SLCT Select Bancorp Inc

Item 1 –Business

General

Select Bancorp, Inc. (the “Registrant” or the “Company”) (formerly New Century Bancorp, Inc.) was incorporated under the laws of the State of North Carolina on May 14, 2003, at the direction of the Board of Directors of Select Bank & Trust Company (formerly New Century Bank), for the purpose of serving as the bank holding company for Select Bank & Trust Company (“Select Bank” or the “Bank”) and became the holding company for the Bank on September 19, 2003. To become the Bank’s holding company, the Registrant received the approval of the Federal Reserve Board as well as Select Bank’s shareholders. Upon receiving such approval, each outstanding share of common stock of Select Bank was exchanged on a one-for-one basis for one share of common stock of the Registrant. On July 25, 2014, New Century Bancorp, Inc. and New Century Bank changed their names to Select Bancorp, Inc. and Select Bank & Trust Company, respectively. This was in conjunction with the merger with “Legacy” Select Bancorp, Inc. and Select Bank & Trust Company of Greenville, NC. On December 15, 2017, the Registrant acquired Premara Financial, Inc. (“Premara”) and its banking subsidiary Carolina Premier Bank (“Carolina Premier”) of Charlotte, North Carolina. Under the terms of that acquisition, Premara was merged with and into the Registrant, Carolina Premier was merged with and into the Bank, and shareholders of Premara received 1.0463 shares of the Registrant’s common stock or $12.65 in cash for each outstanding share of Premara common stock, with approximately 70% of such shares being exchanged for shares of the Registrant’s common stock and 30% being exchanged for cash.

The Registrant operates for the primary purpose of serving as the holding company for its subsidiary depository institution, Select Bank & Trust Company. The Registrant’s headquarters is located at 700 West Cumberland Street, Dunn, North Carolina 28334.

The Bank was incorporated on May 19, 2000 as a North Carolina-chartered commercial bank, opened for business on May 24, 2000, and is located at 700 West Cumberland Street, Dunn, North Carolina.

The Bank operates for the primary purpose of serving the banking needs of individuals and small to medium-sized businesses in its market area. The Bank offers a range of banking services including checking and savings accounts, commercial, consumer, mortgage and personal loans, and other associated financial services.

Primary Market Area

The Registrant’s market area consists of portions of central and eastern North Carolina which includes Alamance, Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Cumberland, Harnett, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Pasquotank, Pitt, Robeson, Sampson, Wake and Wayne counties and portions of northwestern South Carolina in Cherokee, Pickens and York counties. The Bank has branch offices in Dunn, Burlington, Charlotte, Clinton, Elizabeth City, Fayetteville, Goldsboro, Greenville, Leland, Lillington, Lumberton, Morehead City, Raleigh and Washington, North Carolina and Rock Hill, Blacksburg and Six Mile, South Carolina.  The Registrant’s market area has a population of over 3.8 million with an average household income of over $44,500.

Total deposits in the Registrant’s market area exceeded $228 billion at June 30, 2017.  The leading economic components of Alamance County, North Carolina, are healthcare and education with the largest employers being LabCorp, the public school system, the Alamance Regional Medical Center and Elon University. In Beaufort County, North Carolina, the top employers are the Beaufort County Schools, PCS Phosphate Company, Vidant Medical Center and other manufacturing facilities and public administration. Brunswick County North Carolina’s leading industries are education, public administration with the County of Brunswick, Progress Energy and a Food Lion distribution center. In Carteret County, North Carolina, it is public services that are leading economic factors as education, health services and public administration are the leading employers followed by major retailers including Wal-Mart, Food Lion and Big Rock Sports LLC, an outdoor sporting goods distributor. Cumberland County, North Carolina’s leading sector is the Department of Defense with extensions of the Army, Navy and Air Force located there, followed by Cape Fear Valley Health Systems, a Wal-Mart distribution Center, county and city administration and Goodyear Tire manufacturing facility. The U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs and Fayetteville Technical Community College also employ over 1,000 in Cumberland County. In Harnett County, North Carolina, top economic sectors are Harnett County Schools, along with a Food Lion distribution center, Campbell University, public administration, Betsy Johnson Memorial Hospital and a new Rooms To Go manufacturing and distribution center. In New Hanover County, North Carolina, education, health services and government officers are leaders in the economy. New Hanover Regional Medical Center, the school system and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington are the largest employers along with PPD Development, a pharmaceutical company. In Mecklenburg County, education, financial activities and health services are leading industries. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital and school systems are top employers along with Wells Fargo and Bank of America. Transportation is also a leading industry in Mecklenburg County with American Airlines as a top employer. In Pasquotank County, North Carolina, education, health services and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the U.S. Coast Guard base in Elizabeth City are top employers. Pitt County, North Carolina, has a mix of education and health services employers and still relies heavily on manufacturing with over 1,000 jobs attributable to NACCO Materials Handling Group as well as being home to East Carolina University and Vidant Medical Center. In Robeson County, North Carolina, leading sectors include education, health services, and manufacturing with Mountaire Farms of N.C. employing over 1,000.  Robeson County is also home to UNC Pembroke and the Campbell Soup Supply Company.  In Sampson County, North Carolina, leading sectors include education, manufacturing, agriculture and natural resources with top employers including Smithfield Foods, Prestage Farms and Hog Slat.  In Wake County, North Carolina, leading sectors include government, education, healthcare, and technology.  Wayne County North Carolina’s leading sectors are the federal government and military services, education and retail trade. In South Carolina’s Cherokee County, manufacturing, administrative and waste management are leading industries. Brown Packing Company, the Cherokee County School District and Ambassador Personnel are among the largest employers. In Pickens County, South Carolina, state government and education are leading the economy with both the state government offices and Clemson University among the largest employers. In York County, South Carolina, manufacturing, medical, retail and education are leading economic components as Kent Companies, a concrete contractor, York Hospital, the federal government and Wal-Mart are the top employers.

Competition

Commercial banking in the North Carolina and South Carolina markets in which the Bank operates is extremely competitive. The Registrant competes in its market areas with some of the largest banking organizations in the state and the country and other financial institutions, such as federally and state-chartered savings and loan institutions and credit unions, as well as consumer finance companies, mortgage companies and other lenders engaged in the business of extending credit. Many of the Registrant’s competitors have broader geographic markets and higher lending limits than Registrant and are also able to provide more services and make greater use of advertising.  As of June 30, 2017, data provided by the FDIC Deposit Market Share Report indicated that, within the Registrant’s market area, there were 903 offices of insured depository institutions (38 in Alamance County, 14 in Beaufort County, 38 in Brunswick County, 26 in Carteret County, 60 in Cumberland County, 24 in Harnett County, 235 in Mecklenburg County, 12 in Pasquotank County, 45 in Pitt County, 30 in Robeson County, 14 in Sampson County, 252 in Wake County and 28 in Wayne County, all in North Carolina and 10 in Cherokee County, 30 in Pickens County and 47 in York County, South Carolina), including offices of the Bank.

The enactment of legislation authorizing interstate banking resulted in great increases in the size and financial resources of some of the Registrant’s competitors. In addition, larger out-of-state commercial banks have recently acquired a number of North Carolina and South Carolina banks and further heightened the competition among banks.

Despite the competition in its market areas, the Registrant believes that it has certain competitive advantages that distinguish it from its competition. The Registrant believes that its primary competitive advantages are its strong local identity and affiliation with the community and its emphasis on providing specialized services to small and medium-sized business enterprises, as well as professional and upper-income individuals. The Registrant offers customers modern, high-tech banking without forsaking community values such as prompt, personal service and friendliness. The Registrant offers many personalized services and intends to attract customers by being responsive and sensitive to their individualized needs. The Registrant also relies on goodwill and referrals from shareholders and satisfied customers, as well as traditional marketing media to attract new customers. To enhance a positive image in the community, the Registrant supports and participates in local events and its officers and directors serve on boards of local civic and charitable organizations.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, the Registrant employed 202 full time equivalent employees. None of the Registrant’s employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The Registrant believes relations with its employees to be good.

Regulation

Regulation of the Bank

General . The Bank is a North Carolina chartered commercial bank and its deposit accounts are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). The Bank is subject to supervision, examination and regulation by the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks (“Commissioner”) and the FDIC and to North Carolina and federal statutory and regulatory provisions governing such matters as capital standards, dividends, mergers, subsidiary investments and establishment of branch offices. The Bank is required to file reports with the Commissioner and the FDIC concerning its activities and financial condition and is required to obtain regulatory approval prior to entering into certain transactions, including mergers with, or acquisitions of, other depository institutions.

As a federally insured depository institution, the Bank is subject to various regulations promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve Board”) or (“FRB”), including Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity), Regulation D (Reserve Requirements), Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers), Regulation O (Loans to Insiders), Regulation W (Transactions with Affiliates), Regulation Z (Truth in Lending), Regulation CC (Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks) and Regulation DD (Truth in Savings).

The system of regulation and supervision applicable to the Bank establishes a comprehensive framework for the operations of the Bank, and is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC and the depositors of the Bank, rather than shareholders. Changes in the regulatory framework could have a material effect on the Bank that in turn, could have a material effect on the Registrant. This discussion does not purport to be a complete explanation of all such laws and regulations.

State Law . The Bank is subject to extensive supervision and regulation by the Commissioner. The Commissioner oversees state laws that set specific requirements for bank capital and deposits in, and loans and investments by, banks, including the amounts, types, and in some cases, rates. The Commissioner supervises and performs periodic examinations of North Carolina-chartered banks to assure compliance with state banking statutes and regulations, and the Bank is required to make regular reports to the Commissioner describing in detail its resources, assets, liabilities and financial condition. Among other things, the Commissioner regulates mergers and consolidations of state-chartered banks, the payment of dividends, loans to officers and directors, record keeping, types and amounts of loans and investments, and the establishment of branches.

North Carolina Banking Law Modernization Act . On October 1, 2012, as a result of the recommendations of the Joint Legislative Study Commission on the Modernization of North Carolina Banking Laws, legislation went into effect that comprehensively modernized North Carolina’s banking laws for the first time since the Great Depression. As a result of the legislation, Articles 1 through 10, 12, and 13 of Chapter 53 of the North Carolina General Statutes were repealed, and new Chapter 53C, entitled “Regulation of Banks,” became law. Major changes enacted by the law included: a comprehensive list of definitions enhancing the clarity and meaning of the various sections of North Carolina’s banking law, a broader reliance on the North Carolina Business Corporation Act, and incorporation of modern concepts of capital adequacy and regulatory supervision. In 2013, the North Carolina General Assembly made certain technical corrections and clarifications to Chapter 53C.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act . In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law. This law significantly changed the bank regulatory structure and affected the lending, deposit, investment, trading, and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act required various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of rules and regulations, and to prepare numerous studies and reports for Congress. The federal agencies have significant discretion in drafting rules and regulations, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act included, among other things:

The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits insured depository institutions and their holding companies from engaging in proprietary trading except in limited circumstances, and prohibits them from owning equity interests in excess of three percent (3%) of Tier 1 capital in private equity and hedge funds (known as the “Volcker Rule”).

In 2017, both the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation that would repeal or modify provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and significantly impact financial services regulation. Although the bills vary in content, certain key aspects include revisions to rules related to mortgage loans, delayed implementation of rules related to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and reform and simplifications of certain Volcker Rule requirements. We cannot predict whether there will be additional proposed laws or reforms that would affect the U.S. financial system or financial institutions, whether or when such changes may be adopted, how such changes may be interpreted and enforced, or how such changes may affect us.

2017 Executive Order . On February 3, 2017, the President of the United States issued an executive order identifying “core principles” for the administration’s financial services regulatory policy and directing the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other financial regulatory agencies, to evaluate how the current regulatory framework promotes or inhibits the principles and what actions have been, and are being, taken to promote the principles. In response to the executive order, on June 12, 2017, October 6, 2017 and October 26, 2017, respectively, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued the first three of four reports recommending a number of comprehensive changes in the current regulatory system for U.S. depository institutions, the U.S. capital markets and the U.S. asset management and insurance industries.

Deposit Insurance . The Bank’s deposits are insured up to limits set by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC. The DIF was formed on March 31, 2006, upon the merger of the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Insurance Fund in accordance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (the “Reform Act”). The Reform Act established a range of 1.15% to 1.50% within which the FDIC may set the Designated Reserve Ratio (the “reserve ratio” or “DRR”). The Dodd-Frank Act gave the FDIC greater discretion to manage the DIF, raised the minimum DIF reserve ratio to 1.35%, and removed the upper limit of 1.50%. In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a restoration plan to ensure that the DIF reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The FDIC also proposed a comprehensive, long-range plan for management of the DIF. As part of this comprehensive plan, the FDIC has adopted a final rule to set the DRR at 2.0%.

On October 3, 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was enacted and temporarily raised the standard minimum deposit insurance amount (the “SMDIA”) from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor. On May 20, 2009, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act extended the temporary increase in the SMDIA to $250,000 per depositor through December 31, 2013. On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act permanently increased FDIC insurance coverage to $250,000 per depositor.

The FDIC imposes a risk-based deposit insurance premium assessment on member institutions in order to maintain the DIF. This assessment system was amended by the Reform Act and further amended by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under this system, as amended, the assessment rates for an insured depository institution vary according to the level of risk incurred in its activities. To arrive at an assessment rate for a banking institution, the FDIC places it in one of four risk categories determined by reference to its capital levels and supervisory ratings. In addition, in the case of those institutions in the lowest risk category, the FDIC further determines its assessment rate based on certain specified financial ratios or, if applicable, its long-term debt ratings. The assessment rate schedule can change from time to time, at the discretion of the FDIC, subject to certain limits. The Dodd-Frank Act changed the methodology for calculating deposit insurance assessments from the amount of an insured institution’s domestic deposits to its total assets minus tangible capital. On February 7, 2011, the FDIC issued a new regulation implementing these revisions to the assessment system. The regulation went into effect April 1, 2011.

The FDIC has authority to increase deposit insurance assessments. A significant increase in insurance premiums would likely have an adverse effect on the operating expenses and results of operations of the Registrant and the Bank. Management cannot predict what insurance assessment rates will be in the future.

Insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that an insured institution has engaged in unsafe or 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. Management of the Bank is not aware of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of its FDIC deposit insurance.

Capital Requirements . The federal banking regulators have adopted certain risk-based capital guidelines to assist in the assessment of the capital adequacy of a banking organization’s operations for both transactions reported on the balance sheet as assets and transactions, such as letters of credit, and recourse arrangements, which are recorded as off balance sheet items. Under these guidelines, nominal dollar amounts of assets and credit equivalent amounts of off-balance sheet items are multiplied by one of several risk adjustment percentages which range from 0% for assets with low credit risk, such as certain U.S. Treasury securities, to 1,250% for certain assets with high credit risk, such as securitization exposures.

A banking organization’s risk-based capital ratios are obtained by dividing its qualifying capital by its total risk adjusted assets. The regulators measure risk-adjusted assets, which include off balance sheet items, against both total qualifying capital (the sum of Common Equity Tier 1 capital and limited amounts of Tier 2 capital) and Tier 1 capital. “Common Equity Tier 1,” or core capital, includes common equity, qualifying noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and minority interests in equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, less goodwill and other intangibles, subject to certain exceptions. “Additional Tier 1 Capital” includes noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, tier 1 minority interests, grandfathered Trust preferred securities, and Troubled Asset Relief Program instruments less applicable regulatory adjustments and deductions. “Tier 2,” or supplementary capital, includes among other things, limited-life preferred stock, hybrid capital instruments, mandatory convertible securities, qualifying subordinated debt, and the allowance for loan and lease losses, subject to certain limitations and less required deductions. The inclusion of elements of Tier 2 capital is subject to certain other requirements and limitations of the federal banking agencies. Banks and bank holding companies subject to the risk-based capital guidelines are required to maintain a ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 5% and a ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 10% to meet well capitalized thresholds. The appropriate regulatory authority may set higher capital requirements when particular circumstances warrant.

The federal banking agencies have adopted regulations specifying that they will include, in their evaluations of a bank’s capital adequacy, an assessment of the bank’s interest rate risk exposure. The standards for measuring the adequacy and effectiveness of a banking organization’s interest rate risk management include a measurement of board of director and senior management oversight, and a determination of whether a banking organization’s procedures for comprehensive risk management are appropriate for the circumstances of the specific banking organization.

Failure to meet applicable capital guidelines could subject a banking organization to a variety of enforcement actions, including limitations on its ability to pay dividends or expand with new branch offices or through acquisitions, the issuance by the applicable regulatory authority of a capital directive to increase capital and, in the case of depository institutions, the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC, as well as the measures described under the “Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991” below, as applicable to undercapitalized institutions. In addition, future changes in regulations or practices could further reduce the amount of capital recognized for purposes of capital adequacy. Such a change could affect the ability of the Bank to grow and could restrict the amount of profits, if any, available for the payment of dividends to the Registrant and its shareholders.

On July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve approved a final rule that establishes an integrated regulatory capital framework that addresses shortcomings in certain capital requirements. The rule implements in the United States the Basel III regulatory capital reforms from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

The major provisions of the rule applicable to us are:

The Bank was required to comply with the new rule beginning on January 1, 2015. Compliance by the Registrant and the Bank with these capital requirements affects their respective operations by increasing the amount of capital required to conduct operations.

In October 2017, the federal banking agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on simplifications to the final rules, a majority of which would apply solely to banking organizations that are not subject to the advanced approaches capital rule. Under the proposed rulemaking, non-advanced approaches banking organizations, such as the Registrant, would apply a simpler regulatory capital treatment for mortgage servicing assets (“MSAs”); certain deferred tax assets (“DTAs”) arising from temporary differences; investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions; and capital issued by a consolidated subsidiary of a banking organization and held by third parties.

Specifically, the proposed rulemaking would eliminate: (i) the capital rule’s 10 percent common equity tier 1 capital deduction threshold that applies individually to MSAs, temporary difference DTAs, and significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions in the form of common stock; (ii) the aggregate 15 percent common equity tier 1 capital deduction threshold that subsequently applies on a collective basis across such items; (iii) the 10 percent common equity tier 1 capital deduction threshold for non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions; and (iv) the deduction treatment for significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions not in the form of common stock. The capital rule would no longer have distinct treatments for significant and non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions, but instead would require that non-advanced approaches banking organizations deduct from common equity tier 1 capital any amount of MSAs, temporary difference DTAs, and investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions that individually exceeds 25 percent of common equity tier 1 capital. The proposed rulemaking also includes revisions to the treatment of certain acquisition, development, or construction exposures that are designed to address comments regarding the current definition of high volatility commercial real estate exposure under the capital rule’s standardized approach.

In November 2017, the federal banking agencies adopted a final rule to extend the regulatory capital treatment applicable during 2017 under the capital rules for certain items, including regulatory capital deductions, risk weights, and certain minority interest limitations. The relief provided under the final rule applies to banking organizations that are not subject to the capital rules’ advanced approaches, such as the Registrant. Specifically, the final rule extends the current regulatory capital treatment of mortgage servicing assets, deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions in the form of common stock, non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions, significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions that are not in the form of common stock, and common equity tier 1 minority interest, tier 1 minority interest, and total capital minority interest exceeding the capital rules’ minority interest limitations.

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 regulators, who are tasked with implementing Basel IV, supported the revisions. Although it is uncertain at this time, we anticipate some, if not all, of the Basel IV accord may be incorporated into the capital requirements framework applicable to the Registrant.

Prompt Corrective Action . Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), the federal banking regulators are required to take prompt corrective action if an insured depository institution fails to satisfy the minimum capital requirements discussed above, including a leverage limit, a risk-based capital requirement, and any other measure deemed appropriate by the federal banking regulators for measuring the capital adequacy of an insured depository institution. All institutions, regardless of their capital levels, are restricted from making any capital distribution or paying any management fees if the institution would thereafter fail to satisfy the minimum levels for any of its capital requirements. An institution that fails to meet the minimum level for any relevant capital measure (an “undercapitalized institution”) may be: (i) subject to increased monitoring by the appropriate federal banking regulator; (ii) required to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan within 45 days; (iii) subject to asset growth limits; and (iv) required to obtain prior regulatory approval for acquisitions, branching and new lines of business. The capital restoration plan must include a guarantee by the institution’s holding company that the institution will comply with the plan until it has been adequately capitalized on average for four consecutive quarters, under which the holding company would be liable up to the lesser of 5% of the institution’s total assets or the amount necessary to bring the institution into capital compliance as of the date it failed to comply with its capital restoration plan. A “significantly undercapitalized” institution, as well as any undercapitalized institution that does not submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, may be subject to regulatory demands for recapitalization, broader application of restrictions on transactions with affiliates, limitations on interest rates paid on deposits, asset growth and other activities, possible replacement of directors and officers, and restrictions on capital distributions by any bank holding company controlling the institution. Any company controlling the institution may also be required to divest the institution or the institution could be required to divest subsidiaries. The senior executive officers of a significantly undercapitalized institution may not receive bonuses or increases in compensation without prior regulatory approval and the institution is prohibited from making payments of principal or interest on its subordinated debt. In their discretion, the federal banking regulators may also impose the foregoing sanctions on an undercapitalized institution if the regulators determine that such actions are necessary to carry out the purposes of the prompt corrective action provisions. If an institution’s ratio of tangible capital to total assets falls below the “critical capital level” established by the appropriate federal banking regulator, the institution will be subject to conservatorship or receivership within specified time periods.

As discussed above, on July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve Board, and on July 9, 2013, the FDIC, adopted a final rule that implements the Basel III changes to the international regulatory capital framework, referred to as the “Basel III Rules.” The Basel III Rules apply to both depository institutions and (subject to certain exceptions not applicable to the Registrant) their holding companies. Although parts of the Basel III Rules apply only to large, complex financial institutions, substantial portions of the Basel III Rules apply to the Registrant and the Bank. The Basel III Rules include requirements contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Act as well as certain standards initially adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2010.

The Basel III Rules include new risk-based and leverage capital ratio requirements which refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The minimum capital level requirements applicable to the Registrant and the Bank under the Basel III Rules are: (i) a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5 percent; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6 percent (increased from 4 percent); (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 8 percent (unchanged from prior rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4 percent for all institutions. Common equity Tier 1 capital will consist of retained earnings and common stock instruments, subject to certain adjustments.

The Basel III Rules also established a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5 percent above the new regulatory minimum risk-based capital requirements. The conservation buffer, when added to the capital requirements, result in the following minimum ratios: (i) a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0 percent, (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5 percent, and (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5 percent. The new capital conservation buffer requirement is being phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625 percent of risk-weighted assets with increases to that amount each year until full implementation in January 2019. An institution is subject to limitations on certain activities including payment of dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if its capital level is below the buffer amount.

The Basel III Rules also revised the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including the Bank, if their capital levels do not meet certain thresholds. These revisions became effective on January 1, 2015. The prompt corrective action rules were modified to include a common equity Tier 1 capital component and to increase certain other capital requirements for the various thresholds. For example, under the prompt corrective action rules, insured depository institutions are required to meet the following capital levels in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.5 percent; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8 percent (increased from 6 percent); (iii) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10 percent (unchanged from prior rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5 percent (unchanged from prior rules).

The Basel III Rules set forth certain changes in the methods of calculating certain risk-weighted assets, which in turn affect the calculation of risk based ratios. Under the Basel III Rules, higher or more sensitive risk weights would be assigned to various categories of assets, including certain credit facilities that finance the acquisition, development or construction of real property, certain exposures or credits that are 90 days past due or on nonaccrual, foreign exposures and certain corporate exposures. In addition, the Basel III Rules include (i) alternative standards of creditworthiness consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act; (ii) greater recognition of collateral and guarantees; and (iii) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo-style transactions.

In addition, the final rule includes certain exemptions to address concerns about the regulatory burden on community banks. For example, banking organizations with less than $15 billion in consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009 are permitted to include in Tier 1 capital trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued and included in Tier 1 capital prior to May 19, 2010 on a permanent basis, without any phase out. The Bank has opted out of the requirement to include most accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) components in the calculation of CET1 capital and, in effect, retain the AOCI treatment under the prior capital rules and exclude accumulated other comprehensive income from capital.

Certain Basel III Rules became effective January 1, 2015. The conservation buffer will be phased in beginning in 2016 and will take full effect on January 1, 2019. Certain calculations under the Basel III Rules will also have phase-in periods.

Under the implementing regulations, the federal banking regulators, including the FDIC, generally measure an institution’s capital adequacy on the basis of its total risk-based capital ratio (the ratio of its total capital to risk-weighted assets), Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio (the ratio of its core capital to risk-weighted assets) and leverage ratio (the ratio of its core capital to adjusted total assets).

The following table shows the Bank’s actual capital ratios and the required capital ratios for the various prompt corrective action categories as of December 31, 2017.

* 3.0% if institution has the highest regulatory rating and meets certain other criteria.

A “critically undercapitalized” institution is defined as an institution that has a ratio of “tangible equity” to total assets of less than 2.0%. Tangible equity is defined as core capital plus cumulative perpetual preferred stock (and related surplus) less all intangibles other than qualifying supervisory goodwill and certain purchased mortgage servicing rights. The FDIC may reclassify a well-capitalized institution as adequately capitalized and may require an adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution to comply with the supervisory actions applicable to institutions in the next lower capital category (but may not reclassify a significantly undercapitalized institution as critically undercapitalized) if the FDIC determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or that the institution has received and not corrected a less-than-satisfactory rating for any CAMELS rating category. See Note M of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Safety and Soundness Guidelines . Under FDICIA, as amended by the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (the “CDRI Act”), each federal banking agency was required to establish safety and soundness standards for institutions under its authority. The interagency guidelines require depository institutions to maintain internal controls and information systems and internal audit systems that are appropriate for the size, nature and scope of the institution’s business. The guidelines also establish certain basic standards for the documentation of loans, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, and information security. The guidelines further provide that depository institutions should maintain safeguards to prevent the payment of compensation, fees and benefits that are excessive or that could lead to material financial loss, and should take into account factors such as comparable compensation practices at comparable institutions. If the appropriate federal banking agency determines that a depository institution is not in compliance with the safety and soundness guidelines, it may require the institution to submit an acceptable plan to achieve compliance with the guidelines. A depository institution must submit an acceptable compliance plan to its primary federal regulator within 30 days of receipt of a request for such a plan. Failure to submit or implement a compliance plan may subject the institution to regulatory sanctions.

International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 . On October 26, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was enacted. This act contains the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which sets forth anti-money laundering measures affecting insured depository institutions, broker-dealers and other financial institutions. The Act requires U.S. financial institutions to adopt new policies and procedures to combat money laundering and grants the Secretary of the Treasury broad authority to establish regulations and to impose requirements and restrictions on the operations of financial institutions.

Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation . The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. These are typically known as the “OFAC” rules based on their administration by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The OFAC-administered sanctions targeting countries take many different forms. Generally, however, they contain one or more of the following elements: (i) restrictions on trade with or investment in a sanctioned country, including prohibitions against direct or indirect imports from and exports to a sanctioned country and prohibitions on “U.S. persons” engaging in financial transactions relating to making investments in, or providing investment-related advice or assistance to, a sanctioned country; and (ii) a blocking of assets in which the government or specially designated nationals of the sanctioned country have an interest, by prohibiting transfers of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including property in the possession or control of U.S. persons). Blocked assets (e.g., property and bank deposits) cannot be paid out, withdrawn, set off or transferred in any manner without a license from OFAC. Failure of a financial institution to comply with these sanctions could result in legal consequences for the institution.

Community Reinvestment Act . The Bank, like other financial institutions, is subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”). The purpose of the CRA is to encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including the needs of low-and moderate-income neighborhoods.

The federal banking agencies have implemented an evaluation system that rates an institution based on its asset size and actual performance in meeting community credit needs. Under these regulations, the institution is first evaluated and rated under two categories: a lending test and a community development test. For each of these tests, the institution is given a rating of either “outstanding,” “high satisfactory,” “low satisfactory,” “needs to improve,” or “substantial non-compliance.” A set of criteria for each rating has been developed and is included in the regulation. If an institution disagrees with a particular rating, the institution has the burden of rebutting the presumption by clearly establishing that the quantitative measures do not accurately present its actual performance, or that demographics, competitive conditions or economic or legal limitations peculiar to its service area should be considered. The ratings received under the three tests will be used to determine the overall composite CRA rating. The composite ratings currently given are: “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve” or “substantial non-compliance.”

The Bank’s CRA rating would be a factor to be considered by the FRB and the FDIC in considering applications submitted by the Bank to acquire branches or to acquire or combine with other financial institutions and take other actions and, if such rating was less than “satisfactory,” could result in the denial of such applications. During the Bank’s last compliance examination, the Bank received a satisfactory rating with respect to CRA compliance.

Federal Home Loan Bank System . The FHLB System consists of 12 district FHLBs subject to supervision and regulation by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”). The FHLBs provide a central credit facility primarily for member institutions. As a member of the FHLB of Atlanta, the Bank is required to acquire and hold shares of capital stock in the FHLB of Atlanta. The Bank was in compliance with this requirement with investment in FHLB of Atlanta stock of $2.5 million at December 31, 2017. The FHLB of Atlanta serves as a reserve or central bank for its member institutions within its assigned district. It is funded primarily from proceeds derived from the sale of consolidated obligations of the FHLB System. It offers advances to members in accordance with policies and procedures established by the FHFA and the Board of Directors of the FHLB of Atlanta. Long-term advances may only be made for the purpose of providing funds for residential housing finance, small businesses, small farms and small agribusinesses.

Reserves . Pursuant to regulations of the FRB, the Bank must maintain average daily reserves equal to 3% on transaction accounts of $15.2 million up to $110.2 million, plus 10% on the remainder. This percentage is subject to adjustment by the FRB. Because required reserves must be maintained in the form of vault cash or in a noninterest bearing account at a Federal Reserve Bank, the effect of the reserve requirement is to reduce the amount of the institution’s interest-earning assets. As of December 31, 2017, the Bank met its reserve requirements.

The Bank is also subject to the reserve requirements of North Carolina commercial banks. North Carolina law requires state nonmember banks to maintain, at all times, a reserve fund in an amount set by the Commissioner.

Liquidity Requirements . FDIC policy requires that banks maintain an average daily balance of liquid assets (cash, certain time deposits, mortgage-backed securities, loans available for sale and specified United States government, state, or federal agency obligations) in an amount which it deems adequate to protect the safety and soundness of the Bank. The FDIC currently has no specific level which it requires. The Bank maintains its liquidity position under policy guidelines based on liquid assets in relationship to deposits and short-term borrowings. Based on its policy calculation guidelines, the Bank’s calculated liquidity ratio was 11.34% of total deposits and short-term borrowings at December 31, 2017, which management believes is adequate.

Dividend Restrictions . Under FDIC regulations, the Bank is prohibited from making any capital distributions if after making the distribution, the Bank would have: (i) a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8.0%; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0%; or (iii) a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%. The FDIC and the Commissioner have the power to further restrict the payment of dividends by the Bank.

Limits on Loans to One Borrower . The Bank generally is subject to both FDIC regulations and North Carolina law regarding loans to any one borrower, including related entities. Under applicable law, with certain limited exceptions, loans and extensions of credit by a state chartered nonmember bank to a person outstanding at one time and not fully secured by collateral having a market value at least equal to the amount of the loan or extension of credit shall not exceed 15% of the unimpaired capital of the Bank. In addition, the Bank has an internal policy that loans and extensions of credit fully secured by readily marketable collateral having a market value at least equal to the amount of the loan or extension of credit shall not exceed 10% of the unimpaired capital fund of the Bank. Under the internal policy, the Bank’s loans to one borrower were limited to $10.5 million at December 31, 2017.

Transactions with Related Parties . Transactions between the Bank and any affiliate are governed by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. An affiliate of the Bank is any company or entity which controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the Bank. In a holding company context, the parent holding company of a bank (such as the Registrant) and any companies which are controlled by such parent holding company are affiliates of the bank. Generally, Sections 23A and 23B (i) limit the extent to which an institution or its subsidiaries may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10% of such institution’s capital stock and surplus, and contain an aggregate limit on all such transactions with all affiliates to an amount equal to 20% of such capital stock and surplus and (ii) require that all such transactions be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable, to the institution or subsidiary as those provided to a non-affiliate. The term “covered transaction” includes the making of loans, purchase of assets, issuance of a guarantee and similar other types of transactions.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Stockholders . The Bank is subject to the restrictions contained in Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and the applicable regulations thereunder (“Regulation O”) on loans to executive officers, directors and principal stockholders. Under Section 22(h), loans to a director, executive officer and to a greater than 10% stockholder of a state nonmember bank and certain affiliated interests of such persons, may not exceed, together with all other outstanding loans to such person and related interests, the institution’s loans-to-one-borrower limit and all loans to such persons may not exceed the institution’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. Section 22(h) also prohibits loans above amounts prescribed by the appropriate federal banking agency to directors, executive officers and greater than 10% stockholders of a depository institution, and their respective affiliates, unless such loan is approved in advance by a majority of the board of directors of the institution with any “interested” director not participating in the voting. Regulation O prescribes the loan amount (which includes all other outstanding loans to such person) as to which such prior board of directors approval is required as being the greater of $25,000 or 5% of capital and surplus (or any loans aggregating $500,000 or more). Further, Section 22(h) requires that loans to directors, executive officers and principal stockholders generally be made on terms substantially the same as offered in comparable transactions to other persons. Section 22(h) also generally prohibits a depository institution from paying the overdrafts of any of its executive officers or directors.

The Bank is also subject to the additional requirements and restrictions of Regulation O on loans to executive officers. Section 22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act requires approval by the board of directors of a depository institution for such extensions of credit and imposes reporting requirements for and additional restrictions on the type, amount and terms of credits to such officers. In addition, Section 106 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”) prohibits extensions of credit to executive officers, directors, and greater than 10% stockholders of a depository institution by any other institution which has a correspondent banking relationship with the institution, unless such extension of credit is on substantially the same terms as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons and does not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features.

The Volcker Rule . Under provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act referred to as the “Volcker Rule,” certain limitations are placed on the ability of bank holding companies and their affiliates to engage in sponsoring, investing in and transacting with certain investment funds, including hedge funds and private equity funds. The Volcker Rule also places restrictions on proprietary trading, which could impact certain hedging activities. The Volcker Rule, which became fully effective in July 2015, has not had a material impact on the Bank or the Registrant.

In 2017, both the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced legislation that would repeal or modify provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and significantly impact financial services regulation. Although the bills vary in content, certain key aspects include revisions to, and simplifications of, certain Volcker Rule requirements.

Restrictions on Certain Activities . State chartered nonmember banks with deposits insured by the FDIC are generally prohibited from engaging in equity investments that are not permissible for a national bank. The foregoing limitation, however, does not prohibit FDIC-insured state banks from acquiring or retaining an equity investment in a subsidiary in which the bank is a majority owner. State chartered banks are also prohibited from engaging as a principal in any type of activity that is not permissible for a national bank and, subject to certain exceptions, subsidiaries of state chartered FDIC-insured banks may not engage as a principal in any type of activity that is not permissible for a subsidiary of a national bank, unless in either case, the FDIC determines that the activity would pose no significant risk to the DIF and the bank is, and continues to be, in compliance with applicable capital standards.

The Registrant cannot predict what legislation might be enacted or what regulations might be adopted in the future, or if enacted or adopted, the effect thereof on the Bank’s operations.

Regulation of the Registrant

Federal Regulation . The Registrant is a registered bank holding company subject to examination, regulation and periodic reporting under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as administered by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board has adopted capital adequacy guidelines for bank holding companies on a consolidated basis.

The status of the Registrant as a registered bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act does not exempt it from certain federal and state laws and regulations applicable to corporations generally, including, without limitation, certain provisions of the federal securities laws.

The Registrant is required to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board to acquire all, or substantially all, of the assets of any bank or bank holding company. Prior Federal Reserve Board approval is required for the Registrant to acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting securities of any bank or bank holding company if, after giving effect to such acquisition, it would, directly or indirectly, own or control more than five percent of any class of voting shares of such bank or bank holding company.

In addition, in certain such cases, an application to, and the prior approval of, the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks may also be required.

The Registrant is required to give the Federal Reserve Board prior written notice of any purchase or redemption of its outstanding equity securities if the gross consideration for the purchase or redemption, when combined with the net consideration paid for all such purchases or redemptions during the preceding 12 months, is equal to 10% or more of the Registrant’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may disapprove such a purchase or redemption if it determines that the proposal would constitute an unsafe and unsound practice, or would violate any law, regulation, Federal Reserve Board order or directive, or any condition imposed by, or written agreement with, the Federal Reserve Board. Such notice and approval is not required for a bank holding company that would be treated as “well-capitalized” and “well-managed” under applicable regulations of the Federal Reserve Board, that has received a composite “1” or “2” rating at its most recent bank holding company inspection by the Federal Reserve Board, and that is not the subject of any unresolved supervisory issues.

In addition, a bank holding company is prohibited generally from engaging in, or acquiring five percent or more of any class of voting securities of any company engaged in, non-banking activities. One of the principal exceptions to this prohibition is for activities found by the Federal Reserve Board to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. Some of the principal activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined by regulation to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto are:

- making or servicing loans;

- performing certain data processing services;

- providing discount brokerage services;

- acting as fiduciary, investment or financial advisor;

- leasing personal or real property;

- making investments in corporations or projects designed primarily to promote community welfare; and

- acquiring a savings and loan association.

In evaluating a written notice of such an acquisition, the Federal Reserve Board will consider various factors, including among others the financial and managerial resources of the notifying bank holding company and the relative public benefits and adverse effects which may be expected to result from the performance of the activity by an affiliate of such company. The Federal Reserve Board may apply different standards to activities proposed to be commenced de novo and activities commenced by acquisition, in whole or in part, of a going concern. The required notice period may be extended by the Federal Reserve Board under certain circumstances, including a notice for acquisition of a company engaged in activities not previously approved by regulation of the Federal Reserve Board. If such a proposed acquisition is not disapproved or subjected to conditions by the Federal Reserve Board within the applicable notice period, it is deemed approved by the Federal Reserve Board.

However, with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which became effective on March 11, 2000, the types of activities in which a bank holding company may engage were significantly expanded. Subject to various limitations, the Modernization Act generally permits a bank holding company to elect to become a “financial holding company.” A financial holding company may affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are “financial in nature.” Among the activities that are deemed “financial in nature” are, in addition to traditional lending activities, securities underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities, sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies, insurance underwriting and agency activities, certain merchant banking activities and activities that the Federal Reserve Board considers to be closely related to banking.

A bank holding company may become a financial holding company under the Modernization Act if each of its subsidiary banks is “well-capitalized” under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act prompt corrective action provisions, is well managed and has at least a satisfactory rating under the Community Reinvestment Act. In addition, the bank holding company must file a declaration with the Federal Reserve Board that the bank holding company wishes to become a financial holding company. A bank holding company that falls out of compliance with these requirements may be required to cease engaging in some of its activities. The Registrant has not yet elected to become a financial holding company.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Federal Reserve Board serves as the primary “umbrella” regulator of financial holding companies, with supervisory authority over each parent company and limited authority over its subsidiaries. Expanded financial activities of financial holding companies generally will be regulated according to the type of such financial activity: banking activities by banking regulators, securities activities by securities regulators and insurance activities by insurance regulators. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also imposes additional restrictions and heightened data privacy and disclosure requirements regarding non-public information collected by financial institutions.

Capital Requirements . The Federal Reserve Board uses capital adequacy guidelines in its examination and regulation of bank holding companies. If capital falls below minimum guidelines, a bank holding company may, among other things, be denied approval to acquire or establish additional banks or non-bank businesses.

The Federal Reserve Board’s capital guidelines establish the following minimum regulatory capital requirements for bank holding companies:

The leverage capital requirement consists of a minimum ratio of total capital to total assets of 4.0%, with an expressed expectation that banking organizations generally should operate above such minimum level. The risk-based requirement consists of a minimum ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8.0%, of which at least one-half must be Tier 1 capital (which consists principally of shareholders’ equity). The Tier 1 leverage requirement consists of a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets of 3.0% for the most highly-rated companies, with minimum requirements of 4.0% to 5.0% for all others.

The risk-based and leverage standards presently used by the Federal Reserve Board are minimum requirements, and higher capital levels will be required if warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profiles of individual banking organizations. Further, any banking organization experiencing or anticipating significant growth would be expected to maintain capital ratios, including tangible capital positions (i.e., Tier 1 capital less all intangible assets), well above the minimum levels.

Source of Strength for Subsidiaries . Bank holding companies are required to serve as a source of financial strength for their depository institution subsidiaries, and, if their depository institution subsidiaries become undercapitalized, bank holding companies may be required to guarantee the subsidiaries’ compliance with capital restoration plans filed with their bank regulators, subject to certain limits.

Dividends . As a bank holding company that does not, as an entity, currently engage in separate business activities of a material nature, the Registrant’s ability to pay cash dividends depends upon the cash dividends the Registrant receives from the Bank. At present, the Registrant’s only source of income is dividends paid by the Bank and interest earned on any investment securities the Registrant holds. The Registrant must pay all of its operating expenses from funds it receives from the Bank. Therefore, shareholders may receive dividends from the Registrant only to the extent that funds are available after payment of our operating expenses and the board decides to declare a dividend. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board generally prohibits bank holding companies from paying dividends except out of operating earnings where the prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with the bank holding company’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition.

The FDIC Improvement Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies biennially to review risk-based capital standards to ensure that they adequately address interest rate risk, concentration of credit risk and risks from non-traditional activities and, since adoption of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, to do so taking into account the size and activities of depository institutions and the avoidance of undue reporting burdens. In 1995, the agencies adopted regulations requiring as part of the assessment of an institution’s capital adequacy the consideration of (a) identified concentrations of credit risks, (b) the exposure of the institution to a decline in the value of its capital due to changes in interest rates and (c) the application of revised conversion factors and netting rules on the institution’s potential future exposure from derivative transactions .

In addition, the agencies in September 1996 adopted amendments to their respective risk-based capital standards to require banks and bank holding companies having significant exposure to market risk arising from, among other things, trading of debt instruments, (1) to measure that risk using an internal value-at-risk model conforming to the parameters established in the agencies’ standards and (2) to maintain a commensurate amount of additional capital to reflect such risk. The new rules were adopted effective January 1, 1997, with compliance mandatory from and after January 1, 1998.

Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), depository institutions are liable to the FDIC for losses suffered or anticipated by the FDIC in connection with the default of a commonly controlled depository institution or any assistance provided by the FDIC to such an institution in danger of default.

Subsidiary banks of a bank holding company are subject to certain quantitative and qualitative restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Act on any extension of credit to, or purchase of assets from, or letter of credit on behalf of, the bank holding company or its subsidiaries, and on the investment in or acceptance of stocks or securities of such holding company or its subsidiaries as collateral for loans. In addition, provisions of the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve Board regulations limit the amounts of, and establish required procedures and credit standards with respect to, loans and other extensions of credit to officers, directors and principal shareholders of the Bank, the Registrant, any subsidiary of the Registrant and related interests of such persons. Moreover, subsidiaries of bank holding companies are prohibited from engaging in certain tying arrangements (with the holding company or any of its subsidiaries) in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services.

Any loans by a bank holding company to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of the subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank would be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment. This priority would also apply to guarantees of capital plans under the FDIC Improvement Act.

Incentive Compensation Policies and Restrictions . In July 2010, the federal banking agencies issued guidance which applies to all banking organizations supervised by the agencies. Pursuant to the guidance, to be consistent with safety and soundness principles, a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should: (1) provide employees with incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward; (2) be compatible with effective controls and risk management; and (3) be supported by strong corporate governance including active and effective oversight by the banking organization’s board of directors. Monitoring methods and processes used by a banking organization should be commensurate with the size and complexity of the organization and its use of incentive compensation.

In addition, in March 2011, the federal banking agencies, along with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, released a proposed rule intended to ensure that regulated financial institutions design their incentive compensation arrangements to account for risk. Specifically, the proposed rule would require compensation practices of the Registrant and the Bank to be consistent with the following principles: (1) compensation arrangements appropriately balance risk and financial reward; (2) such arrangements are compatible with effective controls and risk management; and (3) such arrangements are supported by strong corporate governance. In addition, financial institutions with $1 billion or more in assets would be required to have policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the rule and would be required to submit annual reports to their primary federal regulator. In May 2016, the federal bank regulatory agencies replaced the regulations proposed in 2011 with a new proposal. The comment period has closed and a final rule has not yet been published.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 . On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”) was signed into law. The Tax Act includes a number of provisions that impact the Registrant, including the following:

Future Legislation

The Registrant cannot predict what legislation might be enacted or what regulations might be adopted, or if enacted or adopted, the effect thereof on the Registrant’s operations.