operations. These funding sources carry a measure of liquidity risk which could impair our ability to fund operations and jeopardize our financial condition, growth and prospects.

Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. We rely in part on out-of-market jumbo deposits and advances from the FHLB to fund our operations. At December 31, 2018, we had $26.0 million of FHLB advances outstanding with an additional $8.7 million of available borrowing capacity from the FHLB. We also use an online service for jumbo certificates of deposit, and accept municipal deposits through a non-retail platform, as non-core sources for certificates of deposit, particularly during periods of increased loan originations. At December 31, 2018, we had total deposits of $56.2 million, of which $53.0 million were certificates of deposit. Of this amount, $33.8 million, or 63.8% of our certificates of deposit, were municipal deposits or jumbo certificates of deposit which were acquired through an on-line service or through brokers. These non-core funding sources are not relationship-based accounts and are generally more price-sensitive than our core deposits of savings and money market accounts and our retail certificates of deposit. Therefore, these deposits carry a greater risk of non-renewal than our core deposits. Although we have historically been able to replace maturing deposits and advances as desired, we may not be able to replace such funds in the future if, among other things, our financial condition, the financial condition of the FHLB, or market conditions change. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities on terms that are acceptable could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry or economy in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact our access to liquidity sources include a decrease in the level of our business activity as a result of a downturn in the markets where our loans are concentrated, or adverse regulatory action against us.  Our ability to acquire funding could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as a disruption in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry in light of the recent turmoil faced by banking organizations and the continued deterioration in credit markets.

Our financial flexibility would be severely constrained if we are unable to maintain our access to funding or if adequate financing is not available to accommodate future growth at acceptable interest rates. Although we consider our sources of funds adequate for our liquidity needs, we may seek additional funding in the future to achieve our long-term business objectives. Additional funding, if sought, may not be available to us or, if available, may not be available on reasonable terms. If additional financing sources are unavailable, or are not available on reasonable terms, our financial condition, results of operations, growth and future prospects could be materially adversely affected.  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 this case, our operating margins and profitability would be adversely affected.

A portion of our one- to four-family residential real estate loans is comprised of non-owner-occupied properties which increases the credit risk on this portion of our loan portfolio.

The housing stock in our primary lending market area is comprised in part of single-family rental properties as well as two- to four-unit properties.  At December 31, 2018, of the $75.2 million of one- to four-family residential real estate loans in our portfolio, $11.2 million, or 14.8% of this amount, was comprised of non-owner-occupied properties.  We believe that there is a greater credit risk inherent in non-owner-occupied properties than in owner-occupied properties since, similar to commercial real estate and multifamily loans, the repayment of these loans may depend, in part, on the successful management of the property and/or the borrower’s ability to lease the units of the property.  In addition, the physical condition of non-owner-occupied properties may be below that of owner-occupied properties due to lesser property maintenance standards, which has a negative impact on the value of the collateral properties.  Furthermore, some of our non-owner-occupied borrowers have more than one loan outstanding with us, which may expose us to a greater risk of loss compared to residential borrowers with only one loan.  A downturn in the real estate market or the local economy could adversely affect the value of properties securing these loans or the revenues derived from these properties which could affect the borrower’s ability to repay the loan.

We utilize non-retail certificates of deposit which are interest-rate sensitive, and this increases our interest rate risk sensitivity.

In recent years, we have accepted jumbo certificates of deposits through an on-line service and through brokers and have also acquired municipal deposits. At December 31, 2018, $33.8 million, or 63.8% of our certificates of deposit, consisted of these non-retail certificates of deposit. Our reliance on certificates of deposit to fund our operations may result in a higher cost of funds than would otherwise be the case if we had a higher percentage of savings account and money market account deposits. Additionally, non-retail certificates of deposit are generally considered rate-sensitive instruments which contribute to our interest rate risk sensitivity. Because we do not have checking accounts, we have faced significant challenges in increasing our core deposits, which we consider to be our savings and money market accounts and our retail certificates of deposit. Therefore, it is likely we will continue to have to rely in part on jumbo, non-retail certificates of deposit as a significant funding source.

Future changes in interest rates could reduce our profits and asset values.

Future changes in interest rates could impact our financial condition and results of operations.

Net income is the amount by which net interest income and noninterest income exceeds noninterest expense and the provision for loan losses. Net interest income makes up a majority of our net income and is based on the difference between:

We are vulnerable to changes in interest rates including the shape of the yield curve because of a mismatch between the terms to repricing of our assets and liabilities. We maintain in our portfolio a substantial amount of long-term, fixed-rate one- to four-family residential real estate loans. The retention of these loans makes us extremely sensitive to a decrease in the value of our equity in a rising interest rate environment.

We utilize a computer simulation model to provide an analysis of estimated changes in our net interest income (“NII”) and in the fair value of our assets and liabilities (our economic value of equity, or (“EVE”)) in various interest rate scenarios. At December 31, 2018, our “rate shock” analysis indicated that our NII would decrease $73,000, or 3.2%, to $2.2 million, and our EVE would decrease $4.6 million, or 34.8%, in the event of an immediate 200 basis point increase in interest rates. Also, our interest rate risk modeling techniques and assumptions likely may not fully predict or capture the impact of actual interest rate changes on our balance sheet.

Additionally, increases in interest rates may decrease loan demand and/or make it more difficult for borrowers to repay adjustable-rate loans. Conversely, a reduction in interest rates can result in increased prepayments of loans and mortgage-backed and related securities, as borrowers refinance their debt in order to reduce their borrowing costs. This creates reinvestment risk, which is the risk that we may not be able to reinvest prepayments at rates that are comparable to the rates we earned on the prepaid loans or securities.

Finally, a significant increase in interest rates could make it more difficult to attract the funding needed to support our operations.

Our small size makes it more difficult for us to compete and to achieve significant profitability.

Our small asset size makes it more difficult to compete with other financial institutions which are generally larger and can more easily afford to invest in the marketing and technologies needed to attract and retain customers. Because our principal source of income is the net interest income we earn on our loans after deducting interest paid on deposits and other sources of funds, our ability to generate the revenues needed to cover our expenses and finance such investments is limited by the size of our loan portfolio. Accordingly, we are not always able to offer new products and services as quickly as our competitors. Our lower earnings also make it more difficult to offer competitive salaries and benefits. In addition, our smaller customer base makes it difficult to generate meaningful noninterest income from such activities as securities and insurance brokerage. Finally, as a smaller institution, we are disproportionately affected by the continually increasing costs of compliance with new banking and other regulations, as well as increasing cybersecurity and information technology expense.

We depend on our management team to implement our business strategy and execute successful operations and we could be harmed by the loss of their services.

Our future success will be largely due to the efforts of our senior management team, especially Alan T. Heintzen, our Chief Executive Officer, and Cecil A. Haskins, Jr., our President and Chief Financial Officer, who have been employed by Eureka Homestead 22 and 19 years, respectively, and Rhea L. Gonczi, our Vice-President Lending, who has been employed by Eureka Homestead for 14 years. In accordance with our succession plan, in July 2018, Mr. Heintzen relinquished the role of President and the corresponding oversight of the day-to-day operations of Eureka Homestead, and was elected Chairman of the Board and began working off-site from the Bank’s office. Because we are a small community savings association with a small management team, each member of our senior management team has more responsibility than his or her counterpart typically would have at a larger institution with more employees, and we have fewer management-level personnel who are in a position to assume the responsibilities of our senior management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals may have a material adverse effect on our ability to implement our business plan.

Strong competition within our market areas and our limited product offerings and limited technology services may limit our growth and profitability.

Competition in the banking and financial services industry is intense. We compete with commercial banks, savings institutions, mortgage brokerage firms, credit unions, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, and brokerage and investment banking firms operating locally and elsewhere. Many of our competitors have greater name recognition and market presence that benefit them in attracting business, and offer certain services that we do not or cannot provide. We currently do not offer checking accounts and do not offer mobile banking applications or an interactive website. Many potential customers seek these products and services and if we do not choose to implement these products and services in the future, we could experience increased challenges in attracting new customers or retaining our existing customers. In addition, larger competitors may be able to price loans and deposits more aggressively than we do, which could affect our ability to grow and remain profitable on a long-term basis. Our ability to achieve significant profitability depends upon our ability to successfully compete in our market area. If we must raise interest rates paid on deposits or lower interest rates charged on our loans, our net interest margin and profitability could be adversely affected. For additional information see “Business of Eureka Homestead – Market Area” and “Business of Eureka Homestead – Competition.”

The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of new legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. Banks, securities firms and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting) and merchant banking. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than we can.

A worsening of economic conditions in our market area could reduce demand for our products and services and/or result in increases in our level of non-performing loans, which could adversely affect our operations, financial condition and earnings.

Local economic conditions have a significant impact on the ability of our borrowers to repay loans and the value of the collateral securing loans. A deterioration in economic conditions could have the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations:

Moreover, a significant decline in general economic conditions caused by inflation, recession, acts of terrorism, an outbreak of hostilities or other international or domestic calamities, unemployment or other factors beyond our control could further impact these local economic conditions and could further negatively affect the financial results of our banking operations. In addition, deflationary pressures, while possibly lowering our operating costs, could have a significant negative effect on our borrowers, especially our business borrowers, and the values of underlying collateral securing loans, which could negatively affect our financial performance.

If our allowance for loan losses is not sufficient to cover actual loan losses, our earnings could decrease.

We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of our loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of our borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of many of our loans. In determining the amount of the allowance for loan losses, we review our loans and our loss and delinquency experience, and we evaluate economic conditions. If our assumptions are incorrect, our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover probable incurred losses in our loan portfolio, resulting in additions to our allowance for loan losses. Additions to the allowance for loan losses are established through the provision for losses on loans which is charged against income.

Material additions to our allowance could materially decrease our net income. In addition, bank regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and, based on judgments different than management’s, we may determine to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize further loan charge-offs as a result of these regulatory reviews. Any material increase in our allowance for loan losses or loan charge-offs may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board has adopted a new accounting standard that we expect will be effective for Eureka Homestead Bancorp and Eureka Homestead for our first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2020. This standard, referred to as Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL, will require financial institutions to determine periodic estimates of lifetime expected credit losses on loans, and recognize the expected credit losses as allowances for loan losses. This will change the current method of establishing allowances for loan losses that are probable, which may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses, and increase the data we would need to collect and review to determine the appropriate level of our allowance for loan losses.

We are a community bank and our ability to maintain our reputation is critical to the success of our business and the failure to do so may materially adversely affect our performance.

We are a community bank, and our reputation is one of the most valuable components of our business. A key component of our business strategy is to rely on our reputation for customer service and knowledge of local markets to expand our presence by capturing new business opportunities from existing and prospective customers in our market area and contiguous areas. This is done, in part, by recruiting, hiring and retaining employees who share our core values of being an integral part of the communities we serve, delivering superior service to our customers and caring about our customers and associates. If our reputation is negatively affected by the actions of our employees, or by our inability to conduct our operations in a manner that is appealing to current or prospective customers, our business and, therefore, our operating results may be materially adversely affected.

If real estate owned is not properly valued, our earnings could be reduced.

We obtain updated valuations in the form of appraisals when a loan has been foreclosed and the property taken in as real estate owned and at certain other times during the holding period of the asset. Our net book value (“NBV”) in the loan at the time of foreclosure and thereafter is compared to the updated fair value of the foreclosed property less estimated selling costs (fair value). A charge-off is recorded for any excess in the asset’s NBV over its fair value less estimated selling costs. If our valuation process is incorrect, or if property values decline, the fair value of our real estate owned may not be sufficient to recover our carrying value in such assets, resulting in the need for additional charge-offs. Significant charge-offs to our real estate owned could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, bank regulators periodically review our real estate owned and may require us to recognize further charge-offs. Any increase in our charge-offs may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We have become subject to more stringent capital requirements, which may adversely impact our return on equity, require us to raise additional capital, or limit our ability to pay dividends.

Federal regulations establish minimum capital requirements for insured depository institutions, including minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which were effective for us on January 1, 2015, and define what constitutes “capital” for calculating these ratios. The new minimum capital requirements are: (1) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (2) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 6%; (3) a total capital ratio of 8%; and (4) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%. The regulations also require unrealized gains and losses on certain “available-for-sale” securities holdings to be included for calculating regulatory capital requirements unless a one-time opt-out is exercised. We elected to exercise our one-time option to opt-out of the requirement under the final rule to include certain “available-for-sale” securities holdings for calculating our regulatory capital requirements. The regulations also establish a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5%, and, when fully phased in, will result in the following minimum ratios: (1) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (2) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 8.5%, and (3) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. The capital conservation buffer requirement began being phased in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and is increasing each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution will be 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 will establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that can be utilized for such actions.

The recently enacted Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulatory Relief Act”) simplifies capital calculations by requiring the federal regulators to establish for institutions under $10 billion in assets a community bank leverage ratio (tangible equity to average consolidated assets) at a percentage not less than 8% and not greater than 10% that eligible institutions may choose to elect to replace the general applicable risk-based capital requirements under the Basel III capital rules for such institutions. Such institutions that meet the community bank leverage ratio will automatically be deemed to be well-capitalized under the federal regulator’s prompt corrective action framework, although the regulators retain the flexibility to determine that the institution may not qualify for the community bank leverage ratio test based on the institution’s risk profile. The federal regulators jointly issued a proposed rule on November 21, 2018, whereby a qualifying community bank organization may elect, but is not required to, use the community bank leverage ratio capital framework, in which case it will be considered well-capitalized so long as its community bank leverage ratio is greater than 9%.

Until the federal regulators issue their final rule, the Basel III risk-based and leverage ratios apply. The effective date and the specific community bank leverage ratio remain undetermined.

The application of more stringent Basel III capital requirements could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, and result in regulatory actions if we were to be unable to comply with such requirements. Implementation of changes to asset risk weightings for risk-based capital calculations, items included or deducted in calculating Basel III regulatory capital and/or additional Basel III capital conservation buffers could result in management modifying its business strategy, and could limit our ability to make distributions, including paying out dividends or buying back shares.

Risks associated with system failures, interruptions, or breaches of security could negatively affect our earnings.

Information technology systems are critical to our business. We use various technology systems to manage our customer relationships, general ledger, securities, deposits, and loans. However, while our policies and procedures are designed to prevent or limit the impact of system failures, interruptions, and security breaches, they may not be adequate. In addition any compromise of our systems could deter customers from using our products and services. Although we rely on security systems to provide security and authentication necessary to effect the secure transmission of data, these precautions may not protect our systems from compromises or breaches of security.

In addition, we outsource a majority of our data processing to certain third-party providers. If these third-party providers encounter difficulties, or if we have difficulty communicating with them, our ability to adequately process and account for transactions could be affected, and our business operations could be adversely affected. Threats to information security also exist in the processing of customer information through various other vendors and their personnel.

The occurrence of any system failures, interruption, or breach of security could damage our reputation and result in a loss of customers and business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny or expose us to litigation and possible financial liability. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Changes to federal programs that subsidize flood insurance could result in increased premiums for owners of flood insurance which could result in increased loan defaults.

Our market area is highly vulnerable to flooding and was highly impacted by Hurricane Katrina. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance, administered by the government, against losses from flooding, and requires flood insurance for all loans or lines of credit that are secured by existing buildings, manufactured homes, or buildings under construction, that are located in a designated Special Flood Hazard Area, including a large portion of our primary market area. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.

In 2012, in response to the insolvency of the NFIP, The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 was introduced to allow flood insurance premiums to rise to reflect the true risk of living in high-flood areas, by reducing the government subsidies provided by the NFIP. In recent years, there has been ongoing legislative discussions about reducing governmental subsidies for flood insurance, which could result in much larger flood insurance premiums to be paid by owners of the insurance. Increases in flood insurance premiums could result in certain borrowers no longer being able to meet their monthly loan payments and could therefore result in increased loan defaults.

Although flood insurance if available may protect some of our customers’ loan collateral, it generally will not protect them from job loss or interruption and other potentially devastating impacts of a flood.

We could be adversely affected by a failure in our internal controls.

A failure in our internal controls could have a significant negative impact not only on our earnings, but also on the perception that customers, regulators and investors may have of us. We continue to devote a significant amount of effort, time and resources to strengthen our controls and our ability to comply with complex accounting standards and banking regulations.

The cost of additional finance and accounting systems, procedures and controls in order to satisfy our new public company reporting requirements will increase our expenses.

As a result of the completion of this offering, we will become a public reporting company. We expect that the obligations of being a public company, including the substantial public reporting obligations, will require significant expenditures and place additional demands on our management team, and accordingly, we expect to hire additional accounting personnel. We have made, and will continue to make, changes to our internal controls and procedures for financial reporting and accounting systems to meet our reporting obligations as a stand-alone public company. However, the measures we take may not be sufficient to satisfy our obligations as a public company. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, starting with the second annual report that we would expect to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price. In addition, we may need to hire additional compliance, accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company experience and technical knowledge, and we may not be able to do so in a timely fashion. As a result, we may need to rely on outside consultants to provide these services for us until qualified personnel are hired. These obligations will increase our operating expenses and could divert our management’s attention from our operations.

We operate in a highly regulated environment and may be adversely affected by changes in laws and regulations.

We are subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and, to a lesser extent, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). Such regulators govern the activities in which we may engage, primarily for the protection of depositors. These regulatory authorities have extensive discretion in connection with their supervisory and enforcement activities, including the imposition of restrictions on the operation of a financial institution, the classification of assets by a financial institution, and the adequacy of a financial institution’s allowance for loan losses. Any change in such regulation and oversight, whether in the form of regulatory policy, regulations, or legislation, could have a material impact on us and our operations. Because our business is highly regulated, the laws, rules and applicable regulations are subject to regular modification and change. Laws, rules and regulations may be adopted in the future that could make compliance more difficult or expensive or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition or prospects. See “Regulation and Supervision” for a discussion of the regulations to which we are subject.

Changes in accounting standards could affect reported earnings.

The bodies responsible for establishing accounting standards, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory bodies, periodically change the financial accounting and reporting guidance that governs the preparation of our consolidated financial statements. These changes can be hard to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply new or revised guidance retroactively. See, “– If our allowance for loan losses is not sufficient to cover actual loan losses, our earnings could decrease.”

Future legislative or regulatory actions responding to perceived financial and market problems could impair our rights against borrowers.

There have been proposals made by members of Congress and others that would reduce the amount distressed borrowers are otherwise contractually obligated to pay under their mortgage loans and limit an institution’s ability to foreclose on mortgage collateral. If proposals such as these, or other proposals limiting our rights as a creditor, are implemented, we could experience increased credit losses or increased expense in pursuing our remedies as a creditor.

Non-compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act, Bank Secrecy Act, or other laws and regulations could result in fines or sanctions.

The USA PATRIOT and Bank Secrecy Acts require financial institutions to develop programs to prevent financial institutions from being used for money laundering and terrorist activities. If such activities are detected, financial institutions are obligated to file suspicious activity reports with the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. These rules require financial institutions to establish procedures for identifying and verifying the identity of customers seeking to open new financial accounts. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in fines or sanctions, including restrictions on pursuing acquisitions or establishing new branches. The policies and procedures we have adopted that are designed to assist in compliance with these laws and regulations may not be effective in preventing violations of these laws and regulations.

The Federal Reserve Board may require us to commit capital resources to support Eureka Homestead, and we may not have sufficient access to such capital resources.

Federal law requires that a holding company act as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. Under the “source of strength” doctrine, the Federal Reserve Board may require a holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to a subsidiary bank. A capital injection may be required at times when the holding company may not have the resources to provide it and therefore may be required to attempt to borrow the funds or raise capital. Any loans by a holding company to its subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a holding company’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the institution’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by the Eureka Homestead Bancorp to make a required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, it is possible that we will be unable to borrow funds when we need to do so.

Risks Related to the Offering

The future price of our common stock may be less than the purchase price in the stock offering.

If you purchase shares of common stock in the stock offering, you may not be able to sell them at or above the purchase price in the stock offering. The purchase price in the offering is based upon an independent third-party appraisal of the pro forma market value of Eureka Homestead, pursuant to federal banking regulations and subject to review and approval by the OCC. The appraisal is not intended, and should not be construed, as a recommendation of any kind as to the advisability of purchasing shares of our common stock. Our aggregate pro forma market value as reflected in the final independent appraisal may exceed the market price of our shares of common stock after the completion of the offering, which may result in our stock trading below the initial offering price of $10.00 per share.

After the shares of our common stock begin trading, the trading price of the common stock will be determined by the marketplace, and will be influenced by many factors outside of our control, including prevailing interest rates, investor perceptions, securities analyst research reports and general industry, geopolitical and economic conditions. Publicly traded stocks, including stocks of financial institutions, often experience substantial market price volatility. These market fluctuations might not be related to the operating performance of particular companies whose shares are traded.

There will be a limited trading market in our common stock, which could hinder your ability to sell our common stock and may lower the market price of the stock.

We have never issued stock and, therefore, there is no current trading market for the shares of common stock. Moreover, our public “float,” which is the total number of our outstanding shares less the shares held by our employee stock ownership plan and our directors and executive officers and is used as a measurement of shares available for trading, will be limited. The limited trading market could also result in a wider spread between the “bid” and “ask” prices for the stock, which could make it more difficult to sell a large number of shares at one time and could mean a sale of a large number of shares at one time could depress the market price.

Upon completion of the conversion, we expect the common stock will also be quoted on the OTC Pink Marketplace (OTCPK). At the time of consummation of the conversion, if we meet the Nasdaq listing requirements, we will use our best efforts to seek approval to list our common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market, provided however, it is not known whether we will meet all of the Nasdaq listing requirements with respect to public “float” and number of round lot holders.

You may not be able to sell your shares of common stock until you have received ownership statements, which may affect your ability to sell your common stock immediately following the offering.

Statements of ownership for the shares of common stock purchased in the offering may not be delivered for several days after the completion of the offering and the commencement of trading in the common stock. Your ability to sell the shares of common stock before receiving your ownership statement will depend on arrangements you may make with a brokerage firm, and you may not be able to sell your shares of common stock until you have received these statements.

Our stock-based benefit plans will increase our costs, which will reduce our income.

We anticipate that our employee stock ownership plan will purchase up to 8.0% of the total shares of common stock sold in the stock offering, with funds borrowed from Eureka Homestead Bancorp. The cost of acquiring the shares of common stock for the employee stock ownership plan will be between $1.1 million at the minimum of the offering range and $1.7 million at the adjusted maximum of the offering range. We will record annual employee stock ownership plan expense in an amount equal to the fair value of shares of common stock committed to be released to employees. If shares of common stock appreciate in value over time, compensation expense relating to the employee stock ownership plan will increase.

We also intend to adopt a stock-based benefit plan after the stock offering that would award participants (at no cost to them) shares of our common stock and/or options to purchase shares of our common stock. The number of shares reserved for awards of restricted stock or grants of stock options under any initial stock-based benefit plan may not exceed 4% and 10%, respectively, of the total shares sold in the offering, if these plans are adopted within 12 months after the completion of the conversion. We may reserve shares of common stock for stock awards and stock options in excess of these amounts, provided the stock-based benefit plan is adopted more than one year following the stock offering.

Assuming the market price of the common stock is $10.00 per share; the options are granted with an exercise price of $10.00 per share; the dividend yield on the stock is 0%; the expected option life is ten years; the risk free interest rate is 2.31% (based on the ten-year Treasury rate) and the volatility rate on the shares of common stock is 13.73% (based on an index of publicly traded thrift institutions), the estimated grant-date fair value of the options using a Black-Scholes option pricing analysis is $2.78 per option granted. Assuming this value is amortized over a five-year vesting period, the corresponding annual pre-tax expense associated with the stock options in the first year after the offering would be $118,000 at the adjusted maximum of the offering range. In addition, assuming that all shares of restricted stock are awarded at a price of $10.00 per share, and that the awards vest over a five-year period, the corresponding annual pre-tax expense associated with restricted stock awarded under the stock-based benefit plan would be $169,000 at the adjusted maximum of the offering range in the first year after the offering. Moreover, if we grant shares of common stock or options in excess of these amounts, such grants would increase our costs further.

The fair value of the shares of restricted stock on the date granted under the stock-based benefit plan will be expensed by us over the vesting period of the shares. If the shares of restricted stock to be granted under the plan are repurchased in the open market (rather than issued directly from authorized but unissued shares by Eureka Homestead Bancorp) and cost the same as the purchase price in the stock offering, the reduction to stockholders’ equity due to the stock-based benefit plan would be between $544,000 at the minimum of the offering range and $846,000 at the adjusted maximum of the offering range. To the extent we repurchase shares of common stock in the open market to fund the grants of shares under the plan, and the price of such shares exceeds the offering price of $10.00 per share, the reduction to stockholders’ equity would exceed the range described above. Conversely, to the extent the price of such shares is below the offering price of $10.00 per share, the reduction to stockholders’ equity would be less than the range described above.

The implementation of a stock-based benefit plan will dilute your ownership interest.

We intend to adopt a stock-based benefit plan, which will allow participants to be awarded shares of common stock (at no cost to them) and/or options to purchase shares of our common stock, following the stock offering. If this stock-based benefit plan is funded from the issuance of authorized but unissued shares of common stock, stockholders would experience a reduction in ownership interest totaling 12.28%. Although the implementation of the stock-based benefit plan will be subject to stockholder approval, historically, the overwhelming majority of stock-based benefit plans adopted by savings institutions and their holding companies following mutual-to-stock conversions have been approved by stockholders.

We have not determined whether we will adopt a stock-based benefit plan more than one year following the stock offering. Stock-based benefit plans adopted more than one year following the stock offering may exceed regulatory restrictions on the size of stock-based benefit plans adopted within one year, which would increase our costs and the dilution to other shareholders.

If we adopt a stock-based benefit plan within one year following the completion of the stock offering, then we may grant shares of common stock or stock options under our stock-based benefit plan for up to 4% and 10%, respectively, of our total outstanding shares. The amount of stock awards and stock options available for grant under the stock-based benefit plan may exceed these amounts, provided the stock-based benefit plans are adopted more than one year following the stock offering. Although the implementation of the stock-based benefit plan will be subject to stockholder approval, the determination as to the timing of the implementation of such a plan will be at the discretion of our board of directors. Stock-based benefit plans that provide for awards in excess of these amounts would increase our costs beyond the amounts estimated in “ – Our stock-based benefit plans will increase our costs, which will reduce our income.” Stock-based benefit plans that provide for awards in excess of these amounts could also result in dilution to stockholders in excess of that described in “ – The implementation of stock-based benefit plans will dilute your ownership interest.”

We have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, which may increase our compensation costs upon the occurrence of certain events or increase the cost of acquiring us.

We have entered into employment agreements with our Chief Executive Officer and our President and Chief Financial Officer. In the event of termination of employment other than for cause, or in the event of certain types of termination following a change in control, as set forth in the employment agreements, assuming each of the agreements has three years remaining, the agreements will provide for cash severance benefits that would cost us up to $1.05 million based on the executives’ current total compensation. The cost of these severance payments, as well as potential expense associated with our other compensation arrangements, would increase the cost of acquiring us. For additional information see “Management – Executive Compensation.”

We have broad discretion in using the proceeds of the stock offering. Our failure to effectively deploy the net proceeds of the offering may have an adverse effect on our financial performance and the value of our common stock.

We intend to invest between $6.2 million and $8.6 million of the net proceeds of the offering (or $9.9 million at the adjusted maximum of the offering range) in Eureka Homestead. We also expect to use a portion of the net proceeds we retain to fund a loan for the purchase of shares of common stock in the offering by the employee stock ownership plan. We may use the remaining net proceeds to invest in short-term and other investments, repurchase shares of common stock, pay dividends, or for other general corporate purposes. Eureka Homestead may use the remaining net proceeds it receives to fund new loans, enhance existing products and services, invest in securities, expand its banking franchise by establishing or acquiring a new branch or acquiring another financial institution as opportunities arise, or for other general corporate purposes. However, with the exception of the loan to the employee stock ownership plan, we have not allocated specific amounts of the net proceeds for any of these purposes, and we will have significant flexibility in determining the amount of the net proceeds we apply to different uses and the timing of such applications. Also, certain of these uses, such as opening new branches or acquiring other financial institutions, paying dividends and repurchasing common stock, may require the approval of the OCC or the Federal Reserve Board. We have not established a timetable for investing the net proceeds, and, accordingly, we may not invest the net proceeds at the time that is most beneficial to Eureka Homestead Bancorp, Eureka Homestead or the shareholders. For additional information see “How We Intend To Use The Proceeds From The Offering.”

Certain provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws, and state and federal law could prevent or impede the ability of stockholders to obtain representation on our board of directors, and may discourage hostile acquisitions of control of Eureka Homestead Bancorp, which could negatively affect our stock value.

Certain provisions in our articles of incorporation and bylaws may discourage attempts to acquire Eureka Homestead Bancorp, pursue a proxy contest for control of Eureka Homestead Bancorp, assume control of Eureka Homestead Bancorp by a holder of a large block of common stock, and remove Eureka Homestead Bancorp’s management, all of which shareholders might think are in their best interests. These provisions include:

For further information, see “Restrictions on Acquisition of Eureka Homestead Bancorp – Eureka Homestead Bancorp’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.”

Federal regulations prohibit, for three years following the completion of a mutual-to-stock conversion, the offer to acquire or the acquisition of more than 10% of any class of equity security of Eureka Homestead or Eureka Homestead Bancorp without the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board. In addition, the business corporation law of Maryland, the State where Eureka Homestead Bancorp is incorporated, provides for certain restrictions on acquisition of Eureka Homestead Bancorp. See “Restrictions on Acquisitions of Eureka Homestead Bancorp – Maryland Corporate Law;” “ – Eureka Homestead Charter” and “ – Change in Control Regulations.”

Our stock value may be negatively affected by federal regulations that restrict takeovers.

For three years following the stock offering, OCC regulations prohibit any person from acquiring or offering to acquire more than 10% of our common stock without the prior written approval of the OCC, or successor regulator. See “Restrictions on Acquisition of Eureka Homestead Bancorp” for a discussion of applicable OCC regulations regarding acquisitions. Certain prospective investors may choose to purchase shares of a company if they believe that the company will be acquired, thereby potentially increasing its stock value. Because federal regulations will restrict any such acquisition of us or Eureka Homestead for at least three years after the completion of the conversion, these regulations may negatively affect our stock value.

We are an emerging growth company within the meaning of the Securities Act, and if we decide to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, our common stock could be less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), as modified by the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 ( the “JOBS Act”). We are eligible to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, reduced disclosure about our executive compensation and omission of compensation discussion and analysis, and an exemption from the requirement of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation. In addition, we will not be subject to certain requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, including the additional level of review of our internal control over financial reporting as may occur when outside auditors attest as to our internal control over financial reporting. As a result, our stockholders may not have access to certain information they may deem important. Taking advantage of any of these exemptions may adversely affect the value and trading price of our common stock.

We could remain an “emerging growth company” for up to five years, or until the earliest of (a) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues exceed $1.07 billion, (b) the date that we become a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which would occur if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, or (c) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the preceding three-year period.

We have elected to delay the adoption of new and revised accounting pronouncements, which means that our financial statements may not be comparable to those of other public companies.

As an “emerging growth company,” we have elected to use the extended transition period to delay adoption of new or revised accounting pronouncements applicable to public companies until such pronouncements are made applicable to private companies. Accordingly, our financial statements may not be comparable to the financial statements of public companies that comply with such new or revised accounting standards.

We may take other actions to meet the minimum required sales of shares if we cannot find enough purchasers in the community.

If we are not able to reach the minimum of the offering range, we may do any of the following: increase the maximum purchase limitations and allow all maximum purchase subscribers to increase their orders to the new maximum purchase limitations; terminate the offering and promptly return all funds; set a new offering range and notify all subscribers of the opportunity to confirm, cancel or change their orders; or take such other actions as may be permitted, to the extent such permission is required, by the Federal Reserve Board.

Our management team has limited experience managing a public company, and regulatory compliance may divert its attention from the day-to-day management of our business.

Our management team has limited experience managing a publicly traded company or complying with the increasingly complex laws pertaining to public companies. Our management team may not successfully or efficiently manage our transition to a public company, which will be subject to significant regulatory oversight and reporting obligations under the federal securities laws. In particular, these new obligations will require substantial attention from our management team and may divert their attention away from the day-to-day management of our business, which could materially and adversely impact our business operations.

You may not receive dividends on our common stock.

Holders of our common stock are only entitled to receive such dividends as our board of directors may declare out of funds legally available for such payments. The declaration and payment of future cash dividends will be subject to, among other things, regulatory restrictions, our then current and projected consolidated operating results, financial condition, tax considerations, future growth plans, general economic conditions, and other factors our board of directors deems relevant. See “Our Policy Regarding Dividends,” “Regulation and Supervision − Federal Banking Regulation − Capital Requirements,” “Regulation and Supervision − Federal Banking Regulation − Capital Distributions” and “Regulation and Supervision − Holding Company Regulation.”

Eureka Homestead Bancorp will depend primarily upon the proceeds it retains from the offering as well as earnings of Eureka Homestead to provide funds to pay dividends on our common stock. The payment of dividends by Eureka Homestead also is subject to certain regulatory restrictions. Federal law generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be or continue to be undercapitalized, and dividends by a depository institution are subject to additional limitations.

As a result, any payment of dividends in the future by Eureka Homestead Bancorp will depend, in large part, on Eureka Homestead’s ability to satisfy these regulatory restrictions and its earnings, capital requirements, financial condition and other factors.

The distribution of subscription rights could have adverse income tax consequences and the cost basis of the stock to purchasers with subscription rights could be less than the purchase price.

If the subscription rights granted to certain current or former depositors of Eureka Homestead are deemed to have an ascertainable value, receipt of such rights may be taxable in an amount equal to such value. Whether subscription rights are considered to have ascertainable value is an inherently factual determination. Additionally, if the subscription rights were deemed to have an ascertainable value, it is possible that the cost basis of the stock to any purchaser who used subscription rights could be reduced by an amount equal to the value ascribed to the subscription rights. We have received an opinion of counsel, Luse Gorman, PC, that it is more likely than not that such rights have no value and that it is more likely than not that the basis of the common stock to its stockholders will be the purchase price thereof; however, such opinion is not binding on the Internal Revenue Service.