Item 1. Business .

General

Wilson Bank Holding Company (the “Company”) was incorporated on March 17, 1992 under the laws of the State of Tennessee. The purpose of the Company was to acquire all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Wilson Bank and Trust (the “Bank”) and act as a one-bank holding company. On November 17, 1992, the Company acquired 100% of the capital stock of the Bank pursuant to the terms of an agreement and plan of share exchange.

All of the Company’s banking business is conducted through the Bank, a state chartered bank organized under the laws of the State of Tennessee. The Bank, on December 31, 2018, had eleven full service banking offices located in Wilson County, Tennessee, one full service banking facility in Trousdale County, Tennessee, three full service banking offices in Davidson County, Tennessee, five full service banking offices located in Rutherford County, Tennessee, two full service banking offices in DeKalb County, Tennessee, two full service banking offices in Smith County, Tennessee, two full service banking office in Sumner County, Tennessee, one full service banking office in Putnam County, Tennessee and one full service banking office in Williamson County, Tennessee.

Management believes that Wilson County, Trousdale County, Davidson County, Rutherford County, DeKalb County, Smith County, Sumner County, Putnam County and Williamson County offer an environment for continued banking growth in the Company’s target market, which consists of local consumers, professionals and small-to-medium-sized businesses. The Bank offers a wide range of banking services, including checking, savings, and money market deposit accounts, certificates of deposit and loans for consumer, commercial and real estate purposes. The Bank also offers custodial, trust and discount brokerage services to its customers. The Bank does not have a concentration of deposits obtained from a single person or entity or a small group of persons or entities, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on the business of the Bank.

The Bank was organized in 1987 to provide Wilson County with a locally-owned, locally-managed commercial bank. Since its opening, the Bank has experienced a steady growth in deposits and loans as a result of providing personal, service-oriented banking services to its targeted market. For the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company reported net earnings of approximately $32.59 million and at December 31, 2018 it had total assets of approximately $2.54 billion.

Financial and Statistical Information

The Company’s audited consolidated financial statements, selected financial data and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contained in the Company’s Annual Report to Shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2018 filed as Exhibit 13.1 to this Form 10-K (the “ 2018 Annual Report ”), are incorporated herein by reference.

Regulation and Supervision

The banking industry is generally subject to extensive regulatory oversight. Both the Company and the Bank are subject to extensive state and federal banking laws and regulations that impose restrictions on and provide for general regulatory oversight of the Company’s and the Bank’s operations. These laws and regulations are generally intended to protect depositors and borrowers, and may not necessarily protect shareholders. Many of these laws and regulations have undergone significant change in recent years.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder implements far-reaching reforms of major elements of the financial landscape, particularly for larger financial institutions. Many of its most far-reaching provisions do not directly apply to community-based institutions like the Company or the Bank. For instance, provisions that regulate derivative transactions and limit derivatives trading activity of federally-insured institutions, enhance supervision of “systemically significant” institutions, impose new regulatory authority over hedge funds, limit proprietary trading by banks, and phase-out the eligibility of trust preferred securities for Tier 1 capital for institutions with greater than $15.0 billion in total assets are among the provisions that do not directly impact the Company or the Bank either because of exemptions for institutions below a certain asset size or because of the nature their operations. Those provisions that have been adopted or are expected to be adopted that have impacted and, in some cases, will continue to impact the Company and the Bank include the following:

Failure to comply with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act would negatively impact the Company’s results of operations and financial condition and could limit its growth or expansion activities. While the Company cannot predict what effect any presently contemplated or future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on it or the Bank, such changes could be materially adverse to the Company’s investors.

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “BHC Act”) and is registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”). The Company is required to file annual reports and other information regarding its business operations and those of its bank subsidiary with, and is subject to examination by, the FRB. The Bank is chartered under the laws of the State of Tennessee and is subject to the supervision of, and is regularly examined by, the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions (the “TDFI”). The Bank is also regularly examined by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the government entity that insures the Bank’s deposits subject to applicable limitations.

Under the BHC Act, a bank holding company may not directly or indirectly acquire ownership or control of more than five percent of the voting shares or substantially all of the assets of any company, including a bank, without the prior approval of the FRB unless the bank holding company already owns a majority of such company. In addition, bank holding companies are generally prohibited under the BHC Act from engaging directly or indirectly in activities other than those of banking or managing or controlling banks, or furnishing services to its subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions and the modernization of the financial services industry in connection with the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”). The GLB Act amended the BHC Act and expanded the activities in which bank holding companies and affiliates of banks are permitted to engage. Under the BHC Act, as amended by the GLB Act, the FRB is authorized to approve the ownership by a bank holding company of shares of any company whose activities have been determined by the FRB to be so closely related to banking or to managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.

Subject to various exceptions, the BHC Act and the Federal Change in Bank Control Act, together with related regulations, require FRB approval prior to any person or company acquiring "control" of a bank holding company. Control is conclusively presumed to exist if an individual or company acquires 25% or more of any class of voting securities of the bank holding company. Control is rebuttably presumed to exist if a person or company acquires 10% or more, but less than 25%, of any class of voting securities and either:

The Company’s common stock is registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The regulations provide a procedure for challenge of the rebuttable control presumption.

Under the GLB Act, a “financial holding company” may engage in activities the FRB determines to be financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity or complementary to a financial activity and not a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of such depository institutions or the financial system generally. Generally, such companies may engage in a wide range of securities activities and insurance underwriting and agency activities. The Company has not made application to the FRB to become a “financial holding company.”

Under the BHC Act, a bank holding company, which has not qualified or elected to become a financial holding company, is generally prohibited from engaging in or acquiring direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company engaged in nonbanking activities unless, prior to the enactment of the GLB Act, the FRB found those activities to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking. Activities that the FRB has found to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking include:

Despite prior approval, the FRB may order a bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any of these activities or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when it has reasonable cause to believe that the bank holding company’s continued ownership, activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness, or stability of any of its bank subsidiaries.

Under the Tennessee Bank Structure Act, a bank holding company which controls 30% or more of the total deposits (excluding certain deposits) in all federally insured financial institutions in Tennessee is prohibited from acquiring any bank in Tennessee. With prior regulatory approval, Tennessee law permits banks based in the state to either establish new or acquire existing branch offices throughout Tennessee. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bank and other state-chartered or national banks generally may establish new branches in another state to the same extent as banks chartered in the other state may establish new branches in that state.

The Company and the Bank are subject to certain restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, respectively, on any extensions of credit to the bank holding company or its subsidiary bank, on investments in the stock or other securities of the bank holding company or its subsidiary bank, and on taking such stock or other securities as collateral for loans of any borrower. The Bank takes Company common stock as collateral for borrowings subject to the aforementioned restrictions.

Both the Company and the Bank are subject to the provisions of Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. Section 23A places limits on the amount of:

The total amount of the above transactions is limited in amount, as to any one affiliate, to 10% of a bank’s capital and surplus and, as to all affiliates combined, to 20% of a bank’s capital and surplus. In addition to the limitation on the amount of these transactions, each of the above transactions must also meet specified collateral requirements. The Bank must also comply with other provisions designed to avoid the taking of low-quality assets.

The Company and the Bank are also subject to the provisions of Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which, among other things, prohibits an institution from engaging in the above transactions with affiliates unless the transactions are on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the institution or its subsidiaries, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with nonaffiliated companies.

The Bank is also subject to restrictions on extensions of credit to its executive officers, directors, principal stockholders and their related interests. These extensions of credit (1) must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with third parties, and (2) must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features.

The FRB has the power to prohibit dividends by bank holding companies if their actions constitute unsafe or unsound practices. The FRB has issued a policy statement expressing its view that a bank holding company should pay cash dividends only to the extent that the company’s net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the company’s capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. As noted below, FRB regulations limit dividends, stock repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if a bank holding company’s capital is below the level of regulatory minimums plus the applicable capital conservation buffer.

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. Over time, the principal source of the Company’s cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to the Company’s common stock shareholders, will be dividends that the Bank pays to the Company as its sole shareholder. Under Tennessee law, the Company is not permitted to pay dividends if, after giving effect to such payment, the Company would not be able to pay its debts as they become due in the normal course of business or the Company’s total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities plus any amounts needed to satisfy any preferential rights if the Company were dissolving. In addition, in deciding whether or not to declare a dividend of any particular size, the Company’s board of directors must consider the Company’s current and prospective capital, liquidity, and other needs.

Statutory and regulatory limitations also apply to the Bank’s payment of dividends to the Company. Under Tennessee law, the Bank in any one calendar year can only pay dividends to the Company in an amount equal to or less than the total amount of its net income for that calendar year combined with retained net income for the preceding two years. Payment of dividends in excess of this amount requires the consent of the Commissioner of the TDFI.

The payment of dividends by the Bank and the Company may also be affected by other factors, such as the requirement to maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. The federal banking agencies have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a depository institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), a depository institution may not pay any dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized. Moreover, the federal agencies have issued policy statements that provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, and previously under FRB policy, the Company is required to act as a source of financial strength for the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank. This support can be required at times when it would not be in the

best interest of the Company’s shareholders or creditors to provide it. Further, if the Bank’s capital levels were to fall below certain minimum regulatory guidelines, the Bank would need to develop a capital plan to increase its capital levels and the Company would be required to guarantee the Bank’s compliance with the capital plan in order for such plan to be accepted by the federal regulatory agency. In the event of bankruptcy, any commitment by the Company to a federal regulatory agency to maintain the capital of the Bank would be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

Both the Company and the Bank are required to comply with the capital adequacy standards established by the FRB, in the Company’s case, and the FDIC, in the case of the Bank. The FRB has established a risk-based and a leverage measure of capital adequacy for bank holding companies, like the Company. The Bank is also subject to risk-based and leverage capital requirements adopted by the FDIC, which are substantially similar to those adopted by the FRB for bank holding companies. In addition, the FDIC and TDFI may require state banks that are not members of the FRB, like the Bank, to maintain capital at levels higher than those required by general regulatory requirements. Tennessee state banks are required to have the capital structure that the TDFI deems adequate, and the Commissioner of the TDFI as well as federal regulators may require a state bank (or its holding company in the case of federal regulators) to increase its capital structure to the point deemed adequate by the Commissioner or such other federal regulator before granting approval of a branch application, merger application or charter amendment.

The risk-based capital standards are designed to make regulatory capital requirements more sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banks and bank holding companies, to account for off-balance-sheet exposure, and to minimize disincentives for holding liquid assets. Assets and off-balance-sheet items, such as letters of credit and unfunded loan commitments, are assigned to broad risk categories, each with appropriate risk weights. The resulting capital ratios represent capital as a percentage of total risk-weighted assets and off-balance-sheet items.

In July 2013, the FRB and the FDIC approved final rules that substantially amend the regulatory capital rules applicable to the Bank and the Company, effective January 1, 2015. The final rules implemented the regulatory capital reforms of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision reflected in "Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems" (Basel III) and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Under these rules, the leverage and risk-based capital ratios of bank holding companies may not be lower than the leverage and risk-based capital ratios for insured depository institutions. The final capital rules implementing Basel III, among other things, included new minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratios for banks and their holding companies. Moreover, these rules refined the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios, including the definitions of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. Total capital consists of two components, Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. Tier 1 capital generally consists of common stock (plus related surplus) and retained earnings, limited amounts of minority interest in the form of additional Tier 1 capital instruments, and non-cumulative preferred stock and related surplus, subject to certain eligibility standards, less goodwill and other specified intangible assets and other regulatory deductions. Cumulative preferred stock and trust preferred securities issued after May 19, 2010 will no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, but such securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, including in the case of bank holding companies with less than $15.0 billion in total assets as of December 31, 2009, trust preferred securities issued prior to that date, will continue to count as Tier 1 capital subject to certain limitations. Tier 2 capital generally consists of perpetual preferred stock and related surplus not meeting the Tier 1 capital definition, qualifying subordinated debt, qualifying mandatorily convertible debt securities, and a limited amount of loan loss reserves.

The minimum capital level requirements applicable to bank holding companies and banks subject to the rules are: (i) a Tier 1 common equity (“CET1”) capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6%; (iii) a total capital ratio of 8%; and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The rules also established a "capital conservation buffer" of 2.5% (to consist of CET1 capital and that was phased in over four years) above the regulatory minimum capital ratios, and have resulted in the following minimum ratios: (i) a CET1 capital ratio of 7%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. The phase-in of the capital conservation buffer requirement was fully implemented in January 2019. An institution will be subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases and paying discretionary bonuses if capital levels fall below minimum levels plus the buffer amounts. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions.

Under the Basel III capital rules, CET1 capital consists of common stock and paid in capital and retained earnings. CET1 capital is reduced by goodwill, certain intangible assets, net of associated deferred tax liabilities, deferred tax assets that arise from tax credit and net operating loss carryforwards, net of any valuation allowance, and certain other items specified in the Basel III capital rules. The Basel III capital rules also provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1 capital. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 capital to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 capital or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1 capital.

The final rules implementing Basel III allow banks and their holding companies with less than $250 billion in assets a one-time opportunity to opt-out of a requirement to include unrealized gains and losses in accumulated other comprehensive income in their capital calculation. The Company and the Bank each opted out of this requirement.

Additionally, the FDICIA establishes a system of prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized financial institutions. Under this system, the federal banking regulators have established five capital categories (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized) into one of which all institutions are categorized. Federal banking regulators are required to take various mandatory supervisory actions and are authorized to take other discretionary actions with respect to institutions in the three undercapitalized categories. The severity of the action depends upon the capital category in which the institution is placed. Generally, subject to a narrow exception, the banking regulator must appoint a receiver or conservator for an institution that is critically undercapitalized. The federal banking agencies have specified by regulation the relevant capital level for each category (excluding the Basel III capital conservation buffer amounts), as set forth in the following table:

Failure to meet statutorily mandated capital guidelines or more restrictive ratios separately established for a financial institution or its holding company by its regulators could subject a bank or bank holding company to a variety of enforcement remedies, including issuance of a capital directive, the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC, a prohibition on accepting or renewing brokered deposits, limitations on the rates of interest that the institution may pay on its deposits, limitations on the ability to hire senior executive officers or add directors without prior approval and other restrictions on its business. As described above, significant additional restrictions can be imposed on FDIC-insured depository institutions that fail to meet applicable capital requirements.

A state regulated bank which is not a member of the Federal Reserve, like the Bank, is required to be “well-capitalized" in order to take advantage of expedited procedures on certain applications, such as branches and mergers, and to accept and renew brokered deposits without further regulatory approval.

The Basel III capital rules prescribe a standardized approach for risk weightings that expand the risk-weighting categories from the four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories. Specific changes to the rules impacting the Company’s and the Bank’s determination of risk-weighted assets include, among other things:

In December 2017, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published the last version of the Basel III accord, generally referred to as “Basel IV.” The Basel Committee stated that a key objective of the revisions incorporated into the framework is to reduce excessive variability of risk-weighted assets (“RWA”), which will be accomplished by enhancing the robustness and risk sensitivity of the standardized approaches for credit risk and operational risk, which will facilitate the comparability of banks’ capital ratios; constraining the use of internally modeled approaches; and complementing the risk-weighted capital ratio with a finalized leverage ratio and a revised and robust capital floor. Leadership of the federal banking agencies who are tasked with implementing Basel IV has indicated that it is considering how to appropriately apply these revisions in the

United States. Although it is uncertain at this time, the Company anticipates some, if not all, of the Basel IV accord may be incorporated into the capital requirements framework applicable to the Company and the Bank.

Banking organizations must have appropriate capital planning processes, with proper oversight from the board of directors. Accordingly, pursuant to a separate, general supervisory letter from the FRB, bank holding companies are expected to conduct and document comprehensive capital adequacy analyses prior to the declaration of any dividends (on common stock, preferred stock, trust preferred securities or other Tier 1 capital instruments), capital redemptions or capital repurchases. Moreover, the federal banking agencies have adopted a joint agency policy statement, noting that the adequacy and effectiveness of a bank’s interest rate risk management process and the level of its interest rate exposures are critical factors in the evaluation of the bank’s capital adequacy. A bank with material weaknesses in its interest rate risk management process or high levels of interest rate exposure relative to its capital will be directed by the relevant federal banking agencies to take corrective actions.

The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system for insured depository institutions that takes into account the risks attributable to different categories and concentrations of assets and liabilities. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC adopted regulations that base deposit insurance assessments on total assets less capital rather than deposit liabilities and include off-balance sheet liabilities of institutions and their affiliates in risk-based assessments.

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the basic limit on federal deposit insurance coverage to $250,000 per depositor. The Dodd-Frank Act also repealed the prohibition on paying interest on demand transaction accounts, but did not extend unlimited insurance protection for these accounts.

The FDIC may terminate its insurance of deposits if it finds that a depository institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC.

The Financial Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 provides that a holding company’s controlled insured depository institutions are liable for any loss incurred by the FDIC in connection with the default of, or any FDIC-assisted transaction involving, an affiliated insured bank or savings association.

The maximum permissible rates of interest on most commercial and consumer loans made by the Bank are governed by Tennessee’s general usury law and the Tennessee Industrial Loan and Thrift Companies Act (“Industrial Loan Act”). Certain other usury laws affect limited classes of loans, but the Company believes that the laws referenced above are the most significant. Tennessee’s general usury law authorizes a floating rate of 4% per annum over the average prime or base commercial loan rate, as published by the FRB from time to time, subject to an absolute 24% per annum limit. The Industrial Loan Act, which is generally applicable to most of the loans made by the Bank in Tennessee, authorizes an interest rate of up to 24% per annum and also allows certain loan charges, generally on a more liberal basis than does the general usury law.

The Bank's loan operations are also subject to federal laws applicable to credit transactions, such as the:

The Bank’s deposit operations are subject to the:

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which is an office in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is responsible for helping to ensure that U.S. entities do not engage in transactions with “enemies” of the United States, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress. OFAC publishes lists of names of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts; owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of target countries, and narcotics traffickers. If a bank finds a name on any transaction, account or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, it must freeze or block the transactions on the account. The Bank has appointed a compliance officer to oversee the inspection of its accounts and the filing of any notifications. The Bank actively checks high-risk OFAC areas such as new accounts, wire transfers and customer files. These checks are performed using software that is updated each time a modification is made to the lists provided by OFAC and other agencies of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.

The President of the United States signed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (the “Patriot Act”), into law on October 26, 2001. The Patriot Act established a wide variety of new and enhanced ways of combating international terrorism. The provisions that affect banks (and other financial institutions) most directly are contained in Title III of the act. In general, Title III amended existing law - primarily the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) - to provide the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) and other departments and agencies of the federal government with enhanced authority to identify, deter, and punish international money laundering and other crimes.

Among other things, the Patriot Act prohibits financial institutions from doing business with foreign "shell" banks and requires increased due diligence for private banking transactions and correspondent accounts for foreign banks. A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions in recent years has been aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The BSA and its implementing regulations and parallel requirements of the federal banking regulators require the Bank to maintain a risk-based anti-money laundering (“AML”) program reasonably designed to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing and to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the BSA, including the requirement to report suspicious activity. The Patriot Act substantially broadened the scope of AML laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations on financial institutions, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Financial institutions, including banks, are required under final rules implementing Section 326 of the Patriot Act to establish procedures for collecting standard information from customers opening new accounts and verifying the identity of these new account holders within a reasonable period of time. Financial institutions are also prohibited from entering into specified financial transactions and account relationships and must take certain steps to assist government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering and to report certain types of suspicious transactions. In May 2016, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued rules under the BSA requiring financial institutions to identify the beneficial owners who own or control certain legal entity customers at the time an account is opened and to update their AML compliance programs no later than May 11, 2018, to include risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the “Community Reinvestment Act”) requires that, in connection with examinations of financial institutions within their respective jurisdictions, the FRB and the FDIC shall evaluate the record of each financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods consistent with safe and sound operations of the institutions. These facts are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions, and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria could impose additional requirements and limitations on the Bank. Additionally, banks are required to publicly disclose the terms of various Community Reinvestment

Act-related agreements. The Bank received an “outstanding” Community Reinvestment Act rating from its primary federal regulator on its most recent regulatory examination.

The Bank is also subject to certain fair lending requirements and reporting obligations involving its home mortgage lending operations. Fair lending laws prohibit discrimination in the provision of banking services, and bank regulators have increasingly focused on the enforcement of these laws. Fair lending laws include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibit discrimination in credit and residential real estate transactions on the basis of prohibited factors including, among others, race, color, national origin, gender and religion. The Bank may be liable, either through administrative enforcement or private civil actions, for policies that result in a disparate treatment of or have a disparate impact on a protected class of applicants or borrowers. If a pattern or practice of lending discrimination is alleged by a regulator, then that agency may refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for investigation. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding, the DOJ and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) have agreed to share information, coordinate investigations and generally commit to strengthen their coordination efforts. The Bank is required to have a fair lending program that is of sufficient scope to monitor the inherent fair lending risk of the institution and that appropriately remediates issues which are identified.

State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements and, in some cases, regulations, emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision. Such policy statements and regulations indicate that financial institutions should design multiple layers of security controls to establish lines of defense and to ensure that their risk management processes also address the risk posed by compromised customer credentials, including security measures to reliably authenticate customers accessing internet-based services of the financial institution. A financial institution’s management is expected to maintain sufficient business continuity planning processes to ensure the rapid recovery, resumption and maintenance of the institution’s operations after a cyber-attack involving destructive malware. A financial institution is expected to develop appropriate processes to enable recovery of data and business operations and address rebuilding network capabilities and restoring data if the institution or its critical service providers fall victim to this type of cyber-attack.

Federal statutes and regulations, including the GLB Act and the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, limit the Company’s and the Bank’s ability to disclose non-public information about consumers, customers and employees to nonaffiliated third parties. Specifically, the GLB Act requires disclosure of the Company’s privacy policies and practices relating to sharing non-public information and enables retail customers to opt out of the institution’s ability to share information with unaffiliated third parties under certain circumstances. The GLB Act also requires the Company and the Bank to implement a comprehensive information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information and, if applicable state law is more protective of customer privacy than the GLB Act, financial institutions, including the Bank, will be required to comply with such state law. Other laws and regulations impact the Company’s and the Bank’s ability to share certain information with affiliates and non-affiliates for marketing and/or non-marketing purposes. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors. In connection with the regulations governing the privacy of consumer financial information, the federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have adopted guidelines for establishing information security standards and programs to protect such information. In addition, the Bank has established a privacy policy that it believes promotes compliance with the federal requirements.

Examination and enforcement by the state and federal banking agencies, and other such enforcement authorities, for non-compliance with consumer protection laws and their implementing regulations have increased and become more intense. The advent of the CFPB further heightens oversight and review of compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations. Due to these heightened regulatory concerns, including increased enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act by the federal banking agencies, and new powers and authority of the CFPB, the Bank may incur additional compliance costs or be required to expend additional funds for investments in its local community.

The Company’s securities are registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). As such, the Company is subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading, corporate governance, and other requirements and restrictions of the Exchange Act. As a public company, the Company is also subject to the accounting oversight and corporate governance requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, including, among other things, required executive certification of financial presentations, increased requirements for board audit committees and their members, and enhanced requirements relating to disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting.

In 2018, the U.S. Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (the “Growth Act”). The Growth Act, among other things, requires the federal banking agencies to issue regulations allowing community bank organizations with total assets of less than $10.0 billion in assets and limited amounts of certain assets and off-balance sheet exposures to access a simpler capital regime focused on a bank’s Tier 1 leverage capital

levels rather than risk-based capital levels that are the focus of the capital rules issued under the Dodd-Frank Act implementing Basel III.

In November 2018, the federal banking agencies proposed regulations that would exempt a qualifying community bank and its holding company that have Tier 1 leverage ratios of greater than 9 percent from the risk-based capital requirements of the capital rules issued under the Dodd-Frank Act. A qualifying community banking organization and its holding company that have chosen the proposed framework would not be required to calculate the existing risk-based and leverage capital requirements. Such a bank would also be considered to have met the capital ratio requirements to be well capitalized for the agencies' prompt corrective action rules provided it has a community bank leverage ratio greater than 9 percent.

The Growth Act also raised the eligibility for the small bank holding company policy statement to $3 billion of assets from $1 billion.

The rules implementing these provisions of the Growth Act are not yet finalized and the Company has not yet made a determination regarding whether it will seek to take advantage of these new capital rules under the Growth Act.

New regulations and statutes are regularly proposed that contain wide-ranging provisions for altering the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of the nation’s financial institutions. Throughout 2017 and 2018, the U.S. Congress has debated and proposed changes to the financial institution regulatory landscape, including proposed amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act, including raising the asset threshold levels at which financial institutions and their holding companies become subject to enhanced regulatory oversight and compliance requirements. The Company cannot predict whether or in what form any proposed regulation or statute will be adopted or the extent to which the Company’s business may be affected by any new regulation or statute. Even if modifications are enacted to existing or proposed regulations, including raising certain assets thresholds above those currently in place, the Company may continue to face enhanced scrutiny from its regulators who may expect it to continue to comply with the current, more stringent requirements as part of their safety and soundness and compliance examinations and general oversight of the Company’s operations.

Competition

The banking business is highly competitive. The Company’s primary market areas consist of Wilson, Trousdale, Davidson, Rutherford, DeKalb, Smith, Sumner, Putnam and Williamson Counties in Tennessee. The Company competes with numerous commercial banks and savings institutions with offices in these market areas. In addition to these competitors, the Company competes for loans with insurance companies, regulated small loan companies, credit unions, and certain government agencies. The Company also competes with numerous companies and financial institutions engaged in similar lines of business, such as mortgage banking companies, brokerage companies and lending companies. 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 non-bank competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Some of the Company’s competitors have significantly greater financial resources and offer a greater number of branch locations. To offset this advantage of its competitors, the Company believes it can attract customers by providing loan and management decisions at the local level with exceptional and personal service. The Company does not experience significant seasonal trends in its operations.

Monetary Policies

The results of operations of the Bank and the Company are affected by the policies of the regulatory authorities, particularly the FRB. An important function of the FRB is to regulate the national supply of bank credit in order to combat recession and curb inflation. Among the instruments used to attain these objectives are open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements relating to member bank deposits. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may also affect interest rates charged on loans and paid for deposits. Policies of the regulatory agencies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to do so in the future. The effect of such policies upon the future business and results of operations of the Company and the Bank cannot be predicted with accuracy.

Employment

As of March 8, 2019 , the Company and its subsidiary collectively employed 487 full-time equivalent employees.

Available Information

The Company’s Internet website is http://www.wilsonbank.com. Please note that the Company’s website address is provided as an inactive textual reference only. The Company makes available free of charge on its website the Company’s annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after it files or furnishes such materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The information provided on the Company’s website is not part of this report, and is therefore not incorporated by reference herein unless such information is otherwise specifically referenced elsewhere in this report.

Statistical Information Required by Guide 3

The statistical information required to be displayed under Item 1 pursuant to Guide 3, “Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies,” of the Exchange Act Industry Guides is incorporated herein by reference to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the notes thereto and the Management’s Discussion and Analysis sections in the Company’s

2018 Annual Report. Certain information not contained in the Company’s 2018 Annual Report, but required by Guide 3, is contained in the tables immediately following:

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

WILSON BANK HOLDING COMPANY

Form 10-K

December 31, 2018

Interest Rates and Interest Differential

The schedule which follows indicates the average balances for each major balance sheet item, an analysis of net interest income and net interest expense and the change in interest income and interest expense attributable to changes in volume and changes in rates.

The difference between interest income on interest-earning assets and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities is net interest income, which is the Company's gross margin. Analysis of net interest income is more meaningful when income from tax-exempt earning assets is adjusted to a tax equivalent basis. Accordingly, the following schedule includes a tax equivalent adjustment of tax-exempt earning assets, assuming a weighted average Federal income tax rate of 34% for 2017 and 2016, and 21% for 2018.

In this schedule, "change due to volume" is the change in volume multiplied by the interest rate for the prior year. "Change due to rate" is the change in interest rate multiplied by the volume for the prior year. Changes in interest income and expense not due solely to volume or rate changes have been allocated to the “change due to volume” and “change due to rate” in proportion to the relationship of the absolute dollar amounts of the change in each category.

Non-accrual loans have been included in the loan category. Loan fees of $7,400,000 , $6,773,000 and $5,935,000 for 2018 , 2017 and 2016 , respectively, are included in loan income and represent an adjustment of the yield on these loans.

Notes:

1. The tax equivalent adjustment for 2018 has been computed using a 21% Federal tax rate; whereas, 2017 and 2016 have been computed using a 34% Federal tax rate.

2. Yields on loans and total earning assets include the impact of State income tax credits related incentive loans at below market rates and tax exempt loans to municipalities.

Notes:

1. The tax equivalent adjustment for 2017 and 2016 has been computed using a 34% Federal tax rate.

2. Yields on loans and total earning assets include the impact of State income tax credits related incentive loans at below market rates and tax exempt loans to municipalities.