Item 1A.  Risk Factors .

Our business operations and the value of securities issued by us may be adversely affected by certain risk factors, many of which are outside of our control. We believe the risk factors listed could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. We may also be adversely affected by additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or focused on or that we currently believe are immaterial to our business operations. If any of such risks actually occur, you could lose part or all of your investment. This Report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors.

General Business Risks

Our business may be adversely affected by economic conditions.

Our financial performance generally, and in particular the ability of borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, as well as demand for loans and other products and services we offer, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the primary markets where we operate and in the U.S. as a whole. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence; limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital; increases in inflation or interest rates; high unemployment, natural disasters; or a combination of these or other factors. While economic conditions in our primary markets of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia have improved since the end of the last economic recession, concerns still exist over the federal deficit, government spending, and economic risks. A return of recessionary conditions and/or negative developments in the domestic and international credit markets may significantly affect the markets in which we do business, the value of our loans and investments, and our ongoing operations, costs and profitability. Declines in real estate value and sales volumes and high unemployment levels may result in higher than expected loan delinquencies and a decline in demand for our products and services.  These negative events may cause us to incur losses and may adversely affect our capital, liquidity and financial condition.

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve, in an attempt to help the overall economy, had among other things, kept interest rates low through its targeted federal funds rate and the purchase of U.S. Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. However, the Federal Reserve began increasing the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points in December 2016, by a total of 75 basis points during 2017 and by a total of 100 basis points during 2018 and has indicated the potential for further gradual increases in the target rate depending on the economic outlook. The Federal Reserve also began reducing its holdings of U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities in October 2017.  As the federal funds rate increases, market interest rates will likely rise, which may negatively impact the housing markets and the U.S. economic recovery.

Our estimated allowance for loan losses and fair value adjustments with respect to loans acquired in our acquisitions may prove to be insufficient to absorb actual losses in our loan portfolio, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to the risk that our customers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms and that any collateral securing the payment of their loans will not be sufficient to ensure full repayment. Credit losses are inherent in the lending business and could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and ability to meet our obligations. Volatility and deterioration in domestic markets may also increase our risk for credit losses. The composition of our loan portfolio, which is primarily secured by real estate, reduces loss exposure.  At December 31, 2018, we had approximately 38,110 of non‑acquired and acquired non‑credit impaired loans secured by real estate with an average loan balance of approximately $227,265. At December 31, 2018, we had approximately 80,761 total non‑acquired and acquired non‑credit impaired loans with an average loan balance of approximately $130,000. We evaluate the collectability of our non-acquired loan portfolio and we maintain an allowance for loan losses that represents management’s judgment of probable losses and risks inherent in our loan portfolio that we believe to be adequate based on a variety of factors including but not limited to: the risk characteristics of various classifications of loans, previous loan loss experience, specific loans that have loss potential, delinquency trends, estimated fair market value of the collateral, current economic conditions, the views of our regulators, and geographic and industry loan concentrations. If our evaluation is incorrect and defaults by borrowers lead to loan losses that exceed our allowance for loan losses, our earnings could be significantly and adversely affected. No assurance can be given that the allowance will be adequate to cover loan losses inherent in our portfolio. We may experience losses in our loan portfolio or perceive

adverse conditions and trends that may require us to significantly increase our allowance for loan losses in the future, a decision that would reduce earnings.

The application of the purchase method of accounting in our acquisitions (and any future acquisitions) will impact our allowance for loan losses. Under the purchase method of accounting, all acquired loans were recorded in our consolidated financial statements at their estimated fair value at the time of acquisition and any related allowance for loan loss was eliminated because credit quality, among other factors, was considered in the determination of fair value. To the extent that our estimates of fair value are too high, we will incur losses associated with the acquired loans. The allowance associated with our purchased credit impaired loans reflects deterioration in cash flows since acquisition resulting from our quarterly re-estimation of cash flows which involves complex cash flow projections and significant judgment on timing of loan resolution.

In addition, our regulators, as an integral part of their periodic examination, review our methodology for calculating, and the adequacy of, our allowance and provision for loan losses. Although we believe that the methodology used by us to determine the amount of both the allowance for loan losses and provision is effective, the regulators or our auditor may conclude that changes are necessary based on information available to them at the time of their review, which could impact our overall credit portfolio. Such changes could result in, among other things, modifications to our methodology for determining our allowance or provision for loan losses or models, reclassification or downgrades of our loans, increases in our allowance for loan losses or other credit costs, imposition of new or more stringent concentration limits, restrictions in our lending activities and/or recognition of further losses. Further, if actual charge-offs in future periods exceed the amounts allocated to the allowance for loan losses, we may need additional provisions for loan losses to restore the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate, and events that negatively impact the real estate market could hurt our business.

A significant portion of our non‑acquired and acquired non-credit impaired loan portfolios is secured by real estate. As of December 31, 2018, approximately 82.3% of our loans had real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral.  The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended.  While economic conditions and real estate in our primary markets of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia have continued to improve, there can be no assurance that our local markets will not experience another economic decline.  Deterioration in the real estate market could cause us to adjust our opinion of the level of credit quality in our loan portfolio. Such a determination may lead to an additional increase in our provisions for loan losses, which could also adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If we fail to effectively manage credit risk and interest rate risk, our business and financial condition will suffer.

We must effectively manage credit risk. There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks with respect to the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, risks relating to proper loan underwriting and guidelines, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions, risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers and risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral. There is no assurance that our credit risk monitoring and loan approval procedures are or will be adequate or will reduce the inherent risks associated with lending. Our credit administration personnel, policies and procedures may not adequately adapt to changes in economic or any other conditions affecting customers and the quality of our loan portfolio. Any failure to manage such credit risks may materially adversely affect our business and our consolidated results of operations and financial condition.

We must also effectively manage interest rate risk. Because mortgage loans typically have much longer maturities than deposits or other types of funding, rising interest rates can raise the cost of funding relative to the value of the mortgage loan. We manage this risk in part by holding adjustable rate mortgages in portfolios and through other means. Conversely, the value of our mortgage servicing assets may fall when interest rates fall, as borrowers refinance into lower rate loans. Given current rates, material reductions in rates may not be probable, but as rates rise, then the risk increases. There can be no assurance that we will successfully manage the lending and servicing businesses through all future interest‑rate environments.

We are exposed to higher credit risk by commercial real estate, commercial business, and construction lending.

Commercial real estate, commercial business and construction lending usually involves higher credit risks than that of single‑family residential lending. At December 31, 2018, the following loan types accounted for the stated percentages of our total loan portfolio: commercial real estate – owner and non-owner occupied — 38.3%, commercial and industrial business — 11.6%, and construction and land development lending — 9.4%.  These types of loans involve larger loan balances to a single borrower or groups of related borrowers. Commercial real estate loans may be affected to a greater extent than residential loans by adverse conditions in real estate markets or the economy because commercial real estate borrowers’ ability to repay their loans depends in some cases on successful development of their properties, as well as the factors affecting residential real estate borrowers. These loans may involve greater risk because they generally are not fully amortizing over the loan period, but have a balloon payment due at maturity. A borrower’s ability to make a balloon payment typically will depend on being able to either refinance the loan or sell the underlying property in a timely manner.

Commercial business loans are typically based on the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans from the cash flow of their businesses. These loans may involve greater risk because the availability of funds to repay each loan depends substantially on the success of the business itself. In addition, the collateral securing the loans may have the following characteristics: (i) depreciate over time, (ii) difficult to appraise and liquidate, and (iii) fluctuate in value based on the success of the business.

Risk of loss on a construction loan depends largely upon whether our initial estimate of the property’s value at completion of construction exceeds the cost of the property construction (including interest) and the availability of permanent take‑out financing. During the construction phase, a number of factors can result in delays and cost overruns. If estimates of value are inaccurate or if actual construction costs exceed estimates, the value of the property securing the loan may be insufficient to ensure full repayment when completed through a permanent loan or by seizure of collateral.

Commercial real estate, commercial business, and construction loans are more susceptible to a risk of loss during a downturn in the business cycle. Our underwriting, review, and monitoring cannot eliminate all of the risks related to these loans.

As of December 31, 2018, our non‑acquired and acquired outstanding commercial real estate loans were equal to 216.0% of our total risk‑based capital. The banking regulators are giving commercial real estate lending greater scrutiny, and may require banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans to implement enhanced underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as possibly higher levels of allowances for losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures.

Repayment of our commercial business loans is often dependent on the cash flows of the borrower, which may be unpredictable, and the collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value.

Our commercial business loans are originated primarily based on the identified cash flow and general liquidity of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower and/or repayment capacity of any guarantor. The borrower’s cash flow may be unpredictable, and collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial business loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use. In addition, business assets may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise, and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. Accordingly, the repayment of commercial business loans depends primarily on the cash flow and credit worthiness of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral value provided by the borrower and liquidity of the guarantor.

Changes in local economic conditions where we operate could have a negative effect on our business.

Our success depends significantly on growth, or lack thereof, in population, income levels, deposits and housing starts in the geographic markets in which we operate. The local economic conditions in these areas have a significant impact on our commercial, real estate and construction loans, the ability of borrowers to repay these loans, and the value of the collateral securing these loans. Unlike larger financial institutions that are more geographically diversified, we are a regional banking franchise. Adverse changes in the economic conditions of the Southeast United States in general or in our primary markets in South Carolina, Charlotte, and Wilmington, North Carolina, Northeast

Georgia, Augusta, Georgia, Savannah, Georgia, and Richmond, Virginia could negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations and profitability.  While economic conditions in the states of South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia along with the U.S. and worldwide, have improved since the end of the economic recession, a return of recessionary conditions could result in the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business:  loan delinquencies may increase; problem assets and foreclosures may increase; demand for our products and services may decline; and collateral for loans that we make, especially real estate, may decline in value, in turn reducing a customer’s borrowing power, and reducing the value of assets and collateral associated with the our loans.

Liquidity needs could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The primary sources of our bank’s funds are client deposits and loan repayments. While scheduled loan repayments are a relatively stable source of funds, they are subject to the ability of borrowers to repay the loans. The ability of borrowers to repay loans can be adversely affected by a number of factors, including changes in economic conditions, adverse trends or events affecting business industry groups, reductions in real estate values or markets, business closings or lay‑offs, inclement weather, natural disasters, which could be exacerbated by potential climate change, and international instability. Additionally, deposit levels may be affected by a number of factors, including rates paid by competitors, general interest rate levels, regulatory capital requirements, returns available to clients on alternative investments and general economic conditions. Accordingly, we may be required from time to time to rely on secondary sources of liquidity to meet withdrawal demands or otherwise fund operations. Such sources include Federal Home Loan Bank advances, sales of securities and loans, and federal funds lines of credit from correspondent banks, as well as out‑of‑market time deposits. While we believe that these sources are currently adequate, there can be no assurance they will be sufficient to meet future liquidity demands, particularly if we continue to grow and experience increasing loan demand. We may be required to slow or discontinue loan growth, capital expenditures or other investments or liquidate assets should such sources not be adequate.

We may make future acquisitions, which could dilute current shareholders’ stock ownership and expose us to additional risks.

In accordance with our strategic plan, we evaluate opportunities to acquire other banks and branch locations to expand the Company. As a result, we may engage in acquisitions and other transactions that could have a material effect on our operating results and financial condition, including short and long‑term liquidity.

Our acquisition activities could require us to issue a significant number of shares of common stock or other securities and/or to use a substantial amount of cash, other liquid assets, and/or incur debt. In addition, if goodwill recorded in connection with our potential future acquisitions were determined to be impaired, then we would be required to recognize a charge against our earnings, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations during the period in which the impairment was recognized.

Our acquisition activities could involve a number of additional risks, including the risks of:

If we do not successfully manage these risks, our acquisition activities could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, including short-term and long‑term liquidity.

Future acquisitions may be delayed, impeded, or prohibited due to regulatory issues.

Our future acquisitions, particularly those of financial institutions, are subject to approval by a variety of federal and state regulatory agencies.  The process for obtaining these required regulatory approvals has become more difficult in recent years.  Regulatory approvals could be delayed, impeded, restrictively conditioned or denied due to existing or new regulatory issues we have, or may have, with regulatory agencies, including, without limitation, issues related to anti‑money laundering/Bank Secrecy Act compliance, fair lending laws, fair housing laws, consumer protection laws, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices regulations, Community Reinvestment Act issues, and other similar laws and regulations. We may fail to pursue, evaluate or complete strategic and competitively significant acquisition opportunities as a result of our inability, or perceived or anticipated inability, to obtain regulatory approvals in a timely manner, under reasonable conditions or at all. Difficulties associated with potential acquisitions that may result from these factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be exposed to difficulties in combining the operations of acquired businesses into our own operations, which may prevent us from achieving the expected benefits from our acquisition activities.

We may not be able to fully achieve the strategic objectives and operating efficiencies that we anticipate in our acquisition activities. Inherent uncertainties exist in integrating the operations of an acquired business. In addition, the markets and industries in which we and our potential acquisition targets operate are highly competitive. We may lose customers or the customers of acquired entities as a result of an acquisition. We may also lose key personnel from the acquired entity as a result of an acquisition. We may not discover all known and unknown factors when examining a company for acquisition during the due diligence period. These factors could produce unintended and unexpected consequences for us. Undiscovered factors as a result of an acquisition could bring civil, criminal, and financial liabilities against us, our management, and the management of those entities we acquire. In addition, if difficulties arise with respect to the integration process, the economic benefits expected to result from acquisitions might not occur. Failure to successfully integrate businesses that we acquire could have an adverse effect on our profitability, return on equity, return on assets, or our ability to implement our strategy, any of which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. These factors could contribute to our not achieving the expected benefits from our acquisitions within desired time frames, if at all.

We may be exposed to a need for additional capital resources in the future and these capital resources may not be available when needed or at all.

We may need to incur additional debt or equity financing in the future to make strategic acquisitions or investments or to strengthen our capital position. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control and our financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurance that such financing will be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be materially impaired. In addition, if we decide to raise additional equity capital, our current shareholders’ interests could be diluted.

Our net interest income may decline based on the interest rate environment.

We depend on our net interest income to drive profitability. Differences in volume, yields or interest rates and differences in income earning products such as interest‑earning assets and interest‑bearing liabilities determine our net interest income. We are exposed to changes in general interest rate levels and other economic factors beyond our control, and an increase in our cost of funds could negatively impact our net interest income. Net interest income will decline in a particular period if:

Our net interest income may decline based on our exposure to a difference in short‑term and long‑term interest rates. If the difference between the interest rates shrinks or disappears, the difference between rates paid on deposits and received on loans could narrow significantly resulting in a decrease in net interest income. In addition to these factors, if market interest rates rise rapidly, interest rate adjustment caps may limit increases in the interest rates on adjustable rate loans, thus reducing our net interest income. Also, certain adjustable rate loans re‑price based on lagging interest rate indices. This lagging effect may also negatively impact our net interest income when general interest rates continue to rise periodically.

We may not be able to adequately anticipate and respond to changes in market interest rates.

We may be unable to anticipate changes in market interest rates, which are affected by many factors beyond our control including but not limited to inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, monetary policy, and other changes that affect financial markets both domestic and foreign. Our net interest income is affected not only by the level and direction of interest rates, but also by the shape of the yield curve and relationships between interest sensitive instruments and key driver rates, as well as balance sheet growth, customer loan and deposit preferences, and the timing of changes in these variables. In the event rates increase, our interest costs on liabilities may increase more rapidly than our income on interest earning assets, thus a deterioration of net interest margins. As such, fluctuations in interest rates could have significant adverse effects on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are exposed to the possibility that more prepayments may be made by customers to pay down loan balances, which could reduce our interest income and profitability.

Prepayment rates stem from consumer behavior, conditions in the housing and financial markets, general U.S. economic conditions, and the relative interest rates on fixed‑rate and adjustable‑rate loans. Therefore, changes in prepayment rates are difficult to predict. Recognition of deferred loan origination costs and premiums paid in originating these loans are normally recognized over the contractual life of each loan. As prepayments occur, the rate at which net deferred loan origination costs and premiums are expensed will accelerate. The effect of the acceleration of deferred costs and premium amortization may be mitigated by prepayment penalties paid by the borrower when the loan is paid in full within a certain period of time, which varies between loans. If prepayment occurs after the period of time when the loan is subject to a prepayment penalty, the effect of the acceleration of premium and deferred cost amortization is no longer mitigated. We recognize premiums paid on mortgage‑backed securities as an adjustment from interest income over the expected life of the security based on the rate of repayment of the securities. Acceleration of prepayments on the loans underlying a mortgage‑backed security shortens the life of the security, increases the rate at which premiums are expensed and further reduces interest income. We may not be able to reinvest loan and security prepayments at rates comparable to the prepaid instrument particularly in a period of declining interest rates.

Our historical operating results may not be indicative of our future operating results.

We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth, and, consequently, our historical results of operations will not necessarily be indicative of our future operations. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and legislative considerations, and competition, may also impede our ability to expand our market presence. If

we experience a significant decrease in our historical rate of growth, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected because a high percentage of our operating costs are fixed expenses.

We are exposed to a possible loss of our employees and critical management team.

We are dependent on the ability and experience of a number of key management personnel who have substantial experience with our operations, the financial services industry, and the markets in which we offer products and services. The loss of one or more senior executives or key managers may have an adverse effect on our operations. Also, as we continue to grow operations, our success depends on our ability to continue to attract, manage, and retain other qualified middle management personnel. We cannot guarantee that we will continue to attract or retain such personnel.

If we are unable to offer our key management personnel long‑term incentive compensation, including options, restricted stock, and restricted stock units, as part of their total compensation package, we may have difficulty retaining such personnel, which would adversely affect our operations and financial performance.

We have historically granted equity awards, including stock options, restricted stock awards or restricted stock units, to key management personnel as part of a competitive compensation package. Our ability to grant equity compensation awards as a part of our total compensation package has been vital to attracting, retaining and aligning shareholder interest with a talented management team in a highly competitive marketplace.

In the future, we may seek shareholder approval to adopt new equity compensation plans so that we may issue additional equity awards to management in order for the equity component of our compensation packages to remain competitive in the industry. Shareholder advisory groups have implemented guidelines and issued voting recommendations related to how much equity companies should be able to grant to employees. These advisors influence certain shareholder votes regarding approval of a company’s request for approval of new equity compensation plans. The factors used to formulate these guidelines and voting recommendations include the volatility of a company’s share price and are influenced by broader macro‑economic conditions that can change year to year. The variables used by shareholder advisory groups to formulate equity plan recommendations may limit our ability to obtain approval to adopt new equity plans in the future. If we are limited in our ability to grant equity compensation awards, we would need to explore offering other compelling alternatives to supplement our compensation, including long‑term cash compensation plans or significantly increased short‑term cash compensation, in order to continue to attract and retain key management personnel. If we used these alternatives to long‑term equity awards, our compensation costs could increase and our financial performance could be adversely affected. If we are unable to offer key management personnel long‑term incentive compensation, including stock options, restricted stock or restricted stock units, as part of their total compensation package, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining such personnel, which would adversely affect our operations and financial performance.

We may be adversely affected by the lack of soundness of other financial institutions.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by our Bank cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to our Bank. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We could experience a loss due to competition with other financial institutions.

We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, both within and beyond our principal markets, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, super-regional, and internet banks within the various markets in which we operate. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative and regulatory changes and continued consolidation. In addition, as customer preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has

lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. 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 nonbanks 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.

Our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken our competitive position, which could adversely affect our growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Failure to keep pace with technological change could adversely affect our business.

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology‑driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology‑driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

New lines of business or new products and services may subject us to additional risk.

From time to time, we may implement new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products and services, we may invest significant time and resources. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as compliance with regulations, competitive alternatives, and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business and/or a new product or service. Furthermore, any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business and/or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

The value of securities in our investment portfolio may decline in the future.

As of December 31, 2018, we owned $1.5 billion of investment securities. The fair value of our investment securities may be adversely affected by market conditions, including changes in interest rates, and the occurrence of any

events adversely affecting the issuer of particular securities in our investments portfolio. We analyze our securities on a quarterly basis to determine if an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred. The process for determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary usually requires complex, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting issuers, we may be required to recognize other-than-temporary impairment in future periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Consumers may decide not to use banks to complete their financial transactions.

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions through alternative methods that historically have involved banks. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts, mutual funds or general‑purpose reloadable prepaid cards. Consumers can also complete transactions such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to losses due to errors, omissions or fraudulent behavior by our employees, clients, counterparties or other third parties.

We are exposed to many types of operational risk, including the risk of fraud by employees and third parties, clerical recordkeeping errors and transactional errors. Our business is dependent on our employees as well as third-party service providers to process a large number of increasingly complex transactions. We could be materially and adversely affected if employees, clients, counterparties or other third parties caused an operational breakdown or failure, either as a result of human error, fraudulent manipulation or purposeful damage to any of our operations or systems.

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions with clients and counterparties, we may rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of clients and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information. We also may rely on representations of clients and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. For example, in deciding whether to extend credit to clients, we may assume that a customer’s audited financial statements conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer. Our earnings are significantly affected by our ability to properly originate, underwrite and service loans. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent we incorrectly assess the creditworthiness of our borrowers, fail to detect or respond to deterioration in asset quality in a timely manner, or rely on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading.

The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected because we are exposed to conditions or assumptions different from the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies.

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosure in conformity with GAAP requires us to make judgments, assumptions, and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our critical accounting policies, included in this document, describe those significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements that are considered “critical” by us because they require judgments, assumptions and estimates that materially impact our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As a result, if future events differ significantly from the judgments, assumptions and estimates in our critical accounting policies, such events or assumptions could have a material impact on our audited consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

We are exposed to the possibility of technology failure and a disruption in our operations may adversely affect our business.

We rely on our computer systems and the technology of outside service providers. Our daily operations depend on the operational effectiveness of their technology. We rely on our systems to accurately track and record our assets and liabilities. If our computer systems or outside technology sources become unreliable, fail, or experience a breach of security, our ability to maintain accurate financial records may be impaired, which could materially affect our business operations and financial condition. In addition, a disruption in our operations resulting from failure of transportation and telecommunication systems, loss of power, interruption of other utilities, natural disaster, fire, global climate changes, computer hacking or viruses, failure of technology, terrorist activity or the domestic and foreign response to such activity or other events outside of our control could have an adverse impact on the financial services industry as a whole and/or on our business. Our business recovery plan may not be adequate and may not prevent significant interruptions of our operations or substantial losses. The increased number of cyberattacks during the past few years has further heightened our attention to this risk. As such, we are in the process of implementing additional security controls and expanding our Cybersecurity team to monitor and assist with the mitigation of this ever increasing risk. 

A failure in or breach of our operational or security systems or infrastructure, or those of our third party vendors and other service providers or other third parties, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could disrupt our businesses, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, increase our costs and cause losses.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Information security risks for financial institutions such as ours have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists, activists, and other external parties. As client, public, and regulatory expectations regarding operational and information security have increased, our operational systems and infrastructure must continue to be safeguarded and monitored for potential failures, disruptions, and breakdowns. Our business, financial, accounting and data processing systems, or other operating systems and facilities may stop operating properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors, including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control. For example, there could be electrical or telecommunications outages; natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes; disease pandemics; events arising from local or larger scale political or social matters, including terrorist acts; and, as described below, cyber-attacks.

As noted above, our business relies on our digital technologies, computer and email systems, software, and networks to conduct its operations. Although we have information security procedures and controls in place, our technologies, systems, networks, and our clients’ devices may become the target of cyberattacks or information security breaches that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our or our clients’ confidential, proprietary and other information, or otherwise disrupt our or our clients’ or other third parties’ business operations. Third parties with whom we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including financial intermediaries, or vendors that provide services or security solutions for our operations, and other third parties, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints.

While we have disaster recovery and other policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of the evolving nature of these threats. As a result, cybersecurity and the continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes and practices designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a focus for us. As threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate information security vulnerabilities. Disruptions or failures in the physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our businesses and clients, or cyber-attacks or security breaches of the networks, systems or devices that our clients use to access our products and services could result in client attrition, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, reputational damage, reimbursement or other compensation costs, and/or additional compliance costs, any of which could materially adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, result of operations and financial condition.

We regularly review and update our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures may lead to operational losses including internal and external fraud which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our deposit insurance premiums could be higher in the future, which could have an adverse effect on our future earnings.

The FDIC insures deposits at FDIC‑insured depository institutions, such as the Bank, up to $250,000 per account. The Bank’s regular assessments are based on its average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity as well as by risk classification, which includes regulatory capital levels and the level of supervisory concern.  Banks with assets of $10 billion or more are subject to a deposit assessment based on a “scorecard” system that combines regulatory ratings and certain forward‑looking financial measures intended to assess the risk an institution poses to the deposit insurance fund. Because the Bank exceeded $10 billion in assets on January 3, 2017 through the merger with SBFC, the Bank’s deposit insurance assessment became based on this scorecard system starting in the first quarter of 2018.

In addition to ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances.  High levels of bank failures since the beginning of the most recent financial crisis and increases in the statutory deposit insurance limits have increased resolution costs to the FDIC and put significant pressure on the deposit insurance fund. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the minimum designated reserve ratio for the FDIC deposit insurance fund was increased to 1.35%, and in March 2016, the FDIC adopted rules to impose a surcharge on the quarterly deposit insurance assessments on “large institutions,” generally defined to include banks with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more for four consecutive quarters, with the first $10 billion being subtracted from the regular insurance assessment base and certain other potential adjustments being made to determine the surcharge base.  The large institution surcharge became effective on July 1, 2016, and on September 30, 2018, the deposit insurance fund reached 1.36%, exceeding the statutorily required minimum reserve ratio of 1.35%.  Accordingly, the last quarterly surcharge was reflected in large institutions’ December 2018 assessment invoices, which covered the assessment period from July 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018.

We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums than the recently increased levels. If our financial condition deteriorates or if the bank regulators otherwise have supervisory concerns about us, then our assessments could rise. Any future additional assessments, increases or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums could reduce our profitability, may limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, or otherwise negatively impact our operations.

Negative public opinion surrounding our company and the financial institutions industry generally could damage our reputation and adversely impact our earnings.

Reputation risk, or the risk to our business, earnings and capital from negative public opinion surrounding our company and the financial institutions industry generally, is inherent in our business. Negative public opinion can result from our actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices, corporate governance and acquisitions and cybersecurity incidents, and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public opinion can adversely affect our ability to keep and attract clients and employees and can expose us to litigation and regulatory action. Although we take steps to minimize reputation risk in dealing with our clients and communities, this risk will always be present given the nature of our business.

Legal and Regulatory Risks

We are subject to extensive regulation that could restrict our activities, have an adverse impact on our operations, and impose financial requirements or limitations on the conduct of our business.

We operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to examination, supervision, and comprehensive regulation by various regulatory agencies. The Company is subject to Federal Reserve Board regulation, and our Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, the CFPB and by the SCBFI. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”), the Bank must comply with applicable regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board and the FHLB. Our Bank’s activities are also regulated under consumer protection laws applicable to our lending, deposit, and other activities. A sufficient claim against us under these laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Regulation by these agencies is intended primarily for the protection of our depositors and the deposit insurance fund and not for the benefit of our shareholders. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in July 2010, instituted major changes to the banking and financial institutions regulatory regimes. The Dodd-Frank Act and other changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies or supervisory guidance, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations, policies or supervisory guidance, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including, among other things, subjecting us to increased capital, liquidity and risk management requirements, creating additional costs, limiting the types of financial services and products we may offer and/or increasing the ability of non‑banks to offer competing financial services and products. Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could also result in heightened regulatory scrutiny and in sanctions by regulatory agencies (such as a memorandum of understanding, a written supervisory agreement or a cease and desist order), civil money penalties and/or reputation damage. Any of these consequences could restrict our ability to expand our business or could require us to raise additional capital or sell assets on terms that are not advantageous to us or our shareholders and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, such violations may occur despite our best efforts.

Because our total consolidated assets exceed $10 billion, we are subject to additional regulations and oversight that have not previously been applicable to us and that could materially and adversely affect our revenues and expenses.

We exceeded $10 billion in total consolidated assets upon consummation of our merger with SBFC on January 3, 2017. As a result, we have become subject to additional regulations and oversight that could adversely affect our revenues and expenses. Such regulations and oversight include the following:

The CFPB has broad rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home equity loans and credit cards. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to banks with over $10 billion in assets, such as the Bank. As a relatively new agency with evolving regulations and practices, there is uncertainty as to how the CFPB’s examination and regulatory authority might impact our business.

Furthermore, with respect to deposit-taking activities, banks with assets in excess of $10 billion are subject to   a deposit assessment based on a new scorecard issued by the FDIC. This new deposit assessment scorecard calculation, which became applicable to the Bank starting with the second quarter of 2018, considers, among other things, the bank’s CAMELS rating, results of asset-related stress testing and funding-related stress, as well as our use of core deposits, among other things. Depending on the results of a bank’s performance under that scorecard, the total base assessment rate is between 2.5 to 45 basis points. Any increase in the Bank’s deposit insurance assessments may result in an increased expense related to our use of deposits as a funding source.  

In addition, banks with over $10 billion in total assets are no longer exempt from the requirements of the Federal Reserve’s rules on interchange transaction fees for debit cards known as the Durbin Amendment. Beginning on July 1, 2018, the Bank is limited to receiving only a “reasonable” interchange transaction fee for any debit card transactions processed using debit cards issued by the Bank to our customers. The Federal Reserve has determined that it is unreasonable for a bank with more than $10 billion in total assets to receive more than $0.21 plus 5 basis points of the transaction plus a $0.01 fraud adjustment for an interchange transaction fee for debit card transactions. A reduction in the amount of interchange fees we receive for electronic debit interchange will reduce our revenues. In 2018, we earned

approximately $31.2 million in bankcard services income.  We estimate that bankcard service income was reduced by approximately $9.6 million during the last half of 2018 due to the change in regulation on the amount that can be charged for interchange transaction fees. This regulation, which we refer to herein as the Durbin amendment, became applicable to us on July 1, 2018.

In anticipation of becoming subject to the heightened regulatory requirements, we have hired and continue to hire additional compliance personnel and implement structural initiatives to address these requirements. However, compliance with these requirements may necessitate that we hire additional compliance or other personnel, design and implement additional internal controls, or incur other significant expenses, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We are exposed to declines in the value of retirement plan assets or unfavorable changes in laws or regulations that govern retirement plan funding, which could require us to provide significant amounts of funding for our retirement plan.

As a matter of course, we anticipate that we will make cash contributions to our retirement plans in the near and long term. A significant decline in the value of retirement plan assets in the future or unfavorable changes in laws or regulations that govern retirement plan funding could materially change the timing and amount of required plan funding. As a result, we may be required to fund our retirement plans with a greater amount of cash from operations, perhaps by an additional material amount.

The Basel III capital rules generally require insured depository institutions and their holding companies to hold more capital which could adversely affect our financial condition and operations

In July 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule that revised their risk‑based capital requirements and the method for calculating risk‑weighted assets to generally make them consistent with an accord reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and to implement certain provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act. This rule substantially amended the regulatory risk‑based capital rules applicable to us. The requirements in the rule began to phase in on January 1, 2015 for the Company and the Bank and were fully phased in on January 1, 2019.

The final rules included higher risk-based capital and leverage requirements than those previously in place. Specifically, the following minimum capital requirements apply to us:

Under the rule, Tier 1 capital is defined to include two components: Common Equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The highest form of capital, Common Equity Tier 1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, AOCI, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital includes other perpetual instruments historically included in Tier 1 capital, such as noncumulative perpetual preferred stock. Tier 2 capital generally consists of instruments that before Basel III qualified as Tier 2 capital plus instruments that the rule has disqualified from Tier 1 capital treatment. Cumulative perpetual preferred stock, formerly includable in Tier 1 capital, is included only in Tier 2 capital under Basel III; except that the rule permits bank holding companies with less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets to continue to include trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued before May 19, 2010 in Tier 1 Capital (but not in Common Equity Tier 1 capital), subject to certain restrictions.  Bank holding companies that exceed $15 billion in total consolidated assets through organic growth can also continue to include trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock in Tier 1 Capital until they enter into an acquisition.  AOCI is presumptively included in Common Equity Tier 1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. When implemented, Basel III provided a one-time opportunity at the end of the first quarter of 2015 for covered banking organizations to opt out of

much of this treatment of AOCI.  We made this opt-out election and, as a result, retained our pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

In order to avoid restrictions on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments to executives, a covered banking organization must maintain a “capital conservation buffer” in addition to its minimum risk-based capital requirements. This buffer must consist solely of Tier 1 Common Equity, but the buffer applies to all three measurements (Common Equity Tier 1, Tier 1 capital and total capital). The 2.5% capital conservation buffer was phased in incrementally over time, becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019.

In general, the rules have had the effect of increasing capital requirements by increasing the risk weights on certain assets, including high volatility commercial real estate, certain loans past due 90 days or more or in nonaccrual status, mortgage servicing rights not includable in Common Equity Tier 1 capital, equity exposures, and claims on securities firms, that are used in the denominator of the three risk-based capital ratios.

In addition, in the current economic and regulatory environment, bank regulators may impose capital requirements that are more stringent than those required by applicable existing regulations. The application of more stringent capital requirements for us could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, and result in regulatory actions if we are unable to comply with such requirements. Implementation of changes to asset risk weightings for risk‑based capital calculations, items included or deducted in calculating regulatory capital or additional capital conservation buffers, could result in management modifying our business strategy and could limit our ability to make distributions, including paying dividends or buying back our shares.

The federal banking agencies are implementing new liquidity standards that, while not directly applicable to us, could result in our having to lengthen the term of our funding, restructure our business lines by forcing us to seek new sources of liquidity for them, and/or increase our holdings of liquid assets.

In 2014, the federal banking agencies adopted a “liquidity coverage ratio” requirement for bank holding companies with $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in on-balance sheet foreign exposures and their subsidiary depository institutions with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets. The requirement calls for sufficient high quality liquid assets to meet liquidity needs for a 30 calendar day liquidity stress scenario. In 2016, the agencies proposed a net stable funding ratio for these institutions, which imposes a similar requirement over a one-year period.  Neither the liquidity coverage standard nor the net stable funding standard apply directly to us, but the substance of the standards – adequate liquidity over 30-day and one-year periods – may inform the regulators’ assessment of our liquidity. We could be required to reduce our holdings of illiquid assets and adversely affect our results and financial condition. The U.S. regulators have not yet proposed a net stable funding ratio requirement.

We face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti‑money laundering statutes and regulations.

The federal Bank Secrecy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (which we refer to as the “Patriot Act”) and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain effective anti‑money laundering programs and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports as appropriate. The federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, established by the U.S. Treasury Department to administer the Bank Secrecy Act, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and has recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the OFAC. Federal and state bank regulators also have begun to focus on compliance with Bank Secrecy Act and anti‑money laundering regulations. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient or the policies, procedures and systems of the financial institutions that we have already acquired or may acquire in the future are deficient, we would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions such as restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including our acquisition plans, which would negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us.

Federal, state and local consumer lending laws restrict our ability to originate certain mortgage loans and increase our risk of liability with respect to such loans and increase our cost of doing business.

Federal, state and local laws have been adopted that are intended to eliminate certain lending practices considered “predatory.” These laws prohibit practices such as steering borrowers away from more affordable products, selling unnecessary insurance to borrowers, repeatedly refinancing loans and making loans without a reasonable expectation that the borrowers will be able to repay the loans irrespective of the value of the underlying property. Over the course of 2013, the CFPB issued several rules on mortgage lending, notably a rule requiring all home mortgage lenders to determine a borrower’s ability to repay the loan.  Loans with certain terms and conditions and that otherwise meet the definition of a “qualified mortgage” may be protected from liability to a borrower for failing to make the necessary determinations. In response to these laws and related CFPB rules, we have tightened and in the future may further tighten our mortgage loan underwriting standards to determine borrowers’ ability to repay. Although it is our policy not to make predatory loans and to determine borrowers’ ability to repay, these laws and related rules create the potential for increased liability with respect to our lending and loan investment activities. They increase our cost of doing business and, ultimately, may prevent us from making certain loans and cause us to reduce the average percentage rate or the points and fees on loans that we do make.

We are subject to federal and state fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to material penalties.

Federal and state fair lending laws and regulations, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act, impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The Department of Justice, CFPB and other federal and state agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. A successful challenge to our performance under the fair lending laws and regulations could adversely impact our rating under the Community Reinvestment Act and result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on merger and acquisition activity and restrictions on expansion activity, which could negatively impact our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Federal Reserve Board may require us to commit capital resources to support the Bank.

The Federal Reserve Board requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. Under the “source of strength” doctrine, the Federal Reserve Board may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank. In addition, the Dodd‑Frank Act directs the federal bank regulators to require that all companies that directly or indirectly control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength for the institution. Under these requirements, in the future, we could be required to provide financial assistance to our Bank if the Bank experiences financial distress.

A capital injection may be required at times when we do not have the resources to provide it, and therefore we may be required to borrow the funds. In the event of a bank 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 holding company’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by the holding company in order to make the required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and will adversely impact the holding company’s cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

A downgrade of the U.S. credit rating could negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In August 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from “AAA” to “AA+”.   If U.S. debt ceiling, budget deficit or debt concerns, domestic or international economic or political concerns, or other factors were to result in further downgrades to the U.S. government’s sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness, it could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic

conditions.  A downgrade of the U.S. government’s credit rating or any failure by the U.S. government to satisfy its debt obligations could create financial turmoil and uncertainty, which could weigh heavily on the global banking system. It is possible that any such impact could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are party to various claims and lawsuits incidental to our business. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties such that the expenses and ultimate exposure with respect to many of these matters cannot be ascertained.

From time to time, we, our directors and our management are the subject of various claims and legal actions by customers, employees, shareholders and others. Whether such claims and legal actions are legitimate or unfounded, if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in our favor, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of us and our products and services as well as impact customer demand for those products and services.  In light of the potential cost and uncertainty involved in litigation, we have in the past and may in the future settle matters even when we believe we have a meritorious defense. Certain claims may seek injunctive relief, which could disrupt the ordinary conduct of our business and operations or increase our cost of doing business. Our insurance or indemnities may not cover all claims that may be asserted against us.  Any judgments or settlements in any pending litigation or future claims, litigation or investigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

We could be subject to changes in tax laws, regulations and interpretations or challenges to our income tax provision.

We compute our income tax provision based on enacted tax rates in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Any change in enacted tax laws, rules or regulatory or judicial interpretations, or any change in the pronouncements relating to accounting for income taxes could adversely affect our effective tax rate, tax payments and results of operations. The taxing authorities in the jurisdictions in which we operate may challenge our tax positions, which could increase our effective tax rate and harm our financial position and results of operations. We are subject to audit and review by U.S. federal and state tax authorities. Any adverse outcome of such a review or audit could have a negative effect on our financial position and results of operations. In addition, changes in enacted tax laws, such as adoption of a lower income tax rate in any of the jurisdictions in which we operate, could impact our ability to obtain the future tax benefits represented by our deferred tax assets. In addition, the determination of our provision for income taxes and other liabilities requires significant judgment by management. Although we believe that our estimates are reasonable, the ultimate tax outcome may differ from the amounts recorded in our financial statements and could have a material adverse effect on our financial results in the period or periods for which such determination is made.

New accounting standards could require us to increase our allowance for loan losses and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The measure of our allowance for loan losses is dependent on the adoption and interpretation of accounting standards.  The Financial Accounting Standards Board has issued a new credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL model, which will become effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019 (effective for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2020).  Under the CECL model, we will be required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected.  The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount.  This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and periodically thereafter.  This differs significantly from the “incurred loss” model currently required under GAAP, which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred.  Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model will materially affect how we determine our allowance for loan losses and could require us to significantly increase our allowance.  Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses.  If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There is uncertainty surrounding the potential legal, regulatory and policy changes by the current presidential administration in the U.S. that may directly affect financial institutions and the global economy.

The current presidential administration has indicated that it would like to see changes made to certain financial reform regulations, including the Dodd-Frank Act, which has resulted in increased regulatory uncertainty, and we are assessing the potential impact on financial and economic markets and on our business.  Changes in federal policy and at regulatory agencies are expected to occur over time through policy and personnel changes, which could lead to changes involving the level of oversight and focus on the financial services industry.  The nature, timing and economic and political effects of potential changes to the current legal and regulatory framework affecting financial institutions remain highly uncertain.  At this time, it is unclear what laws, regulations and policies may change and whether future changes or uncertainty surrounding future changes will adversely affect our operating environment and therefore our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to an Investment in Our Common Stock

Our ability to pay cash dividends is limited, and we may be unable to pay future dividends even if we desire to do so.

Our ability to pay cash dividends may be limited by regulatory restrictions, by our Bank’s ability to pay cash dividends to our holding company and by our need to maintain sufficient capital to support our operations. The Federal Reserve Board has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies. In general, the Federal Reserve Board’s policies provide that dividends should be paid only out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the bank holding company appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve’s policies also require that a bank holding company serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks by standing ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to those banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and by maintaining the financial flexibility and capital‑raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks where necessary. Under the prompt corrective action regulations, the ability of a bank holding company to pay dividends may be restricted if a subsidiary bank becomes undercapitalized. These regulatory policies could affect the ability of the Company to pay dividends or otherwise engage in capital distributions.

Since the Company is legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and does not conduct stand‑alone operations, its ability to pay dividends depends on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to it. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the SCBFI or the Commissioner of Banking, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the SCBFI. The Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC have issued policy statements which provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current earnings. In addition, under Federal Reserve Board regulations, a dividend cannot be paid by the Bank if it would be less than well‑capitalized after the dividend. The Federal Reserve Board may also prevent the payment of a dividend by the Bank if it determines that the payment would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

If our Bank is not permitted to pay cash dividends to our holding company, it is unlikely that we would be able to pay cash dividends on our common stock. Moreover, holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends only when, and if declared by our board of directors. Although we have historically paid cash dividends on our common stock, we are not required to do so and our board of directors could reduce or eliminate our common stock dividend in the future.

We may issue additional shares of stock or equity derivative securities that will dilute the percentage ownership interest of existing shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock and adversely affect the terms on which we may obtain additional capital.

Our authorized capital includes 80,000,000 shares of common stock and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock. As of December 31, 2018, we had 35,829,549 shares of common stock outstanding and had reserved for issuance 213,866 shares underlying options that are or may become exercisable at an average price of $61.28 per share. In addition, as of December 31, 2018, we had the ability to issue 268,919 shares of common stock pursuant to options and restricted stock that may be granted in the future under our existing equity compensation plans.

Subject to applicable NASDAQ rules, our board generally has the authority, without action by or vote of the shareholders, to issue authorized but unissued shares of stock for any corporate purpose. Such corporate purposes could include, among other things, issuances of equity‑based incentives under or outside of our equity compensation plans, issuances of equity in business combination transactions, and issuances of equity to raise additional capital to support growth or to otherwise strengthen our balance sheet. Any issuance of additional shares of stock or equity derivative securities will dilute the percentage ownership interest of our shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock. Shares we issue in connection with any such offering will increase the total number of outstanding shares and may dilute the economic and voting ownership interest of our existing shareholders.

Our stock price may be volatile, which could result in losses to our investors and litigation against us.

Our stock price has been volatile in the past and several factors could cause the price to fluctuate substantially in the future. These factors include but are not limited to: actual or anticipated variations in earnings, changes in analysts’ recommendations or projections, our announcement of developments related to our businesses, operations and stock performance of other companies deemed to be peers, new technology used or services offered by traditional and non‑traditional competitors, news reports of trends, concerns, irrational exuberance on the part of investors, and other issues related to the financial services industry. Our stock price may fluctuate significantly in the future, and these fluctuations may be unrelated to our performance. General market declines or market volatility in the future, especially in the financial institutions sector, could adversely affect the price of the Company’s common stock, and the current market price may not be indicative of future market prices.

Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for our investors to resell their common stock when they desire and at prices they find attractive. Moreover, in the past, securities class action lawsuits have been instituted against some companies following periods of volatility in the market price of its securities. We could in the future be the target of similar litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our normal business.

Future sales of our stock by our shareholders or the perception that those sales could occur may cause our stock price to decline.

Significant sales of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that those sales may occur, could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline or to be lower than it otherwise might be in the absence of those sales or perceptions.

State law and provisions in our articles of incorporation or bylaws could make it more difficult for another company to purchase us, even though such a purchase may increase shareholder value.

In many cases, shareholders may receive a premium for their shares if we were purchased by another company. State law and our articles of incorporation and bylaws could make it difficult for anyone to purchase us without the approval of our board of directors. For example, our articles of incorporation divide the board of directors into three classes of directors serving staggered three‑year terms with approximately one‑third of the board of directors elected at each annual meeting of shareholders. This classification of directors makes it more difficult for shareholders to change the composition of the board of directors. As a result, at least two annual meetings of shareholders would be required for the shareholders to change a majority of the directors, whether or not a change in the board of directors would be beneficial and whether or not a majority of shareholders believe that such a change would be desirable.

Our articles of incorporation provide that a merger, exchange or consolidation of the Company with, or the sale, exchange or lease of all or substantially all of our assets to, any person or entity (referred to herein as a “Fundamental Change”), must be approved by the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock if the board of directors does not recommend a vote in favor of the Fundamental Change. The articles of incorporation further provide that a Fundamental Change involving a shareholder that owns or controls 20% or more of our voting stock at the time of the proposed transaction (a “Controlling Party”) must be approved by the holders of at least (i) 80% of our outstanding voting stock, and (ii) 67% of our outstanding voting stock held by shareholders other than the Controlling Party, unless (x) the transaction has been recommended to the shareholders by a majority of the entire board of directors or (y) the consideration per share to be received by our shareholders generally is not less than the highest price per share paid by the Controlling Party in the acquisition of its holdings of our common stock during the preceding three years. The approval by the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock is required to amend or repeal these provisions

contained in our articles of incorporation. Finally, in the event that any such Fundamental Change is not recommended by the board of directors, the holders of at least 80% of our outstanding voting stock must attend a meeting called to address such transaction, in person or by proxy, in order for a quorum for the conduct of business to exist. If the 80% and 67% vote requirements described above do not apply because the board of directors recommends the transaction or the consideration is deemed fair, as applicable, then pursuant to the provisions of the South Carolina Business Corporation Act, the Fundamental Change generally must be approved by two‑thirds of the votes entitled to be cast with respect thereto.

Consequently, a takeover attempt may prove difficult, and shareholders may not realize the highest possible price for their securities.

An investment in our common stock is not an insured deposit.

Our common stock is not a bank deposit and, therefore, is not insured against loss by the FDIC, any other deposit insurance fund, or by any other public or private entity. An investment in our common stock is inherently risky for the reasons described in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this report and is subject to the same market forces that affect the price of common stock in any company. As a result, if you acquire our common stock, you may lose some or all of your investment.