Unless otherwise indicated or unless the context requires otherwise, all references in this report to “the Company”, “we”, “us”, “our”, or similar references, mean The First Bancshares, Inc. and our subsidiaries, including our banking subsidiary, The First, on a consolidated basis. References to “The First” or the “Bank” mean our wholly owned banking subsidiary, The First.

First Bank.

construction and acquisition loans. In addition, we offer interest rate swap agreements to certain commercial customers to facilitate the their risk management strategies. Our lending activities are subject to a variety of lending limits imposed by federal law. While differing limits apply in certain circumstances based on the type of loan or the nature of the borrower (including the borrower’s relationship to the bank), in general we are subject to an aggregate loans-to-one-borrower limit of 15% of our unimpaired capital and surplus.

or through our website www.thefirstbank.com as soon as reasonably practicable after each is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Information appearing on the Company’s website is not part of any report that it files with the SEC.

subsidiaries, to meet their respective regulatory capital requirements. The Bank Holding Company Act further requires that consummation of approved bank holding company or bank acquisitions or mergers must be delayed for a period of not less than 15 or more than 30 days following the date of Federal Reserve approval. During such 15 to 30-day period, the Department of Justice has the right to review the competitive aspectseffectiveness of the proposed transaction. The Departmentcompanies in combating money laundering.

Source of Strength Doctrine

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies must be well-capitalized and well-managed to engage in interstate transactions. In the past, only the subsidiary banks were required to meet those standards. The Federal Reserve Board’s “source of strength doctrine” has now been codified, mandating that bank holding companies such as the Company serve as a source of strength for their subsidiary banks, such that the bank holding company must be able to provide financial assistance in the event the subsidiary bank experiences financial distress.

Capital Requirements

Federal banking regulators have adopted a system using risk-based capital guidelines to evaluate the capital adequacy of banks and bank holding companies that is based upon the 1988 capital accord of the Bank for International Settlements’ Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”), a committee of central banks and bank regulators from the major industrialized countries that coordinates international standards for bank regulation. Under the guidelines, specific categories of assets and off-balance-sheet activities such as letters of credit are assigned risk weights, based generally on the perceived credit or other risks associated with the asset. Off-balance-sheet activities are assigned a credit conversion factor based on the perceived likelihood that they will become on-balance-sheet assets. These risk weights are multiplied by corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk weighted” asset base which is then measured against various measures of capital to produce capital ratios.

An organization’s capital is classified in one of two tiers, Core Capital, or Tier 1, and Supplementary Capital, or Tier 2. Tier 1 capital includes common stock, retained earnings, qualifying non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, minority interests in the equity of consolidated subsidiaries, a limited amount of qualifying trust preferred securities and qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock at the holding company level, less goodwill and most intangible assets. Tier 2 capital includes perpetual preferred stock and trust preferred securities not meeting the Tier 1 definition, mandatory convertible debt securities, subordinated debt, and allowances for loan and lease losses. Each category is subject to a number of regulatory definitional and qualifying requirements.

The Basel Committee in 2010 released a set of international recommendations for strengthening the regulation, supervision and risk management of banking organizations, known as Basel III. In July 2013, the Federal Reserve published final rules for the adoption of the Basel III regulatory capital framework (the “Basel III Capital Rules”). The Basel III Capital Rules became effective for us on January 1, 2015, with certain transition provisions phasing in over a period that ended on January 1, 2019. The Basel III Capital Rules established a new category of capital measure, Common Equity Tier 1 capital ("CET1"), which includes a limited number of capital instruments from the existing definition of Tier 1 Capital, as well as raised minimum thresholds for Tier 1 Leverage capital (100 basis points), and Tier 1 Risk-based capital (200 basis points).

The Basel III Capital Rules established the following minimum capital ratios: 4.5 percent CET1 to risk-weighted assets; 6.0 percent Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets; 8.0 percent total capital to risk-weighted assets; and 4.0 percent Tier 1 leverage ratio to average consolidated assets. In addition, the Basel III Capital Rules also introduced a minimum “capital conservation buffer” equal to 2.5% of an organization’s total risk-weighted assets, which exists in addition to these new required minimum CET1, Tier 1, and total capital ratios. The “capital conservation buffer,” which must consist entirely of CET1, is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. The Basel III Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1, which include 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 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1. Under this guidance banking institutions with a CETI, Tier 1 Capital Ratio and Total Risk Based Capital above the minimum regulatory adequate capital ratios but below the capital conservation buffer will face constraints on their ability to pay dividends, repurchase equity and pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers, based on the amount of the shortfall.

The Company and The First elected in 2015 to exclude the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income items included in stockholders’ equity from the determination of regulatory capital under the Basel III Capital Rules. Based on estimated capital ratios using Basel III definitions, the Company and The First currently exceed all capital requirements of the new rule, including the fully phased-in conservation buffer.

In the first quarter of 2020, U.S. federal regulatory authorities issued an interim final rule that provides banking organizations that adopt CECL during the 2020 calendar year with the option to delay for two years the estimated impact of CECL on regulatory

capital relative to regulatory capital determined under the prior incurred loss methodology, followed by a three-year transition period to phase out the aggregate amount of the capital benefit provided during the initial two-year delay (i.e., a five-year transition in total).

Certain regulatory capital ratios of the Company and The First, as of December 31, 2020, are shown in the following table:

​

​

The essential difference between the leverage capital ratio and the risk-based capital ratios is that the latter identify and weight both balance sheet and off-balance sheet risks. Tier 1 capital generally includes common equity, retained earnings, qualifying minority interests (issued by consolidated depository institutions or foreign bank subsidiaries), accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and an amount of qualifying perpetual preferred stock, limited to 50% of Tier 1 capital. In calculating Tier 1 capital, goodwill and other disallowed intangibles and disallowed deferred tax assets and certain other assets are excluded. Tier 2 capital is a secondary component of risk-based capital, consisting primarily of perpetual preferred stock that may not be included as Tier 1 capital, mandatory convertible securities, certain types of subordinated debt and an amount of the allowance for loan losses (limited to 1.25% of risk weighted assets).

The risk-based capital guidelines are designed to make regulatory capital requirements more sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banks and bank holding companies, to take into account off-balance sheet exposure and to minimize disincentives for holding liquid assets. Under the risk-based capital guidelines, assets are assigned to one of four risk categories: 0%, 20%, 50% and 100%. For example, U.S. Treasury securities are assigned to the 0% risk category while most categories of loans are assigned to the 100% risk category. Off-balance sheet exposures such as standby letters of credit are risk-weighted and all or a portion thereof are included in risk-weighted assets based on an assessment of the relative risks that they present. The risk-weighted asset base is equal to the sum of the aggregate dollar values of assets and off-balance sheet items in each risk category, multiplied by the weight assigned to that category.

The Company has elected to delay its adoption of ASU 2016-13, as provided by the CARES Act. The Company currently anticipates CECL adoption to occur as of January 1, 2021. In the first quarter of 2020, U.S. federal regulatory authorities issued an interim final rule that provides banking organizations that adopt CECL during the 2020 calendar year with the option to delay for two years the estimated impact of CECL on regulatory capital relative to regulatory capital determined under the prior incurred loss methodology, followed by a three-year transition period to phase out the aggregate amount of the capital benefit provided during the initial two-year delay (i.e., a five-year transition in total).

Prompt Corrective Action and Undercapitalization

The FDICIA established a system of prompt corrective action regulations and policies to resolve the problems of undercapitalized insured depository institutions. Under this system, insured depository institutions are ranked in one of five capital categories as described below. Regulators are required to take mandatory supervisory actions and are authorized to take other discretionary actions of increasing severity with respect to insured depository institutions in the three undercapitalized categories. The five capital categories for insured depository institutions under the prompt corrective action regulations consist of:

The prompt corrective action regulations provide that an institution may be downgraded to the next lower category if its regulator determines, after notice and opportunity for hearing or response, that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or has received and not corrected a less-than-satisfactory rating for any of the categories of asset quality, management, earnings or liquidity in its most recent examination.

Federal bank regulatory agencies are required to implement arrangements for prompt corrective action for institutions failing to meet minimum requirements to be at least adequately capitalized. FDICIA imposes an increasingly stringent array of restrictions, requirements and prohibitions as an organization’s capital levels deteriorate. A bank rated "adequately capitalized" may not accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits. A "significantly undercapitalized" institution is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management and other restrictions. The OCC has only very limited discretion in dealing with a "critically undercapitalized" institution and generally must appoint a receiver or conservator (the FDIC) if the capital deficiency is not corrected promptly.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), “critically undercapitalized” banks may not, beginning 60 days after becoming critically undercapitalized, make any payment of principal or interest on their subordinated debt (subject to certain limited exceptions). In addition, under Section 18(i) of the FDIA, banks are required to obtain the advance consent of the FDIC to retire any part of their subordinated notes. Under the FDIA, a bank may not pay interest on its subordinated notes if such interest is required to be paid only out of net profits, or distribute any of its capital assets, while it remains in default on any assessment due to the FDIC.

Federal bank regulators may set capital requirements for a particular banking organization that are higher than the minimum ratios when circumstances warrant. Federal Reserve and OCC guidelines provide that banking organizations experiencing significant growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets. Concentration of credit risks, interest rate risk (imbalances in rates, maturities or sensitivities) and risks arising from non-traditional activities, as well as an institution’s ability to manage these risks, are important factors taken into account by regulatory agencies in assessing an organization’s overall capital adequacy.

The OCC and the Federal Reserve also use a leverage ratio as an additional tool to evaluate the capital adequacy of banking organizations. The leverage ratio is a company’s Tier 1 capital divided by its average total consolidated assets. A minimum leverage ratio of 3.0% is required for banks and bank holding companies that either have the highest supervisory rating or have implemented the appropriate federal regulatory authority’s risk-adjusted measure for market risk. All other banks and bank holding companies are required to maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, unless a different minimum is specified by an appropriate regulatory authority. In order to be considered well capitalized the leverage ratio must be at least 5.0%.

Our Bank’s leverage ratio was 10.4% at December 31, 2020 and, as a result, it is currently classified as “well capitalized” for purposes of the OCC’s prompt corrective action regulations.

The risk-based and leverage capital ratios established by federal banking regulators are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet specified criteria, assuming that they otherwise have received the highest regulatory ratings in their most recent examinations. Banking organizations not meeting these criteria are expected to operate with capital positions in excess of the minimum ratios. Regulators can, from time to time, change their policies or interpretations of banking practices to require changes in risk weights assigned to our Bank’s assets or changes in the factors considered in order to evaluate capital adequacy, which may require our Bank to obtain additional capital to support existing asset levels or future growth or reduce asset balances in order to meet minimum acceptable capital ratios.

Additional Regulatory Issues

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve, the OCC and the FDIC issued joint guidance on executive compensation designed to help ensure that a banking organization’s incentive compensation policies do not encourage imprudent risk taking and are consistent with the safety and soundness of the organization. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act required those agencies, along with the SEC, to adopt rules to require reporting of incentive compensation and to prohibit certain compensation arrangements. The objective of the guidance is to assure that incentive compensation arrangements (i) provide incentives that do notthe agencies determine to encourage excessive risk-taking, (ii) are compatible with effective internal controls and risk management and (iii) are supported by strong corporate governance, including oversightinappropriate risks by the board of directors.institution. The banking agencies issued proposed rules in 2011 and previously issued guidance on sound incentive compensation policies. In 2016, the Federal Reserve and the FDICbanking agencies also proposed rules that would, depending upon the assets of the institution, directly regulate incentive compensation arrangements and would require enhanced oversight and recordkeeping. As of December 31, 2020,2022, these rules have not been implemented.

We have undertaken efforts to ensure that our incentive compensation plans do not encourage inappropriate risks, consistent with three key principles-that incentive compensation arrangements should appropriately balance risk and financial rewards, be compatible with effective controls and risk management, and be supported by strong corporate governance.

National banks and their holding companies which have been chartered or registered or undergone a change in control within the past two years or which have been deemed by the OCC orover the Federal Reserve Board, respectively, toSystem as a result of owning the stock and the stock cannot be troubled institutions must give the OCCsold or the Federal Reserve Board, respectively, thirty days prior noticetraded.

banks if allowed by state law. All branching in which The First may engage remains subject to regulatory approval and adherence to applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act (the “CRA”) requires depository institutions to assist in meeting the credit needs of their market areas consistent with safe and sound banking practice. Under the Community Reinvestment Act, each depository institution is required to help meet the credit needs of its market areas by, among other things, providing credit, making investments and providing community development services to low- and moderate-income individuals and communities. Depository institutions are periodically examined for compliance with the CRA and are assigned ratings. In order for a financial holding company to commence new activity permitted by the BHCA, each insured depository institution, subsidiarythe claims of depositors of the financialinstitution, including the claims of the FDIC as subrogee of insured depositors, and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as a receiver, will have priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution, including those of the parent bank holding company mustcompany.

Changes to federal preemption. The Dodd-Frank Act created a new independent supervisory body, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) that is housed within the Federal Reserve. The CFPB is the primary regulator for federal consumer financial statutes. State attorneys general are authorized to enforce new regulations issued by the CFPB. Although the application of most state consumer financial laws to The First will continue to be preempted under the National Bank Act, OCC determinations of such preemption are made on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it is possible that state consumer financial laws enacted in the future may be held to apply to our business activities. The cost of complying with any such additional laws could have a negative impact on our financial results.

Mortgage Rules. During 2013, the CFPB finalized a series of rules related to the extension of residential mortgage loans by banks. Among these rules are requirements that a bank make a good faith determination that a borrower has the ability to repay a mortgage loan prior to extending such credit, a requirement that certain mortgage loans provide for escrow payments, new appraisal requirements, and specific rules regarding how loan originators may be compensated and the servicing of residential mortgage loans. The implementation of these new rules began in January 2014.

Volcker Rule. In December 2013, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the OCC, the Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the “Prohibitions And Restrictions On Proprietary Trading And Certain Interests In, And Relationships With, Hedge Funds And Private Equity Funds,” commonly referred to as the Volcker Rule, which regulates and restricts investments which may be made by banks. The Volcker Rule was adopted to implement a portion of the Dodd-Frank Act and new Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act, which prohibits any banking entity from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, or sponsoring or having certain relationships with, a hedge fund or private equity fund (“covered funds”), subject to certain exemptions. The Regulatory Relief Act narrowed the “banking entity” definition under the Volcker Rule by excluding from the term “insured depository institution” an institution that does not have, and is not controlled by a company that has more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, and does not have total trading assets and trading liabilities of more than 5% of total consolidated assets. The intended effect of narrowing the scope of the “banking entity” definition is to reduce the regulatory burden imposed by the Volcker Rule on community banks, which generally include banks such as The First with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion and limited trading activities.

Debit Interchange Fees

Interchange fees, or “swipe” fees, are fees that merchants pay to credit card companies and card-issuing banks such as The First for processing electronic payment transactions on their behalf. The maximum permissible interchange fee that an issuer may receive for an electronic debit transaction is the sum of 21 cents per transaction and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction, subject to an upward adjustment of 1 cent if an issuer certifies that it has implemented policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve the fraud-prevention standards set forth by the Federal Reserve.

In addition, the legislation prohibits card issuers and networks from entering into exclusive arrangements requiring that debit card transactions be processed on a single network or only two affiliated networks, and allows merchants to determine transaction routing. Due to the Company’s size, the Federal Reserve rule limiting debit interchange fees has not reduced our debit card interchange revenues.

Summary

The foregoing is a brief summary of certain statutes, rules and regulations affecting the Company and The First. It is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of all statutes and regulations having an impact on the operations of such entities.

Increased regulation generally has resulted in increased legal and compliance expense.

Finally, additional bills may be introduced in the future in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures to alter the structure, regulation and competitive relationships of financial institutions. It cannot be predicted whether and in what form any of these proposals will be adopted or the extent to which the business of the Company and The First may be affected thereby.

Effect of Governmental Monetary and Fiscal Policies

Unpredictable market conditions may adversely affect the industry in which we operate.

We are subject to risks related to changes in market interest rates.

Evaluation of investment securities for other-than-temporary impairment involves subjective determinations and could materially impact our results of operations and financial condition.

Natural disasters, public health emergencies, acts of war or terrorism and other external events could affect our ability to operate.

The Company's operations and profitability are impacted by business and economic conditions generally, as well as those in the primary banking markets in which it operates. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in historic job losses and decreases in economic activity. While the duration and full extent of job losses and magnitude of economic dislocation are not yet known, it is clear that they may impact the ability of individuals and businesses to make payments, adversely affect the value of underlying collateral and the ability of guarantors to make payments in the case of default, which may decrease demand for the Company's products and services and otherwise adversely impact the Company's financial condition, results of operations and business.

The United States and various state and local governments have implemented various programs designed to aid individuals and businesses, but the impact of, and extent to which, these efforts will be successful cannot be determined at this time. We have participated in some of these programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), and likely will continue to participate in and facilitate such programs. Such programs have been developed and implemented rapidly, often with little immediate guidance from regulatory authorities, creating uncertainty regarding the rules for participating in and facilitating these programs in a compliant manner. Since the opening of the PPP, many banks have been subject to litigation regarding the process and procedures that such banks used in processing applications for the PPP and claims related to agent fees. We may experience losses as a result of our participation in and facilitation of PPP and similar government stimulus and relief programs, including losses arising from fraud, litigation or regulatory action.

Federal, state and local governments have mandated or encouraged financial services companies to make accommodations to borrowers and other customers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Legal and regulatory responses to concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic could result in additional regulation or restrictions affecting the conduct of our business in the future. In addition to the potential affects from negative economic conditions noted above, the Company instituted a program to help COVID-19 impacted customers. This program includes waiving NSF fees, offering payment deferment and other loan relief, as appropriate, for customers impacted by COVID-19. The Company's liquidity could be negatively impacted if a significant number of customers apply and are approved for the deferral of payments. In addition, if these deferrals are not effective in mitigating the effect of COVID-19 on the Company's customers, it may adversely affect its business and results of operations more substantially over a longer period of time.

COVID-19 presents a significant risk to our loan portfolio. Timely loan repayment and the value of collateral supporting the loans are affected by the strength of our borrower's business. Concern about the spread of COVID-19 has caused and is likely to continue to cause business shutdowns, limitations on commercial activity and financial transactions, labor shortages, supply chain interruptions, increased unemployment and commercial property vacancy rates, reduced profitability and ability for property owners to make mortgage payments, and overall economic and financial market instability, all of which may cause our customers to be unable to make scheduled loan payments. If the effects of COVID-19 result in widespread and sustained repayment shortfalls on loans in our portfolio, we could incur significant delinquencies, foreclosures and credit losses, particularly if the available collateral is insufficient to cover our exposure. The future effects of COVID-19 on economic activity could negatively affect the collateral values associated with our existing loans, the ability to liquidate the real estate collateral securing our residential and commercial real estate loans, our ability to maintain loan origination volume and to obtain additional financing, the future demand for or profitability of our lending and services, and the financial condition and credit risk of our customers. Further, in the event of delinquencies, regulatory changes and policies designed to protect borrowers may slow or prevent us from making our business decisions or may result in a delay in our taking certain remediation and collection actions, such as foreclosure. Approximately 14% of our loan portfolio also includes exposure to sectors that are expected to be subject to increased risk from COVID-19, including hotels, restaurants, retail, and direct energy.

As a result of the adverse impact of COVID-19 on our customers, we have faced and may continue to face a decrease in demand for certain products, reduced access to our branches by our customers, and disruptions in the operations of its vendors. The pandemic could also result in recognition of additional credit losses in the Company's loan portfolios and increase its allowance for credit losses as both businesses and consumers are negatively impacted by the economic downturn. In addition, in future periods the Company will be required to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the carrying value of certain of its assets, including goodwill, and to conduct impairments tests on those assets, which may result in impairment charges on these assets in future periods that could be material.

Effective March 2020, the Federal Reserve lowered the primary credit rate by 150 basis points to 0.25 percent to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and to support the liquidity and stability of banking institutions as they serve the increased demand for credit. We expect a long duration of reduced interest rates to negatively impact our net interest income, margin, cost of borrowing and future profitability and to have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

In order to protect the health of our customers and employees, and to comply with applicable government restrictions, we have modified our business practices, including restricting employee travel, directing many employees to work remotely, cancelling in-person

meetings and implementing our business continuity plans and protocols to the extent necessary. We may take further such actions that we determine are in the best interest of our employees, customers and communities or as may be required by government order. These precautions could impact demand for the Company's products and services.

As many of our employees are required to work from home, our internal controls over financial reporting could also be negatively affected as the remote working environment could necessitate new processes, procedures, and controls. The increased reliance on remote access to information systems also increases the Company's exposure to potential cybersecurity breaches and could impact the Company's productivity. Additionally, the Company's business customers are increasingly required to work remotely as well and may not have appropriately secured remote networks may be more vulnerable to cyber-attacks or phishing schemes that could also affect us. Furthermore, if a large proportion of the Company's key employees were to contract COVID-19 or be quarantined as a result of the virus, then the Company's operations could be adversely impacted and its business continuity plans may not prove effective.

Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations and business. The extent to which the pandemic impacts the Company's results will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including the duration of the pandemic, government and regulatory responses to the pandemic, new information which may emerge concerning its severity and the actions necessary to contain it or address its impact, among others. Behavioral changes are not fully known and may not be temporary. See the section captioned "COVID-19 Impact" in Part II. Financial Information, Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations elsewhere in this report for further discussion.

Merger-Related Risks

procedures, operations, technologies and systems that must be integrated in connection with the integration of these companies’ businesses. While we have assumed that a certain level of expenses would be incurred in connection with the acquisitions, there are many factors beyond our control that could affect the total amount or the timing of the integration and implementation expenses.

investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. Given the lower trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock, or the expectation of these sales, could cause our stock price to fall.