As a bank holding company, we also can elect to be treated as a “financial holding company,” which would allow us to engage in a broader array of activities. In sum, a financial holding company can engage in activities that are financial in nature or incidental or complimentary to financial activities, including insurance underwriting, sales and brokerage activities, providing financial and investment advisory services, underwriting services and limited merchant banking activities. We have not sought financial holding company status, but may elect such status in the future as our business matures. If we were to elect in writing for financial holding company status, each insured depository institution we control would have to be well capitalized, well managed and have at least a satisfactory rating under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) (discussed below).

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

Change in Control. Two statutes, the Bank Holding Company Act and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with regulations promulgated under them, require some form of regulatory review before any company may acquire “control” of a bank or a bank holding company. Under the Bank Holding Company Act, control is deemed to exist if a company acquires 25% or more of any class of voting securities of a bank holding company; controls the election of a majority of the members of the board of directors; or exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company. In guidance issued in 2008, the Federal Reserve has stated that an investor generally will not be viewed as having a controlling influence over a bank holding company when the investor holds, in aggregate, less than 33% of the total equity of a bank or bank holding company (voting and nonvoting equity), provided such investor’s ownership does not include 15% or more of any class of voting securities. Prior Federal Reserve approval is necessary before an entity acquires sufficient control to become a bank holding company. Natural persons, certain non-business trusts, and other entities are not treated as companies (or bank holding companies), and their acquisitions are not subject to review under the Bank Holding Company Act. State laws generally, including South Carolina law, require state approval before an acquirer may become the holding company of a state bank.

Under the Change in Bank Control Act, a person or company is generally required to file a notice with the Federal Reserve if it will, as a result of the transaction, own or control 10% or more of any class of voting securities or direct the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company and either if the bank or bank holding company has registered securities or if the acquirer would be the largest holder of that class of voting securities after the acquisition. For a change in control at the holding company level, both the Federal Reserve and the subsidiary bank’s primary federal regulator must approve the change in control; at the bank level, only the bank’s primary federal regulator is involved. Transactions subject to the Bank Holding Company Act are exempt from Change in Control Act requirements. For state banks, state laws, including thatthose of South Carolina, typically require approval by the state bank regulator as well.

Source of Strength. There are a number of obligations and restrictions imposed by law and regulatory policy on bank holding companies with regard to their depository institution subsidiaries that are designed to minimize potential loss to depositors and to the FDIC insurance funds in the event that the depository institution becomes in danger of defaulting under its obligations to repay deposits. Under a policy of the Federal Reserve, a bank holding company is required to serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary depository institutions and to commit resources to support such institutions in circumstances where it might not do so absent such policy. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), to avoid receivership of its insured depository institution subsidiary, a bank holding company is required to guarantee the compliance of any insured depository institution subsidiary that may become “undercapitalized” within the terms of any capital restoration plan filed by such subsidiary with its appropriate federal banking agency up to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5% of the institution’s total assets at the time the institution became undercapitalized, or (ii) the amount which is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all applicable capital standards as of the time the institution fails to comply with such capital restoration plan.

The Federal Reserve also has the authority under the Bank Holding Company Act to require a bank holding company to terminate any activity or relinquish control of a nonbank subsidiary (other than a nonbank subsidiary of a bank) upon the Federal Reserve’s determination that such activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness or stability of any subsidiary depository institution of the bank holding company. Further, federal law grants federal bank regulatory authorities’ additional discretion to require a bank holding company to divest itself of any bank or nonbank subsidiary if the agency determines that divestiture may aid the depository institution’s financial condition.

In addition, the “cross guarantee” provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) require insured depository institutions under common control to reimburse the FDIC for any loss suffered or reasonably anticipated by the FDIC as a result of the default of a commonly controlled insured depository institution or for any assistance provided by the FDIC to a commonly controlled insured depository institution in danger of default. The FDIC’s claim for damages is superior to claims of shareholders of the insured depository institution or its holding company, but is subordinate to claims of depositors, secured creditors and holders of subordinated debt (other than affiliates) of the commonly controlled insured depository institutions.

The FDIA also provides that amounts received from the liquidation or other resolution of any insured depository institution by any receiver must be distributed (after payment of secured claims) to pay the deposit liabilities of the institution prior to payment of any other general or unsecured senior liability, subordinated liability, general creditor or shareholder. This provision would give depositors a preference over general and subordinated creditors and shareholders in the event a receiver is appointed to distribute the assets of our Bank.

Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such 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 will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

Capital Requirements. The Federal Reserve imposes certain capital requirements on thea bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act, including a minimum leverage ratio and a minimum ratio of “qualifying” capital to risk-weighted assets. These requirements are essentially the same as those that apply to the Bank and are described below under “First Community Bank—Capital Regulations.” However, because the Company currently qualifies as a small bank holding company, these capital requirements do not currently apply to the Company. Subject to our capital requirements and certain other restrictions, we are able to borrow money to make a capital contribution to the Bank, and these loans may be repaid from dividends paid from the Bank to the Company. Our ability to pay dividends depends on, among other things, the Bank’s ability to pay dividends to us, which is subject to regulatory restrictions as described below in “First Community Bank—Dividends.” We are also able to raise capital for contribution to the Bank by issuing securities without having to receive regulatory approval, subject to compliance with federal and state securities laws.

Dividends. Since the Company is a bank holding company, its ability to declare and pay dividends is dependent on certain federal and state regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies. In general, the Federal Reserve’s policies provide that dividends should be paid only out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the bank holding company appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve’s policies also require that a bank holding company serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks by standing ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to those banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and by maintaining the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks where necessary. In addition, under the prompt corrective action regulations, the ability of a bank holding company to pay dividends may be restricted if a subsidiary bank becomes undercapitalized. These regulatory policies could affect the ability of the Company to pay dividends or otherwise engage in capital distributions.

In addition, since the Company is legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and does not conduct stand-alone operations, its ability to pay dividends depends on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to it, which is also subject to regulatory restrictions as described below in “First Community Bank – Dividends.”

South Carolina State Regulation. As a South Carolina bank holding company under the South Carolina Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, we are subject to limitations on any sale to, or merger and to regulation by the S.C. Board.with, other financial institutions. We are not required to obtain the approval of the S.C. Board prior to acquiring the capital stock of a national bank, but we must notify them at least 15 days prior to doing so. We must receive the S.C. Board’s approval prior to engaging in the acquisition of a South Carolina state charteredstate-chartered bank or another South Carolina bank holding company.

First Community Bank

As a South Carolina state bank, the Bank’s primary federal regulator is the FDIC and the Bank is also regulated and examined by the S.C. Board. Deposits in the Bank are insured by the FDIC up to a maximum amount of $250,000. The FDIC insurance coverage limit applies per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category.

The S.C. Board and the FDIC regulate or monitor virtually all areas of the Bank’s operations, including:

These agencies, and the federal and state laws applicable to the Bank’s operations, extensively regulate various aspects of our banking business, including, among other things, permissible types and amounts of loans, investments and other activities, capital adequacy, branching, interest rates on loans and on deposits, the maintenance of reserves on demand deposit liabilities, and the safety and soundness of our banking practices.

All insured institutions must undergo regular on-site examinations by their appropriate banking agency. The cost of examinations of insured depository institutions and any affiliates may be assessed by the appropriate federal banking agency against each institution or affiliate as it deems necessary or appropriate. Insured institutions are required to submit annual reports to the FDIC, their federal regulatory agency, and state supervisor when applicable. The FDIC has developed a method for insured depository institutions to provide supplemental disclosure of the estimated fair market value of assets and liabilities, to the extent feasible and practicable, in any balance sheet, financial statement, report of condition or any other report of any insured depository institution. The FDIC and the other federal banking regulatory agencies also have issued standards for all insured depository institutions relating, among other things, to the following:

Prompt Corrective Action. The FDICIA established a “prompt corrective action” program in which every bank is placed in one of five regulatory categories, depending primarily on its regulatory capital levels. The FDIC and the other federal banking regulators are permitted to take increasingly severe action as a bank’s capital position or financial condition declines below the “Adequately Capitalized” level described below. Regulators are also empowered to place in receivership or require the sale of a bank to another depository institution when a bank’s leverage ratio reaches two percent. Better capitalized institutions are generally subject to less onerous regulation and supervision than banks with lesser amounts of capital. The FDIC’s regulations set forth five capital categories, each with specific regulatory consequences. The categories are:

If the FDIC determines, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, that the bank is in an unsafe or unsound condition, the regulator is authorized to reclassify the bank to the next lower capital category (other than critically undercapitalized) and require the submission of a plan to correct the unsafe or unsound condition.

If a bank is not well capitalized, it cannot accept brokered deposits without prior regulatory approval. In addition, a bank that is not well capitalized cannot offer an effective yield in excess of 75 basis points over interest paid on deposits of comparable size and maturity in such institution’s normal market area for deposits accepted from within its normal market area, or national rate paid on deposits of comparable size and maturity for deposits accepted outside the bank’s normal market area. Moreover, the FDIC generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be categorized as undercapitalized. Undercapitalized institutions are subject to growth limitations (an undercapitalized institution may not acquire another institution, establish additional branch offices or engage in any new line of business unless determined by the appropriate federal banking agency to be consistent with an accepted capital restoration plan, or unless the FDIC determines that the proposed action will further the purpose of prompt corrective action) and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The agencies may not accept a capital restoration plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with the capital restoration plan. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of an amount equal to 5.0% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became categorized as undercapitalized or the amount that is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards applicable with respect to such institution as of the time it fails to comply with the plan. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is categorized as significantly undercapitalized.

Significantly undercapitalized categorized depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become categorized as adequately capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. The appropriate federal banking agency may take any action authorized for a significantly undercapitalized institution if an undercapitalized institution fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fails in any material respect to implement a plan accepted by the agency. A critically undercapitalized institution is subject to having a receiver or conservator appointed to manage its affairs and for loss of its charter to conduct banking activities.

An insured depository institution may not pay a management fee to a bank holding company controlling that institution or any other person having control of the institution if, after making the payment, the institution, would be undercapitalized. In addition, an institution cannot make a capital distribution, such as a dividend or other distribution that is in substance a distribution of capital to the owners of the institution if following such a distribution the institution would be undercapitalized. Thus, if payment of such a management fee or the making of such would cause a bank to become undercapitalized, it could not pay a management fee or dividend to the bank holding company.

As of December 31, 2017,2018, the Bank was deemed to be “well capitalized.”

Standards for Safety and Soundness. The FDIA also requires the federal banking regulatory agencies to prescribe, by regulation or guideline, operational and managerial standards for all insured depository institutions relating to: (i) internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems; (ii) loan documentation; (iii) credit underwriting; (iv) interest rate risk exposure; and (v) asset growth. The agencies also must prescribe standards for asset quality, earnings, and stock valuation, as well as standards for compensation, fees and benefits. The federal banking agencies have adopted regulations and Interagency Guidelines Prescribing Standards for Safety and Soundness to implement these required standards. These guidelines set forth the safety and soundness standards that the federal banking agencies use to identify and address problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. Under the regulations, if the FDIC determines that the Bank fails to meet any standards prescribed by the guidelines, the agency may require the Bank to submit to the agency an acceptable plan to achieve compliance with the standard, as required by the FDIC. The final regulations establish deadlines for the submission and review of such safety and soundness compliance plans.

Regulatory Examination. The FDIC also requires the Bank to prepare annual reports on the Bank’s financial condition and to conduct an annual audit of its financial affairs in compliance with its minimum standards and procedures.

All insured institutions must undergo regular on-site examinations by their appropriate banking agency. The cost of examinations of insured depository institutions and any affiliates may be assessed by the appropriate federal banking agency against each institution or affiliate as it deems necessary or appropriate. Insured institutions are required to submit annual reports to the FDIC, their federal regulatory agency, and state supervisor when applicable. The FDIC has developed a method for insured depository institutions to provide supplemental disclosure of the estimated fair market value of assets and liabilities, to the extent feasible and practicable, in any balance sheet, financial statement, report of condition or any other report of any insured depository institution. The federal banking regulatory agencies prescribe, by regulation, standards for all insured depository institutions and depository institution holding companies relating, among other things, to the following:

Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders. The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and its other subsidiaries. Various legal limitations restrict the Bank from lending or otherwise supplying funds to the Company or its non-bank subsidiaries. The Company and the Bank are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve Regulation W.

Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act places limits on the amount of loans or extensions of credit by a bank to any affiliate, including its holding company, and on a bank’s investments in, or certain other transactions with, affiliates and on the amount of advances to third parties collateralized by the securities or obligations of any affiliates of the bank. Section 23A also applies to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that cause a bank to have credit exposure to an affiliate. The aggregate of all covered transactions is limited in amount, as to any one affiliate, to 10% of the Bank’s capital and surplus and, as to all affiliates combined, to 20% of the Bank’s capital and surplus. Furthermore, within the foregoing limitations as to amount, each covered transaction must meet specified collateral requirements. The Bank is forbidden to purchase low quality assets from an affiliate.

Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, among other things, prohibits an institution from engaging in certain transactions with certain affiliates unless the transactions are on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to such institution or its subsidiaries, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with nonaffiliated companies. If there are no comparable transactions, a bank’s (or one of its subsidiaries’) affiliate transaction must be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that in good faith would be offered to, or would apply to, nonaffiliated companies. These requirements apply to all transactions subject to Section 23A as well as to certain other transactions.

The affiliates of a bank include any holding company of the bank, any other company under common control with the bank (including any company controlled by the same shareholders who control the bank), any subsidiary of the bank that is itself a bank, any company in which the majority of the directors or trustees also constitute a majority of the directors or trustees of the bank or holding company of the bank, any company sponsored and advised on a contractual basis by the bank or an affiliate, and any mutual fund advised by a bank or any of the bank’s affiliates. Regulation W generally excludes all non-bank and non-savings association subsidiaries of banks from treatment as affiliates, except to the extent that the Federal Reserve decides to treat these subsidiaries as affiliates.

The Bank is also subject to certain restrictions on extensions of credit to executive officers, directors, certain principal stockholders, and their related interests. Extensions of credit include derivative transactions, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and lending transactions to the extent that such transactions cause a bank to have credit exposure to an insider. Any extension of credit to an insider (i) must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral requirements, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with unrelated third parties and (ii) must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features.

Dividends.The Company’sOur principal source of cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to its shareholders, is dividends it receives from the Bank. Statutory and regulatory limitations apply to the Bank’s payment of dividends to the Company. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board. The FDIC also has the authority under federal law to enjoin a bank from engaging in what in its opinion constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting its business, including the payment of a dividend under certain circumstances.

Branching.Federal legislation permits out-of-state acquisitions by bank holding companies, interstate branching by banks, and interstate merging by banks. The Dodd-Frank Act removed previous state law restrictions on de novo interstate branching in states such as South Carolina and Georgia. This change effectively permits out of state banks to open de novo branches in states where the laws of such state would permit a bank chartered by that sate to open a de novo branch.

Anti-Tying Restrictions. Under amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act and Federal Reserve regulations, a bank is prohibited from engaging in certain tying or reciprocity arrangements with its customers. In general, a bank may not extend credit, lease, sell property, or furnish any services or fix or vary the consideration for these on the condition that (i) the customer obtain or provide some additional credit, property, or services from or to the bank, the bank holding company or subsidiaries thereof or (ii) the customer may not obtain some other credit, property, or services from a competitor, except to the extent reasonable conditions are imposed to assure the soundness of the credit extended. Certain arrangements are permissible: a bank may offer combined-balance products and may otherwise offer more favorable terms if a customer obtains two or more traditional bank products; and certain foreign transactions are exempt from the general rule. A bank holding company or any bank affiliate also is subject to anti-tying requirements in connection with electronic benefit transfer services.

Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA requires that the FDIC evaluate the record of the Bank in meeting the credit needs of its local community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. These factors are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions, and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria could impose additional requirements and limitations on our Bank.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “GLBA”) made various changes to the CRA. Among other changes, CRA agreements with private parties must be disclosed and annual CRA reports must be made available to a bank’s primary federal regulator. A bank holding company will not be permitted to become a financial holding company and no new activities authorized under the GLBA may be commenced by a holding company or by a bank financial subsidiary if any of its bank subsidiaries received less than a satisfactory CRA rating in its latest CRA examination.

Financial Subsidiaries. Under the GLBA, subject to certain conditions imposed by their respective banking regulators, national and state-chartered banks are permitted to form “financial subsidiaries” that may conduct financial or incidental activities, thereby permitting bank subsidiaries to engage in certain activities that previously were impermissible. The GLBA imposes several safeguards and restrictions on financial subsidiaries, including that the parent bank’s equity investment in the financial subsidiary be deducted from the bank’s assets and tangible equity for purposes of calculating the bank’s capital adequacy. In addition, the GLBA imposes new restrictions on transactions between a bank and its financial subsidiaries similar to restrictions applicable to transactions between banks and non-bank affiliates.

Consumer Protection Regulations. Activities of the Bank are subject to a variety of statutes and regulations designed to protect consumers. Interest and other charges collected or contracted for by the Bank are subject to state usury laws and federal laws concerning interest rates. The Bank’s loan operations are also subject to federal laws applicable to credit transactions, such as:

The deposit operations of the Bank also are subject to:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) is an independent regulatory authority housed within the Federal Reserve. The CFPB has broad authority to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products. The CFPB has the authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets for compliance with federal consumer laws. The authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, such as the Bank, for compliance with federal consumer laws remains largely with those institutions’ primary regulators. However, the CFPB may participate in examinations of these smaller institutions on a “sampling basis” and may refer potential enforcement actions against such institutions to their primary regulators. As such, the CFPB may participate in examinations of the Bank.

The CFPB has issued a number of significant rules that impact nearly every aspect of the lifecycle of a residential mortgage loan. These rules implement Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, TILA and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). Among other things, the rules adopted by the CFPB require banks to: (i) develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with a “reasonable ability-to-repay” test; (ii) implement new or revised disclosures, policies and procedures for originating and servicing mortgages, including, but not limited to, pre-loan counseling, early intervention with delinquent borrowers and specific loss mitigation procedures for loans secured by a borrower’s principal residence, and mortgage origination disclosures, which integrate existing requirements under TILA and RESPA; (iii) comply with additional restrictions on mortgage loan originator hiring and compensation; and (iv) comply with new disclosure requirements and standards for appraisals and certain financial products.

Bank regulators take into account compliance with consumer protection laws when considering approval of a proposed expansionary proposals.

Enforcement Powers. The Bank and its “institution-affiliated parties,” including its management, employee’s agent’s independent contractors and consultants, such as attorneys and accountants, and others who participate in the conduct of the financial institution’s affairs, are subject to potential civil and criminal penalties for violations of law, regulations or written orders of a government agency. These practices can include the failure of an institution to timely file required reports or the filing of false or misleading information or the submission of inaccurate reports. Civil penalties may be as high as $1,000,000 a day for such violations. Criminal penalties for some financial institution crimes have been increased to twenty years. In addition, regulators are provided with greater flexibility to commence enforcement actions against institutions and institution-affiliated parties. Possible enforcement actions include the termination of deposit insurance. Furthermore, banking agencies’ powers to issue cease-and-desist orders have been expanded. Such orders may, among other things, require affirmative action to correct any harm resulting from a violation or practice, including restitution, reimbursement, indemnifications or guarantees against loss. A financial institution may also be ordered to restrict its growth, dispose of certain assets, rescind agreements or contracts, or take other actions as determined by the ordering agency to be appropriate.

Anti-Money Laundering. Financial institutions must maintain anti-money laundering programs that include established internal policies, procedures, and controls; a designated compliance officer; an ongoing employee training program; and testing of the program by an independent audit function. The Company and the Bank are also prohibited from entering into specified financial transactions and account relationships and must meet enhanced standards for due diligence and “knowing your customer” in their dealings with foreign financial institutions and foreign customers. Financial institutions must take reasonable steps to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and to report any suspicious transactions, and recent laws provide law enforcement authorities with increased access to financial information maintained by banks. Anti-money laundering obligations have been substantially strengthened as a result of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (which we refer to as the “USA PATRIOT Act”), enacted in 2001 and renewed through 2019. Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations and are required to consider compliance in connection with the regulatory review of applications. The regulatory authorities have been active in imposing cease and desist orders and money penalty sanctions against institutions that have not complied with these requirements.

USA PATRIOT Act/Bank Secrecy Act. Financial institutions must maintain anti-money laundering programs that include established internal policies, procedures, and controls; a designated compliance officer; an ongoing employee training program; and testing of the program by an independent audit function. The USA PATRIOT Act, amended, in part, the Bank Secrecy Act and provides for the facilitation of information sharing among governmental entities and financial institutions for the purpose of combating terrorism and money laundering by enhancing anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws, as well as enhanced information collection tools and enforcement mechanics for the U.S. government, including: (i) requiring standards for verifying customer identification at account opening; (ii) rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering; (iii) reports by nonfinancial trades and businesses filed with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for transactions exceeding $10,000; and (iv) filing suspicious activities reports if a bank believes a customer may be violating U.S. laws and regulations and requires enhanced due diligence requirements for financial institutions that administer, maintain, or manage private bank accounts or correspondent accounts for non-U.S. persons. Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations and are required to consider compliance in connection with the regulatory review of applications.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) can send to the banking regulatory agencies lists of the names of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. The Bank can be requested, to search its records for any relationships or transactions with persons on those lists. If the Bank finds any relationships or transactions, it must file a suspicious activity report and contact the FBI.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which is a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”), is responsible for helping to insure that United States entities do not engage in transactions with “enemies” of the United States, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress. OFAC has sent, and will send, our banking regulatory agencies lists of names of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts. If the Bank finds a name on any transaction, account or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, it must freeze such account, file a suspicious activity report and notify the FBI. The Bank has appointed an OFAC compliance officer to oversee the inspection of its accounts and the filing of any notifications. The Bank actively checks high-risk OFAC areas such as new accounts, wire transfers and customer files. The Bank performs these checks utilizing software, which is updated each time a modification is made to the lists provided by OFAC and other agencies of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.

Privacy, Data Security and Credit Reporting. Financial institutions are required to disclose their policies for collecting and protecting confidential information. Customers generally may prevent financial institutions from sharing nonpublic personal financial information with nonaffiliated third parties except under narrow circumstances, such as the processing of transactions requested by the consumer. Additionally, financial institutions generally may not disclose consumer account numbers to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing or other marketing to consumers. It is the Bank’s policy not to disclose any personal information unless required by law.

Recent cyber attacks against banks and other institutions that resulted in unauthorized access to confidential customer information have prompted the Federal banking agencies to issue several warnings and extensive guidance on cyber security. The agencies are likely to devote more resources to this part of their safety and soundness examination than they have in the past.

In addition, pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the “FACT Act”) and the implementing regulations of the federal banking agencies and Federal Trade Commission, the Bank is required to have in place an “identity theft red flags” program to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft. The Bank has implemented an identity theft red flags program designed to meet the requirements of the FACT Act and the joint final rules. Additionally, the FACT Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to generally prohibit a person from using information received from an affiliate to make a solicitation for marketing purposes to a consumer, unless the consumer is given notice and a reasonable opportunity and a reasonable and simple method to opt out of the making of such solicitations.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies. Our earnings are affected by domestic economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States government and its agencies. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have had, and are likely to continue to have, an important impact on the operating results of commercial banks through its power to implement national monetary policy in order, among other things, to curb inflation or combat a recession. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve have major effects upon the levels of bank loans, investments and deposits through its open market operations in United States government securities and through its regulation of the discount rate on borrowings of member banks and the reserve requirements against member bank deposits. It is not possible to predict the nature or impact of future changes in monetary and fiscal policies. In December 2016, the Federal Open Market Committee raised the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points and indicated the potential for further gradual increases in the federal funds rate depending on the economic outlook.

Insurance of Accounts and Regulation by the FDIC. The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC. As insurer, the FDIC imposes deposit insurance premiums and is authorized to conduct examinations of and to require reporting by FDIC insured institutions. It also may prohibit any FDIC insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious risk to the insurance fund. The FDIC also has the authority to initiate enforcement actions against savings institutions, after giving the bank’s regulatory authority an opportunity to take such action, and may terminate the deposit insurance if it determines that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices or is in an unsafe or unsound condition.

As an FDIC-insured bank, the Bank must pay deposit insurance assessments to the FDIC based on its average total assets minus its average tangible equity. The Bank’s assessment rates are currently based on its risk classification (i.e., the level of risk it poses to the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund). Institutions classified as higher risk pay assessments at higher rates than institutions that pose a lower risk. In addition, following the fourth consecutive quarter (and any applicable phase-in period) where an institution’s total consolidated assets equal or exceed $10 billion, the FDIC will use a performance score and a loss-severity score to calculate an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses an institution’s capital level and regulatory supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess an institution’s ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations. In addition to ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances.

The FDIC’s deposit insurance fund is currently underfunded, and the FDIC has raised assessment rates and imposed special assessments on certain institutions during recent years to raise funds. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the minimum designated reserve ratio for the deposit insurance fund is 1.35% of the estimated total amount of insured deposits. In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a restoration plan to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will updateupdates its loss and income projections for the fund and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking if required. Because the reserve ratio has reached 1.35%, two deposit insurance assessment changes occurred under FDIC regulations: (1) surcharges on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more (large institutions) will cease; and (2) banks with assets of less than $10 billion, such as us, will receive assessment credits for the portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from between 1.15% and 1.35%, to be applied when the reserve ratio is at or above 1.38%, with credits starting March 31, 2019.

In addition, FDIC insured institutions are required to pay a Financing Corporation assessment to fund the interest on bonds issued to resolve thrift failures in the 1980s. The Financing Corporation quarterly assessment for the fourth quarter of 2014 equaled 1.725 basis points for each $100 of average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. These assessments, which may be revised based upon the level of deposits, will continue until the bonds mature in the years 2017 through 2019. The amount assessed on individual institutions is in addition to the amount, if any, paid for deposit insurance according to the FDIC’s risk-related assessment rate schedules. Assessment rates may be adjusted quarterly to reflect changes in the assessment base.

The FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any insured depository institution, including the Bank, if it determines after a hearing that the 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. It also may suspend deposit insurance temporarily during the hearing process for the permanent termination of insurance, if the institution has no tangible capital. If insurance of accounts is terminated, the accounts at the institution at the time of the termination, less subsequent withdrawals, shall continue to be insured for a period of six months to two years, as determined by the FDIC. Management is not aware of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of the Bank’s deposit insurance.

Incentive Compensation.The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulators and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities having at least $1 billionThere have been a number of developments in total assets that encourage inappropriate risks by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements. The agencies proposed such regulations in April 2011. However, the 2011 proposal was replaced with a new proposal in May 2016, which makes explicit that the involvement of risk management and control personnel includes not only compliance, risk management and internal audit, but also legal, human resources, accounting, financial reporting and finance roles responsible for identifying, measuring, monitoring or controlling risk-taking. A final rule had not been adopted as of December 31, 2017.

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC issued a comprehensive final guidancerecent years focused on incentive compensation policies intended to ensureplans sponsored by bank holding companies and banks, reflecting recognition by the bank regulatory agencies and Congress that theflawed incentive compensation policiespractices in the financial industry were one of banking organizations do not underminemany factors contributing to the safety and soundnessglobal financial crisis. Layered on top of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking.that are the abuses in the headlines dealing with product cross-selling incentive plans. The result is interagency guidance which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’son sound incentive compensation arrangements shouldpractices and proposed rulemaking by the agencies required under Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The interagency guidance recognized three core principles; effective incentive plans are required to: (i) provide employees incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identifyappropriately balance risk and manage risks,reward; (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management,risk-management; and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve will review, as part Much of the regular, risk-focused examination process,guidance addresses large banking organizations and, because of the size and complexity of their operations, the regulators expect those organizations to maintain systematic and formalized policies, procedures, and systems for ensuring that the incentive compensation arrangements offor all executive and non-executive employees covered by this guidance are identified and reviewed, and appropriately balance risks and rewards.  Smaller banking organizations such aslike the Company that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if itsuse incentive compensation arrangements or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a riskare expected to be less extensive, formalized, and detailed than those of the organization’s safety and soundness andlarger banks. 

Section 956 of the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, the SEC and certain other federal agenciesthe Federal Housing Finance Agency to jointly issueprescribe regulations that prohibit types of incentive-based compensation that encourage inappropriate risk taking and to disclose certain information regarding such plans. On June 10, 2016, the agencies released an updated proposed rule for comment. Section 956 will only apply to banking organizations with assets of greater than $1 billion. The Company has consolidated assets greater than $1 billion and less than $50 billion and the Company is considered a regulation on incentive compensation.Level 3 banking organization under the proposed rules. The agencies proposed such a rule in 2011, which reflected the 2010 guidance. However, the 2011 proposal was replaced with a new proposal rule in May 2016, which makes explicit that the involvement of riskrules contain mostly general principles and reporting requirements for Level 3 institutions so there are no specific prescriptions or limits, deferral requirements or claw-back mandates. Risk management and control personnel includes not only compliance, risk managementcontrols are required, as is board or committee level approval and internal audit, but also legal, human resources, accounting, financial reporting and finance roles responsible for identifying, measuring, monitoring or controlling risk-taking. Aoversight. No final rule had nothas been adopted as of December 31, 2017.issued yet.

Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate. Concentration risk exists when FDIC-insured institutions deploy too many assets to any one industry or segment. A concentration in commercial real estate is one example of regulatory concern. The interagency Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices guidance (“CRE Guidance”) provides supervisory criteria, including the following numerical indicators, to assist bank examiners in identifying banks with potentially significant commercial real estate loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny: (i) total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans, including loans secured by apartment buildings, investor commercial real estate, and construction and land loans, represent 300% or more of an institution’s total risk-based capital and the outstanding balance of the commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more in the preceding three years or (ii) construction and land development loans exceed 100% of capital. The CRE Guidance does not limit banks’ levels of commercial real estate lending activities, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentrations. On December 18, 2015, the federal banking agencies issued a statement to reinforce prudent risk-management practices related to commercial real estate lending, having observed substantial growth in many commercial real estate asset and lending markets, increased competitive pressures, rising commercial real estate concentrations in banks, and an easing of commercial real estate underwriting standards. The federal bank agencies reminded FDIC-insured institutions to maintain underwriting discipline and exercise prudent risk-management practices to identify, measure, monitor and manage the risks arising from commercial real estate lending. In addition, FDIC-insured institutions must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentration risk. Based on the Bank’s loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017,2018, its non-owner occupied commercial loans and its construction and land development loans were approximately 249%260% and 43%69% of total risk-based capital, respectively. Management will continue to monitor the level of the concentration in commercial real estate loans within the bank’s loan portfolio.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

OurThere are risks, many beyond our control, which could cause our results to differ significantly from management’s expectations. Some of these risk factors are described below. Any factor described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could, by itself or together with one or more other factors, adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations couldand/or financial condition. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently consider to not be harmed by any of the followingmaterial also may materially and adversely affect us. In assessing these risks, or other risks that have not been identified or which we believe are immaterial or unlikely. Shareholdersyou should carefully consider the risks described below in conjunction with thealso refer to other information disclosed in this Form 10-K andour SEC filings, including the information incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes.notes thereto. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ substantially from those discussed or implied in these forward-looking statements.

General Business Risks

Our business may be adversely affected by economic conditions.

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

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve, in an attempt to help the overall economy, has among other things, kept interest rates low through its targeted federal funds rate and the purchase of U.S. Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. The Federal Reserve increased the target range for the federal funds rate by 2575 basis points in December 20162017 and by a total of 75100 basis points during 20172018 and has indicated the potential for further graduala patient approach in evaluating increases in the target rate depending on the economic outlook. As the federal funds rate increases, market interest rates will likely rise, which may negatively impact the housing markets and the U.S. economic recovery.

Our decisions regarding credit risk and reserves for loan losses may materially and adversely affect our business.

Making loans and other extensions of credit is an essential element of our business. Although we seek to mitigate risks inherent in lending by adhering to specific underwriting practices, our loans and other extensions of credit may not be repaid. The risk of nonpayment is affected by a number of factors, including:

We attempt to maintain an appropriate allowance for loan losses to provide for potential losses in our loan portfolio. We periodically determine the amount of the allowance based on consideration of several factors, including:

There is no precise method of predicting credit losses; therefore, we face the risk that charge-offs in future periods will exceed our allowance for loan losses and that additional increases in the allowance for loan losses will be required. Additions to the allowance for loan losses would result in a decrease of our net income, and possibly our capital.

Federal and state regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of our management. Any increase in the amount of our provision or loans charged-off as required by these regulatory agencies could have a negative effect on our operating results.

We may have higher loan losses than we have allowed for in our allowance for loan losses.

Our actual loan losses could exceed our allowance for loan losses. Our average loan size continues to increase and reliance on our historic allowance for loan losses may not be adequate. As of December 31, 2017,2018, approximately 86.1%87.1% of our loan portfolio (excluding loans held for sale) is composed of construction (7.0%(8.1%), commercial mortgage (71.2%(71.5%) and commercial loans (7.9%(7.5%). Repayment of such loans is generally considered more subject to market risk than residential mortgage loans. Industry experience shows that a portion of loans will become delinquent and a portion of loans will require partial or entire charge-off. Regardless of the underwriting criteria utilized, losses may be experienced as a result of various factors beyond our control, including among other things, changes in market conditions affecting the value of loan collateral and problems affecting the credit of our borrowers.

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

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate. As of December 31, 2017,2018, approximately 90.4%91.1% of our loans (excluding loans held for sale) had real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. While economic conditions and real estate in our local markets in South Carolina and Georgia have improved since the end of the economic recession, there can be no assurance that our local markets will not experience another economic decline. Deterioration in the real estate market could cause us to adjust our opinion of the level of credit quality in our loan portfolio. Such a determination may lead to an additional increase in our provisions for loan losses, which could also adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, fires and floods, which could be exacerbated by potential climate change, may cause uninsured damage and other loss of value to real estate that secures these loans and may also negatively impact our financial condition.

We have a concentration of credit exposure in commercial real estate and challenges faced by the commercial real estate market could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2017,2018, we had approximately $491.6$561.4 million in loans outstanding to borrowers whereby the collateral securing the loan was commercial real estate, representing approximately 76.0%78.1% of our total loans outstanding as of that date. Approximately 36.9%40.0%, or $181.6$212.4 million, of this real estate areis owner-occupied properties. Commercial real estate loans are generally viewed as having more risk of default than residential real estate loans. They are also typically larger than residential real estate loans and consumer loans and depend on cash flows from the owner’s business or the property to service the debt. Cash flows may be affected significantly by general economic conditions, and a downturn in the local economy or in occupancy rates in the local economy where the property is located could increase the likelihood of default. Because our loan portfolio contains a number of commercial real estate loans with relatively large balances, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in our level of non-performing loans. An increase in non-performing loans could result in a loss of earnings from these loans, an increase in the related provision for loan losses and an increase in charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our commercial real estate loans have grown 21.1%14.2% or $85.6$69.8 million, since December 31, 2016.2018. The banking regulators are giving commercial real estate lending greater scrutiny, and may require banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans to implement more stringent underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as possibly higher levels of allowances for losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures.

Imposition of limits by the bank regulators on commercial and multi-family real estate lending activities could curtail our growth and adversely affect our earnings.

In 2006, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued joint guidance entitled “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices” (the “CRE Guidance”). Although the CRE Guidance did not establish specific lending limits, it provides that a bank’s commercial real estate lending exposure could receive increased supervisory scrutiny where (i) total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans, including loans secured by apartment buildings, investor commercial real estate, and construction and land loans, represent 300% or more of an institution’s total risk-based capital, and the outstanding balance of the commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more during the preceding 36 months, or (ii) construction and land development loans exceed 100% of capital. Our total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans represented 249%260% of the Bank’s total risk-based capital at December 31, 2017,2018, and our construction and land development loans represented 43%69% of the Bank’s capital at December 31, 2017.2018.

In December 2015, the regulatory agencies released a new statement on prudent risk management for commercial real estate lending (the “2015 Statement”). In the 2015 Statement, the regulatory agencies, among other things, indicate theindicated their intent to continue “to pay special attention” to commercial real estate lending activities and concentrations going forward. If the FDIC, our primary federal regulator, were to impose restrictions on the amount of commercial real estate loans we can hold in our portfolio, for reasons noted above or otherwise, our earnings would be adversely affected.

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

At December 31, 2017,2018, commercial business loans comprised 6.9%7.5% of our total loan portfolio. Our commercial business loans are originated primarily based on the identified cash flow and general liquidity of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower and/or repayment capacity of any guarantor. The borrower’s cash flow may be unpredictable, and collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial business loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use. In addition, business assets may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise, and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. Accordingly, the repayment of commercial business loans depends primarily on the cash flow and credit worthiness of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral value provided by the borrower and liquidity of the guarantor.

Changes in the financial markets could impair the value of our investment portfolio.

Our investment securities portfolio is a significant component of our total earning assets. Total investment securities averaged $271.6 million in 2018, as compared to $265.7 million in 2017, as compared to $283.6 million in 2016.2017. This represents 30.9%27.7% and 34.8%30.9% of the average earning assets for the years ended December 31, 20172018 and 2016,2017, respectively. At December 31, 2017,2018, the portfolio was 29.9%25.7% of earning assets. Turmoil in the financial markets could impair the market value of our investment portfolio, which could adversely affect our net income and possibly our capital.

As of December 31, 20172018 and 2016,2017, securities which have unrealized losses were not considered to be “other than temporarily impaired,” and we believe it is more likely than not we will be able to hold these until they mature or recover our current book value. We currently maintain substantial liquidity which supports our ability to hold these investments until they mature, or until there is a market price recovery. However, if we were to cease to have the ability and intent to hold these investments until maturity or the market prices do not recover, and we were to sell these securities at a loss, it could adversely affect our net income and possibly our capital.

Economic challenges, especially those affecting the local markets in which we operate, may reduce our customer base, our level of deposits, and demand for financial products such as loans.

Our success depends significantly on growth, or lack thereof, in population, income levels, deposits and housing starts in the geographic markets in which we operate. The local economic conditions in these areas have a significant impact on our commercial, real estate and construction loans, the ability of borrowers to repay these loans, and the value of the collateral securing these loans. Unlike larger financial institutions that are more geographically diversified, we are a community banking franchise. Adverse changes in the economic conditions of the Southeast United States in general or in our primary markets in South Carolina and Georgia could negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations and profitability. While economic conditions in the states of South Carolina and Georgia, along with the U.S. and worldwide, have improved since the economic recession, there can be no assurance that these markets will not experience another economic decline. A return of recessionary conditions could result in the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business:

Our focus on lending to small to mid-sized community-based businesses may increase our credit risk.

Most of our commercial business and commercial real estate loans are made to small business or middle market customers. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities and have a heightened vulnerability to economic conditions. If general economic conditions in the markets in which we operate negatively impact this important customer sector, our results of operations and financial condition and the value of our common stock may be adversely affected. Moreover, a portion of these loans have been made by us in recent years and the borrowers may not have experienced a complete business or economic cycle. Furthermore, the deterioration of our borrowers’ businesses may hinder their ability to repay their loans with us, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

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

The FDIC insures deposits at FDIC-insured depository institutions, such as the bank, up to applicable limits. The amount of a particular institution’s deposit insurance assessment is based on that institution’s risk classification under an FDIC risk-based assessment system. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to its regulators. Recent marketMarket developments and bank failures during and after the recession significantly depleted the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits. As a result of recentsuch economic conditions and the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, banks are nowwere assessed deposit insurance premiums based on the bank’s average consolidated total assets, and the FDIC has modified certain risk-based adjustments, which increase or decrease a bank’s overall assessment rate. This has resulted in increases to the deposit insurance assessment rates and thus raised deposit premiums for many insured depository institutions. Because the reserve ratio has reached 1.35%, two deposit insurance assessment changes occurred under FDIC regulations: (1) surcharges on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more (large institutions) will cease; and (2) banks with assets of less than $10 billion, such as us, will receive assessment credits for the portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from between 1.15% and 1.35%, to be applied when the reserve ratio is at or above 1.38%, with credits starting March 31, 2019. If these increases are insufficient for the Deposit Insurance Fund fails to meet its funding requirements, further special assessments or increases in deposit insurance premiums may be required. We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC premiums than the recently increased levels. Any future additional assessments, increases or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums could reduce our profitability, may limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities or otherwise negatively impact our operations.

Changes in prevailing interest rates may reduce our profitability.

Our results of operations depend in large part upon the level of our net interest income, which is the difference between interest income from interest- earning assets, such as loans and mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”), and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and other borrowings. Depending on the terms and maturities of our assets and liabilities, we believe it is more likely than not a significant change in interest rates could potentially have a material adverse effect on our profitability. Many factors cause changes in interest rates, including governmental monetary policies and domestic and international economic and political conditions. While we intend to manage the effects of changes in interest rates by adjusting the terms, maturities, and pricing of our assets and liabilities, our efforts may not be effective and our financial condition and results of operations could suffer.

We will face risks with respect to expansion through future acquisitions or mergers.

From time to time, we may seek to acquire other financial institutions or parts of those institutions. We may also expand into new markets or lines of business or offer new products or services. These activities would involve a number of risks, including:

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

We may not be able to fully achieve the strategic objectives and operating efficiencies that we anticipate in our acquisition activities. Inherent uncertainties exist in integrating the operations of an acquired business. In addition, the markets and industries in which the Companywe and our potential acquisition targets operate are highly competitive. We may lose customers or the customers of acquired entities as a result of an acquisition. We also may lose key personnel from the acquired entity as a result of an acquisition. We may not discover all known and unknown factors when examining a company for acquisition during the due diligence period. These factors could produce unintended and unexpected consequences for us. Undiscovered factors as a result of acquisition, pursued by non-relatednon-related third party entities, could bring civil, criminal, and financial liabilities against us, our management, and the management of those entities acquired. These factors could contribute to the Companyus not achieving the expected benefits from its acquisitions within desired time frames.

New or acquired banking office facilities and other facilities may not be profitable.

We may not be able to identify profitable locations for new banking offices. The costs to start up new banking offices or to acquire existing branches, and the additional costs to operate these facilities, may increase our non-interest expense and decrease our earnings in the short term. If branches of other banks become available for sale, we may acquire those offices. It may be difficult to adequately and profitably manage our growth through the establishment or purchase of additional banking offices and we can provide no assurance that any such banking offices will successfully attract enough deposits to offset the expenses of their operation. In addition, any new or acquired banking offices will be subject to regulatory approval, and there can be no assurance that we will succeed in securing such approval.

We are dependent on key individuals, and the loss of one or more of these key individuals could curtail our growth and adversely affect our prospects.

Michael C. Crapps, our president and chief executive officer, has extensive and long-standing ties within our primary market area and substantial experience with our operations, and he has contributed significantly to our business. If we lose the services of Mr. Crapps, he would be difficult to replace and our business and development could be materially and adversely affected.

Our success also depends, in part, on our continued ability to attract and retain experienced loan originators, as well as other management personnel. Competition for personnel is intense, and we may not be successful in attracting or retaining qualified personnel. Our failure to compete for these personnel, or the loss of the services of several of such key personnel, could adversely affect our business strategy and seriously harm our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

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

We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth, and, consequently, our historical results of operations will not necessarily be indicative of our future operations. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and legislative considerations, and competition, may also impede our ability to expand our market presence. If we experience a significant decrease in our historical rate of growth, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected because a high percentage of our operating costs are fixed expenses.

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

We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, both within and beyond our principal markets, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, regional, community and internet banks within the various markets in which we operate. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative and regulatory changes and continued consolidation. In addition, as customer preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for banks to offer products and services in more areas in which they do not have a physical location and for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting), and merchant banking. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than we can.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our underwriting decisions may materially and adversely affect our business.

While we generally underwrite the loans in our portfolio in accordance with our own internal underwriting guidelines and regulatory supervisory guidelines, in certain circumstances we have made loans which exceed either our internal underwriting guidelines, supervisory guidelines, or both. As of December 31, 2017,2018, approximately $8.3$12.3 million of our loans, or 7.86%10.76% of our Bank’s regulatory capital, had loan-to-value ratios that exceeded regulatory supervisory guidelines, of which only one loan totaling approximately $0.3 million$26 thousand had loan-to-value ratios of 100% or more. In addition, supervisory limits on commercial loan to valueloan-to-value exceptions are set at 30% of our Bank’s capital. At December 31, 2017, $1.72018, $5.2 million of our commercial loans, or 1.58%4.54% of our Bank’s regulatory capital, exceeded the supervisory loan to value ratio. The number of loans in our portfolio with loan-to-value ratios in excess of supervisory guidelines, our internal guidelines, or both could increase the risk of delinquencies and defaults in our portfolio.

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information about clients and counterparties and our financial condition could be adversely affected if we rely on misleading information.

In deciding whether to extend credit or to enter into other transactions with clients and counterparties, we may rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of clients and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information, which we do not independently verify. We also may rely on representations of clients and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. For example, in deciding whether to extend credit to clients, we may assume that a customer’s audited financial statements conform with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”)GAAP and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent we rely on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading.

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

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

As noted above, our business relies on our digital technologies, computer and email systems, software and networks to conduct its operations. Although we have information security procedures and controls in place, our technologies, systems, networks, and our customers’ devices may become the target of cyber attacks or information security breaches that could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss, or destruction of our or our customers’ or other third parties’ confidential information. Third parties with whom we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including financial intermediaries, or vendors that provide service or security solutions for our operations, and other unaffiliated third parties, including the South Carolina Department of Revenue, which had customer records exposed in a 2012 cyber attack, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints.

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

Our use of third party vendors and our other ongoing third party business relationships are subject to increasing regulatory requirements and attention.

We regularly use third party vendors as part of our business. We also have substantial ongoing business relationships with other third parties. These types of third party relationships are subject to increasingly demanding regulatory requirements and attention by our federal bank regulators. Recent regulation requires us to enhance our due diligence, ongoing monitoring and control over our third party vendors and other ongoing third party business relationships. We expect that our regulators will hold us responsible for deficiencies in our oversight and control of our third party relationships and in the performance of the parties with which we have these relationships. As a result, if our regulators conclude that we have not exercised adequate oversight and control over our third party vendors or other ongoing third party business relationships or that such third parties have not performed appropriately, we could be subject to enforcement actions, including civil money penalties or other administrative or judicial penalties or fines as well as requirements for customer remediation, any of which could have a material adverse effect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We are at risk of increased losses from fraud.

Criminals committing fraud increasingly are using more sophisticated techniques and in some cases are part of larger criminal rings, which allow them to be more effective.

The fraudulent activity has taken many forms, ranging from check fraud, mechanical devices attached to ATM machines, social engineering and phishing attacks to obtain personal information or impersonation of our clients through the use of falsified or stolen credentials. Additionally, an individual or business entity may properly identify themselves, particularly when banking online, yet seek to establish a business relationship for the purpose of perpetrating fraud. Further, in addition to fraud committed against us, we may suffer losses as a result of fraudulent activity committed against third parties. Increased deployment of technologies, such as chip card technology, defray and reduce aspects of fraud; however, criminals are turning to other sources to steal personally identifiable information, such as unaffiliated healthcare providers and government entities, in order to impersonate the consumer to commit fraud. Many of these data compromises are widely reported in the media. Further, as a result of the increased sophistication of fraud activity, we have increased our spending on systems and controls to detect and prevent fraud. This will result in continued ongoing investments in the future.

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

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

Legal and Regulatory Risks

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

We operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to examination, supervision, and comprehensive regulation by various regulatory agencies. We are subject to Federal Reserve regulation. Our Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, the regulating authority that insures customer deposits. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”), our Bank must comply with applicable regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board and the FHLB. Regulation by these agencies is intended primarily for the protection of our depositors and the deposit insurance fund and not for the benefit of our shareholders. Our Bank’s activities are also regulated under consumer protection laws applicable to our lending, deposit, and other activities. A sufficient claim against us under these laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Further, changes in laws, regulations and regulatory practices affecting the financial services industry could subject us to increased capital, liquidity and risk management requirements, create additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could also result in heightened regulatory scrutiny and in sanctions by regulatory agencies (such as a memorandum of understanding, a written supervisory agreement or a cease and desist order), civil money penalties and/or reputation damage. Any of these consequences could restrict our ability to expand our business or could require us to raise additional capital or sell assets on terms that are not advantageous to us or our shareholders and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, such violations may occur despite our best efforts.

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

In July 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule that revised their risk based capital requirements and the method for calculating risk weighted assets to make them consistent with agreements that were reached by Basel III and certain provisions of the Dodd Frank Act. This rule substantially amended the regulatory risk based capital rules applicable to us. The requirements in the rule began to phase in on January 1, 2015 for the Company and the Bank. The requirements in the rule will beBankand are now fully phased in byas of January 1, 2019.2019.

The rule includesincluded certain new and higher risk-based capital and leverage requirements than those currentlypreviously in place. Specifically, the following minimum capital requirements apply to us:requirements:

The Basel III Rule is applicable to all banking organizations that are subject to minimum capital requirements, including federal and state banks and savings and loan associations, as well as to bank and savings and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies.” A small bank holding company is generally a qualifying bank holding company or savings and loan holding company with less than $3.0 billion in consolidated assets. More stringent requirements are imposed on “advanced approaches” banking organizations—generally those organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets, $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures.

Based on the foregoing, as a small bank holding company, we are generally not subject to the capital requirements unless otherwise advised by the Federal Reserve; however, our Bank remains subject to the capital requirements.

Under the rule,Basel III Rule, Tier 1 capital is redefined to include two components: Common Equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The new and highest form of capital, Common Equity Tier 1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital includes other perpetual instruments historically included in Tier 1 capital, such as noncumulative perpetual preferred stock. Tier 2 capital consists of instruments that currently qualify in Tier 2 capital plus instruments that the rule has disqualified from Tier 1 capital treatment. Cumulative perpetual preferred stock, formerly includable in Tier 1 capital, is now included only in Tier 2 capital. Accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) is presumptively included in Common Equity Tier 1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. The rule provided a one-time opportunity at the end of the first quarter of 2015 for covered banking organizations to opt out of much of this treatment of AOCI. We made this opt-out election and, as a result, will retainretained the pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

In order to avoid restrictions on capital distributions or discretionary bonus payments to executives, a covered banking organization must maintain a “capital conservation buffer” on top of its minimum risk-based capital requirements. This buffer must consist solely of Tier 1 Common Equity, but the buffer applies to all three measurements (Common Equity Tier 1, Tier 1 capital and total capital). The capital conservation buffer will bewas phased in incrementally over time becomingand became fully effective on January 1, 2019, and will consist of an additional amount of common equity equal to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. As of January 1, 2018, we are required to hold a capital conservation buffer of 1.875%, increasing to 2.5% effective January 1, 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes in accounting standards could materially affect our financial statements.

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”), the SEC and our bank regulators change the financial accounting and reporting standards, or the interpretation thereof, and guidance that govern the preparation and disclosure of external financial statements. For example, in 2012,2016, the FASB issued a proposed standard on accounting for credit losses. The standard wouldwill replace multiple existing impairment models, including replacing an “incurred loss” model for loans with an “expected loss” model. The FASB has indicated a tentativean effective date of January 1, 2019, and final guidance is expected to be issued in the second quarter of 2016.2020. These changes are beyond our control, can be hard to predict and could materially impact how we report and disclose our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively, or apply an existing standard differently, also retrospectively, which under some circumstances could potentially result in a need to revise or restate prior period financial statements.

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

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

A capital injection may be required at times when we do not have the resources to provide it, and therefore we may be required to borrow the funds. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the holding company’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by the holding company in order to make the required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and will adversely impact the holding company’s cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

In August 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from “AAA” to “AA+”. If U.S. debt ceiling, budget deficit or debt concerns, domestic or international economic or political concerns, or other factors were to result in further downgrades to the U.S. government’s sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness, it could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions. A downgrade of the U.S. government’s credit rating or any failure by the U.S. government to satisfy its debt obligations could create financial turmoil and uncertainty, which could weigh heavily on the global banking system. It is possible that any such impact could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Failure to comply with government regulation and supervision could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties, and damage to our reputation.

Our operations are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state, and local governmental authorities. Given the currentWith any disruption in the financial markets, we expect that the government will continue to pass new regulations and laws that will impact us. Compliance with such regulations may increase our costs and limit our ability to pursue business opportunities. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, and policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties, and damage to our reputation. While we have policies and procedures in place that are designed to prevent violations of these laws, regulations, and policies, there can be no assurance that such violations will not occur.

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

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

The effectsOur ability to realize deferred tax assets may be reduced, which may adversely impact our results of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on our business have not yet been fully analyzed and could have an adverse effect on our net income.operations.

OnDeferred tax assets are reported as assets on our balance sheet and represent the decrease in taxes expected to be paid in the future because of net operating losses (“NOLs”) and tax credit carryforwards and because of future reversals of temporary differences in the bases of assets and liabilities as measured by enacted tax laws and their bases as reported in the financial statements. As of December 22,31, 2018, we had net deferred tax assets of $2.3 million, which included deferred tax assets for a federal net operating loss carryforward of $854 thousand that is expected to expire in 2037.Realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon the generation of sufficient future taxable income during the periods in which existing deferred tax assets are expected to become deductible for federal income tax purposes. Based on projections of future taxable income in periods in which deferred tax assets are expected to become deductible, management determined that the realization of our net deferred tax asset was more likely than not. As a result, we did not recognize a valuation allowance on its net deferred tax asset as of December 31, 2018 or December 31, 2017. If it becomes more likely than not that some portion or the entire deferred tax asset will not be realized, a valuation allowance must be recognized.  In December 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law. We are inenacted, which reduced the process of analyzing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and its possible effects on the Company and the Bank. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduces the corporate federal income tax rate to 21% from 35%, among other things. We cannot determine at this timeand resulted in an approximate $1.2 million write-down of our deferred tax asset in the full effectsfourth quarter of 2017, through income tax expense. These tax rate changes, in conjunction with our net income in 2017 and 2018, have resulted in a significant reduction of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Actdeferred tax asset over the last two years.  Our deferred tax asset may be further reduced in the future if estimates of future income or our tax planning strategies do not support the amount of the deferred tax assets. Charges to establish a valuation allowance with respect to our deferred tax asset could have a material adverse effect on our businessfinancial condition and financial results.results of operations.

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

The measure of our allowance for loan losses is dependent on the adoption and interpretation of accounting standards. The Financial Accounting Standards BoardFASB has issued a new credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL model, which will become applicable to us in 2019.2020. Under the CECL model, we will be required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and periodically thereafter. This differs significantly from the “incurred loss” model currently required under GAAP, which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred. Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model will materially affect how we determine our allowance for loan losses and could require us to significantly increase our allowance. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

Risks Related to an Investment in Our Common Stock

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

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

Our ability to pay cash dividends may be limited by regulatory restrictions, by our Bank’s ability to pay cash dividends to the Companyus and by our need to maintain sufficient capital to support our operations. As a South Carolina charteredCarolina-chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board. If our Bank is not permitted to pay cash dividends to the Company,us, it is unlikely that we would be able to pay cash dividends on our common stock. Moreover, holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends only when, and if declared by our board of directors. Although we have historically paid cash dividends on our common stock, we are not required to do so and our board of directors could reduce or eliminate our common stock dividend in the future.

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

Our stock price has been volatile in the past and several factors could cause the price to fluctuate substantially in the future. These factors include but are not limited to: actual or anticipated variations in earnings, changes in analysts’ recommendations or projections, our announcement of developments related to our businesses, operations and stock performance of other companies deemed to be peers, new technology used or services offered by traditional and non-traditional competitors, news reports of trends, irrational exuberance on the part of investors, new federal banking regulations, and other issues related to the financial services industry. Our stock price may fluctuate significantly in the future, and these fluctuations may be unrelated to our performance. General market declines or market volatility in the future, especially in the financial institutions sector, could adversely affect the price of our common stock, and the current market price may not be indicative of future market prices. Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for you to resell your common stock when you want and at prices you find attractive. Moreover, in the past, securities class action lawsuits have been instituted against some companies following periods of volatility in the market price of its securities. We could in the future be the target of similar litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our normal business.

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

Although our common stock is listed for trading on The NASDAQ Capital Market, the trading volume in our common stock is lower than that of other larger financial services companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of our common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. Given the relatively low trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that those sales may occur, could cause the trading price of our common stock to decline or to be lower than it otherwise might be in the absence of those sales or perceptions.

Economic and other circumstances may require us to raise capital at times or in amounts that are unfavorable to us. If we have to issue shares of common stock, they will dilute the percentage ownership interest of existing shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock and adversely affect the terms on which we may obtain additional capital.

We may need to incur additional debt or equity financing in the future to make strategic acquisitions or investments or to strengthen our capital position. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control and our financial performance. We cannot provide assurance that such financing will be available to us on acceptable terms or at all, or if we do raise additional capital that it will not be dilutive to existing shareholders.

If we determine, for any reason, that we need to raise capital, subject to applicable NASDAQ rules, our board generally has the authority, without action by or vote of the shareholders, to issue all or part of any authorized but unissued shares of stock for any corporate purpose, including issuance of equity-based incentives under or outside of our equity compensation plans. Additionally, we are not restricted from issuing additional common stock or preferred stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock or preferred stock or any substantially similar securities. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales by us of a large number of shares of common stock or preferred stock or similar securities in the market or from the perception that such sales could occur. If we issue preferred stock that has a preference over the common stock with respect to the payment of dividends or upon liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, or if we issue preferred stock with voting rights that dilute the voting power of the common stock, the rights of holders of the common stock or the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected. Any issuance of additional shares of stock will dilute the percentage ownership interest of our shareholders and may dilute the book value per share of our common stock. Shares we issue in connection with any such offering will increase the total number of shares and may dilute the economic and voting ownership interest of our existing shareholders.

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

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

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2.   Properties.

TheOur principal place of business of bothas well as the Company and our BankBank’s is located at 5455 Sunset Boulevard, Lexington, South Carolina 29072. In addition, we currently operate 1820 full-service offices located in the South Carolina counties of Lexington County (6)(6 offices), Richland County (4)(4 offices), Newberry County (2)(2 offices), Kershaw County (1)(1 office), Aiken County (1)(1 office), Greenville County (1)(2 offices), Anderson County and (1)(1 office), Pickens County (1)(1 office), and in Richmond County, Georgia (1)(2 offices), as well as a loan production office located in Greenville County, South Carolina and a mortgage loan production office located in Richland County, South Carolina. All of these properties are owned by the Bank except for the loan production office inDowntown Augusta, Georgia (Richmond County) and Greenville, South Carolina full service branch offices, which isare leased by the Bank. Although the properties owned are generally considered adequate, we have a continuing program of modernization, expansion and, when necessary, occasional replacement of facilities.

Item 3.   Legal Proceedings.

In the ordinary course of operations, we may be a party to various legal proceedings from time to time. We do not believe that there is any pending or threatened proceeding against us, which, if determined adversely, would have a material effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

None.

PART II

Item 5.    Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related StockholderShareholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

As of February 28, 2018,2019, there were approximately 1,5241,576 shareholders of record of our common stock. Our common stock trades on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the trading symbol of “FCCO”.“FCCO.” The following table sets forth the high and low sales price information as reported by NASDAQ in 2017 and 2016,for the periods indicated, and the dividends per share declared on our common stock in each such quarter. All information has been adjusted for any stock splits and stock dividends effected during the periods presented.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, theour future dividend policy of the Company is subject to the discretion of the board of directors and will depend upon a number of factors, including future earnings, financial condition, cash requirements, and general business conditions. Our ability to pay dividends is generally limited by the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to us. As a South Carolina charteredCarolina-chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board.

Pursuant to the Company’sour 2006 Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, non-employee directors may elect to defer all or any part of annual retainer fees payable in respect of the following calendar year to the director for his or her service on the board of directors or any committee of the board of directors. During the year, a number of deferred stock units are credited to the director’s account at the time such compensation would otherwise have been payable absent the election to defer equal to (i) the otherwise payable amount divided by (ii) the fair market value of a share of the Company’sour common stock on the last trading day preceding the credit date. In general, a director’s vested account balance will be distributed in a lump sum of the Company’sour common stock on the 30th day following termination of service on the board and on the board of directors of all of the Company’sour subsidiaries, including termination of service as a result of death or disability. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company2018, we credited an aggregate of 8,4335,904 deferred stock units to accounts for directors who elected to defer monthly fees or annual retainer fees for 2017.2018. The deferred stock units were issued by the Company pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 in reliance upon Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Certain financial information presented above is determined by methods other than in accordance with GAAP. These non-GAAP financial measures include “efficiency ratio,” “tangible book value at period end,” “return on average tangible common equity” and “tangible common shareholders’ equity to tangible assets.” The “efficiency ratio” is defined as non-interest expense, divided by the sum of net interest income on a tax equivalent basis and non-interest income, net of any securities gains or losses and OTTI on securities. The efficiency ratio is a measure of the relationship between operating expenses and earnings. “Tangible book value at period end” is defined as total equity reduced by recorded intangible assets divided by total common shares outstanding. “Tangible common shareholders’ equity to tangible assets” is defined as total common equity reduced by recorded intangible assets divided by total assets reduced by recorded intangible assets. Our management believes that these non-GAAP measures are useful because they enhance the ability of investors and management to evaluate and compare our operating results from period-to-period in a meaningful manner. Non-GAAP measures have limitations as analytical tools, and investors should not consider them in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of the Company’sour results as reported under GAAP.

The table below provides a reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to GAAP for the five years ended December 31:

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Overview

The Company isWe are headquartered in Lexington, South Carolina and serve as the bank holding company for the Bank. We operate from our main office in Lexington, South Carolina, and our 1820 full-service offices located in the South Carolina counties of Lexington County (6)(6 offices), Richland County (4)(4 offices), Newberry County (2)(2 offices), Kershaw County (1)(1 office), Aiken County (1)(1 office), Greenville County (1)(2 offices), Anderson County (1)(1 office), and Pickens County (1)(1 office), and in Richmond County, Georgia (1)(2 offices). In addition, we operate a mortgage loan production office in Richland County, South Carolina and a loan production office in Greenville County, South Carolina. We engage in a general commercial and retail banking business characterized by personalized service and local decision making, emphasizing the banking needs of small to medium-sized businesses, professional concerns and individuals.

The following discussion describes our results of operations for 2017,2018, as compared to 20162017 and 2015,2016, and also analyzes our financial condition as of December 31, 2017,2018, as compared to December 31, 2016.2017. Like most community banks, we derive most of our income from interest we receive on our loans and investments. A primary source of funds for making these loans and investments is our deposits, on which we pay interest. Consequently, one of the key measures of our success is our amount of net interest income, or the difference between the income on our interest-earning assets, such as loans and investments, and the expense on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits.

We have included a number of tables to assist in our description of these measures. For example, the “Average Balances” table shows the average balance during 2018, 2017 2016 and 20152016 of each category of our assets and liabilities, as well as the yield we earned or the rate we paid with respect to each category. A review of this table shows that our loans typically provide higher interest yields than do other types of interest earning assets, which is why we intend to channel a substantial percentage of our earning assets into our loan portfolio. Similarly, the “Rate/Volume Analysis” table helps demonstrate the impact of changing interest rates and changing volume of assets and liabilities during the years shown. We also track the sensitivity of our various categories of assets and liabilities to changes in interest rates, and we have included a “Sensitivity Analysis Table” to help explain this. Finally, we have included a number of tables that provide detail about our investment securities, our loans, and our deposits and other borrowings.

There are risks inherent in all loans, so we maintain an allowance for loan losses to absorb probable losses on existing loans that may become uncollectible. We establish and maintain this allowance by charging a provision for loan losses against our operating earnings. In the following section, we have included a detailed discussion of this process, as well as several tables describing our allowance for loan losses and the allocation of this allowance among our various categories of loans.

In addition to earning interest on our loans and investments, we earn income through fees and other expenses we charge to our customers. We describe the various components of this noninterest income, as well as our noninterest expense, in the following discussion. The discussion and analysis also identifies significant factors that have affected our financial position and operating results during the periods included in the accompanying financial statements. We encourage you to read this discussion and analysis in conjunction with the financial statements and the related notes and the other statistical information also included in this report.

Recent Developments

On October 20, 2017, we completed our acquisition of Cornerstone Bancorp (“Cornerstone”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cornerstone National Bank. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Cornerstone shareholders received either $11.00 in cash or 0.54 shares of the Company’s common stock, or a combination thereof, for each share of Cornerstone common stock they owned immediately prior to the merger, subject to the limitation that 30% of the outstanding shares of Cornerstone common stock were exchanged for cash and 70% of the outstanding shares of Cornerstone common stock were exchanged for shares of the Company’s common stock. The Company issued 877,318 shares of common stock in the merger.

Critical Accounting Policies

We have adopted various accounting policies that govern the application of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and with general practices within the banking industry in the preparation of our financial statements. Our significant accounting policies are described in the notes to our consolidated financial statements in this report.

Certain accounting policies involve significant judgments and assumptions by us that have a material impact on the carrying value of certain assets and liabilities. We consider these accounting policies to be critical accounting policies. The judgment and assumptions we use are based on historical experience and other factors, which we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Because of the nature of the judgment and assumptions we make, actual results could differ from these judgments and estimates that could have a material impact on the carrying values of our assets and liabilities and our results of operations.

Allowance for Loan Losses

We believe the allowance for loan losses is the critical accounting policy that requires the most significant judgment and estimates used in preparation of our consolidated financial statements. Some of the more critical judgments supporting the amount of our allowance for loan losses include judgments about the credit worthiness of borrowers, the estimated value of the underlying collateral, the assumptions about cash flow, determination of loss factors for estimating credit losses, the impact of current events, and conditions, and other factors impacting the level of probable inherent losses. Under different conditions or using different assumptions, the actual amount of credit losses incurred by us may be different from management’s estimates provided in our consolidated financial statements. Refer to the portion of this discussion that addresses our allowance for loan losses for a more complete discussion of our processes and methodology for determining our allowance for loan losses.

Goodwill and Other Intangibles

Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the sum of the estimated fair values of the tangible and identifiable intangible assets acquired less the estimated fair value of the liabilities assumed. Goodwill has an indefinite useful life and isits evaluated for impairment annually or more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired. An impairment loss is recognized to the extent that the carrying amount exceeds the asset’s fair value. Qualitative factors are assessed to first determine if it is more likely than not (more than 50%) that the carrying value of goodwill is less than fair value. These qualitative factors include but are not limited to overall deterioration in general economic conditions, industry and market conditions, and overall financial performance. If determined that it is more likely than not that there has been a deterioration in the fair value of the carrying value than the first of a two-step process would be performed. The first step, used to identify potential impairment, involves comparing each reporting unit’s estimated fair value to its carrying value, including goodwill. If the estimated fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, goodwill is considered not to be impaired. If the carrying value exceeds estimated fair value, there is an indication of potential impairment and the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment.

If required, the second step involves calculating an implied fair value of goodwill for each reporting unit for which the first step indicated impairment. The implied fair value of goodwill is determined in a manner similar to the amount of goodwill calculated in a business combination, by measuring the excess of the estimated fair value of the reporting unit, as determined in the first step, over the aggregate estimated fair values of the individual assets, liabilities and identifiable intangibles as if the reporting unit was being acquired in a business combination. If the implied fair value of goodwill exceeds the carrying value of goodwill assigned to the reporting unit, there is no impairment. If the carrying value of goodwill assigned to a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value of the goodwill, an impairment charge is recorded for the excess. An impairment loss cannot exceed the carrying value of goodwill assigned to a reporting unit, and the loss establishes a new basis in the goodwill. Subsequent reversal of goodwill impairment losses is not permitted. Management has determined that the Company haswe have four reporting units (See Note 24 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

Core deposit intangibles represent the estimated value of long-term deposit relationships acquired in bank or branch acquisition transactions. These costs are amortized over the estimated useful lives of the deposit accounts acquired on a method that we believe reasonably approximates the anticipated benefit stream from the accounts. The estimated useful lives are periodically reviewed for reasonableness.

Income Taxes and Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities

Income taxes are provided for the tax effects of the transactions reported in our consolidated financial statements and consist of taxes currently due plus deferred taxes related to differences between the tax basis and accounting basis of certain assets and liabilities, including available-for-sale securities, allowance for loan losses, write downs of OREO properties, accumulated depreciation, net operating loss carry forwards, accretion income, deferred compensation, intangible assets, and pension plan and post-retirement benefits. The deferred tax assets and liabilities represent the future tax return consequences of those differences, which will either be taxable or deductible when the assets and liabilities are recovered or settled. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are reflected at income tax rates applicable to the period in which the deferred tax assets or liabilities are expected to be realized or settled. A valuation allowance is recorded when it is “more likely than not” that a deferred tax asset will not be realized. As changes in tax laws or rates are enacted, deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted through the provision for income taxes (see Note 14) for discussion of the impact on our deferred tax asset as a result of thetaxes. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) Act reduced corporate income taxes which resulted in an adjustment of our deferred tax asset in 2017 (See Note 14 to the Consolidated financial statements for the impact of the change). We file a consolidated federal income tax return for our Bank. At December 31, 2017,2018, we are in a net deferred tax asset position.

Other-Than-Temporary Impairment

We evaluate securities for other-than-temporary impairment at least on a quarterly basis. Consideration is given to (1) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, (3) the outlook for receiving the contractual cash flows of the investments, (4) the anticipated outlook for changes in the general level of interest rates, and (5) our intent and ability to retain our investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value or for a debt security whether it is more-likely-than-not that the Companywe will be required to sell the debt security prior to recovering its fair value (See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

Business Combinations, Method of Accounting for Loans Acquired

We account for acquisitions under FASB ASC Topic 805,Business Combinations, which requires the use of the acquisition method of accounting. All identifiable assets acquired, including loans, are recorded at fair value. No allowance for loan losses related to the acquired loans is recorded on the acquisition date because the fair value of the loans acquired incorporates assumptions regarding credit risk.

Acquired credit-impaired loans are accounted for under the accounting guidance for loans and debt securities acquired with deteriorated credit quality, found in FASB ASC Topic 310-30,Receivables—Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Qualityand initially measured at fair value, which includes estimated future credit losses expected to be incurred over the life of the loans. Loans acquired in business combinations with evidence of credit deterioration are considered impaired. Loans acquired through business combinations that do not meet the specific criteria of FASB ASC Topic 310-30, but for which a discount is attributable, at least in part to credit quality, are also accounted for under this guidance. Certain acquired loans, including performing loans and revolving lines of credit (consumer and commercial), are accounted for in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 310-20, where the discount is accreted through earnings based on estimated cash flows over the estimated life of the loan.

Results of Operations

As noted above, on

On October 20, 2017, we completed the acquisition of Cornerstone. Therefore, the results for the year ended December 31, 20172018 include the impact of this acquisition for the entire year. For the year ended December 31, 2017, the impact of the acquisition includes the period from October 20, 2017 through December 31, 2017. See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information related to the Cornerstone acquisition.

Net income was $11.2 million, or $1.45 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to net income $5.8 million, or $0.85 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2017. During the year ended 2017, we recognized a tax expense adjustment resulting from the change in corporate tax rates enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed on December 22, 2017. The lowering of the corporate tax rate to 21% required that we make an approximate $1.2 million tax expense charge to adjust the value of our deferred tax asset. As a result of the enacted lower tax rates, we recovered substantially all of this charge through the lower effective tax rate in the year ended December 31, 2018. We expect to continue to benefit in future periods as a result of the lower effective corporate tax rate. Another factor impacting net income during 2017 included expenses of approximately $300 thousand related to our conversion to a new operating system and $903 thousand in expenses related to the acquisition of Cornerstone. During 2018, we had no merger or conversion related expenses. Interest income increased from $32.2 million in 2017 to $39.7 million in 2018. This was a result of an increase in average earning assets of $121.7 million in 2018 as compared to 2017. In addition, our net interest margin on a fully taxable equivalent basis improved by 17 basis points in 2018 as compared to 2017. Net interest spread, the difference between the yield on earning assets and the rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities, was 3.49% in 2018 as compared to 3.31% in 2017. The provision for loan losses was $346 thousand in 2018 as compared to $530 thousand in 2017. Increases in salary and benefit, occupancy and information technology expenses, were the largest contributors to the overall increase in non-interest expense (see discussion “Non-interest Income and Non-interest Expense”). A substantial percentage of these increases relates to the inclusion of Cornerstone expenses for the entire year of 2018 whereas in 2017 they were included for approximately 2 ½ months.

Net income was $5.8 million, or $0.85 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2017, as compared to net income $6.7 million, or $0.98 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2016. The primary reason for the decrease in net income is the tax expense adjustment of approximately $1.2 million in 2017 resulting from the change in corporate tax rates enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed on December 22, 2017. The lowering of the corporate tax rate to 21% required that we make an approximate $1.2 million tax expense charge to adjust the value of our deferred tax asset. However, as a result of the enacted lower tax rates, it is estimated that the Company will recover this charge through a lower effective tax rate over a period of approximately twelve months and, thereafter, the Company will continue to benefit from the lower effective corporate tax rate.noted previously. Another factor contributing to lower net income during 2017 as compared to 2016 included expenses of approximately $300 thousand related to our conversion to a new operating system and $903 thousand in expenses related to the acquisition of Cornerstone. The impact of these increases in non-recurring expenses were partially offset by an increase in net interest income of $2.9 million, as a result of an improvement in net interest margin and a higher level of earning assets. Net interest spread, the difference between the yield on earning assets and the rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities, was 3.31% in 2017 as compared to 3.13% in 2016. The provision for loan losses was $774 thousand in 2016 as compared to $530 thousand in 2017. Excluding the non-recurring expenses noted previously, increases in salary and benefit expense as well as debit card/ATM processing cost were the largest contributors to the overall increase in non-interest expense in 2017 as compared to 2016 (see discussion “Non-interest Income and Non-interest Expense”).

Net income was $6.7 million, or $0.98 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2016, as compared to net income $6.1 million, or $0.91 diluted earnings per common share, for the year ended December 31, 2015. The primary reason for the increase in net income is that our net interest income improved by $1.2 million from $25.3 million in 2016 to $26.5 million for 2015. This improvement was a primarily result of an increase of $46.3 million in average earning assets in 2016 as compared to 2015. See below under “Net Interest Income” and “Market Risk and Interest Rate Sensitivity” for a further discussion about the effect average earning assets on net interest income. Net interest spread, the difference between the yield on earning assets and the rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities, was 3.16% in 2015 as compared to 3.13% in 2016. The provision for loan losses was $774 thousand in 2016 as compared to $1.1 million in 2015. Non-interest income was $9.0 million for 2016 and 2015. The improvement in net income as a result of higher earning assets and the reduced provision expense were partially offset by an increase in non-interest expense of $1.1 million in 2016 as compared to 2015. Increases in salary and benefit expense as well as debit card/ATM processing cost were the largest contributors to the overall increase in non-interest expense.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income is our primary source of revenue. Net interest income is the difference between income earned on assets and interest paid on deposits and borrowings used to support such assets. Net interest income is determined by the rates earned on our interest-earning assets and the rates paid on our interest-bearing liabilities, the relative amounts of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, and the degree of mismatch and the maturity and repricing characteristics of its interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.

Net interest income totaled $35.7 million in 2018, $29.4 million in 2017 and $26.5 million in 2016 and $25.3 million in 2015.2016. The yield on earning assets was 3.74%4.05%, 3.62%3.74%, and 3.72%3.62% in 2018, 2017 2016 and 2015,2016, respectively. The rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities was 0.43%0.55%, 0.49%0.43%, and 0.56%0.49% in 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015,2016, respectively. The fully taxable equivalent net interest margin was 3.69% in 2018, 3.52% in 2017 and 3.35% in 2016 and 3.38% in 2015.2016. Our loan to deposit ratio on average during 20172018 was 73.1%75.0%, as compared to 73.1% during 2017 and 69.6% during 2016 and 68.7% during 2015.2016. Loans typically provide a higher yield than other types of earning assets and, thus, one of our goals continues to be growing the loan portfolio as a percentage of earning assets in order to improve the overall yield on earning assets and the net interest margin. At December 31, 2017,2018, the loan (including held for sale) to deposit ratio was 73.4%78.0%.

The net interest margin increased eighteen22 basis points in 20172018 as compared to 2016.2017. The yield on earning assets increased by twelve31 basis points while our cost of funds decreasedinterest-bearing liabilities increased by six12 basis points in 20172018 as compared to 2016.2017. The increase in net interest margin in 20172018 as compared to 20162017 was partially a result of the Federal Reserve Board (the “FRB”) actions to begin increasing the federal funds target rate in late 2015. From December 2015 through December 2017, therate. In 2018, this rate was increased in 25 basis point increments from a range of 0.00% to 0.25% to a range of 1.25% to 1.50%. Prior to these moves by the FRB, the rate had remained unchanged since December 2008.four times. These increases positively impact our yield on variable rate assets in the loan and investment portfolios as well as our short term investments. As a result, theThe yield on our earning assets increased from 3.62%3.74% to 3.74%4.05% in 20172018 as compared to 2016. We continue2017. The average loan balance as a percentage of earning assets was 70.0% in 2018 as compared to attempt shift67.2% in 2017. This increase in earning asset mix along with the mix of funding toincreases in short term rates noted previously accounted for the improved yield on our earning assets. Our lower cost funding sources (non-interestinclude non-interest bearing transaction accounts, interest-bearing transaction accounts, money-market accounts and savings deposits).deposits. During 2016,2017, the average balance in these accounts represented 75.6%77.7% of total deposits whereas in 20172018 they represented 77.7%79.5%. However, ourOur average other borrowings, which are typically a higher cost funding source, decreased $8.4$5.0 million in 2017 as compared to 2016.2018. Throughout 2017,2018, the treasury yield curve continued to flatten with short termshort-term rates increasing as noted above while longer term rates, including five year to 10 year treasury rates, remainedremaining relatively unchanged or increasedincreasing at a much lower rate than the shorter term rates. Over time, this can negatively impact net interest margins as shorter term funding rates increase while our fixed rate loan and investment portfolio yields do not increase to the same extent. Managing this interest rate risk continues to be a primary focus of management (see discussion of Market Rate and Interest Rate Sensitivity discussion below).

The net interest margin decreased fourincreased 18 basis points in 20162017 as compared to 2015.2016. The yield on earning assets decreasedincreased by 1012 basis points while our cost of funds decreased by sevensix basis points in 20162017 as compared to 2015.2016. The declineincrease in net interest margin in 20162017 as compared to 20152016 was partially a result of payoffs that occurredthe Federal Reserve increasing the federal funds target rate in late 2015. From December 2015 through December 2017, the rate was increased in 25 basis point increments from a range of 0.00% to 0.25% to a range of 1.25% to 1.50%. The yield on our earning assets increased from 3.62% to 3.74% in 2017 as compared to 2016. The percentage of average loans to average total earning assets was 67.2% in 2017 as compared to 63.1% in 2016. The change in our earning asset mix, along with the impact of rising short-term rates are the primary contributors in the first quarter of 2015 related to purchase impaired loans acquired12 basis point improvement in the 2014 acquisition of Savannah River Banking Company (“Savannah River”). The lower cost of funds was primarily a result of the cost of time deposits and other borrowings decreasing by four and fifty one basis points inour yield on earning assets. During 2016, and 2015, respectively. We continued to shift the mix of funding to lower cost sources (non-interest bearing transaction accounts, interest-bearing transaction accounts, money-market accounts and savings deposits). During 2015, the average balance in these accountsour lower cost deposit account funding sources, as noted above, represented 72.9%75.6% of total deposits whereas in 20162017 they represented 75.6%77.7%. OurAlso our average borrowings, which are typically a higher cost funding source, also decreased $4.5$8.4 million in 20162017 as compared to 2015. As noted above, since early 2008, interest rates had been at historic lows. The shift2016. This change in funding mix was primarily responsible for the decrease in our funding mix as well as our effortscost of interest bearing liabilities from 0.49% in 2016 to shift earning assets to the loan portfolio helped0.43% in offsetting some of the net interest margin compression resulting from the continued historically low interest rate environment.2017.

Average Balances, Income Expenses and Rates. The following table depicts, for the periods indicated, certain information related to our average balance sheet and our average yields on assets and average costs of liabilities. Such yields are derived by dividing income or expense by the average balance of the corresponding assets or liabilities. Average balances have been derived from daily averages.