Third parties provide key components of our business operations such as data processing, recording and monitoring transactions, online banking interfaces and services, internet connections and network access. While we have selected these third party vendors carefully, we do not control their actions. Any problem caused by these third parties, including poor performance of services, data breaches, failure to provide services, disruptions in communication services provided by a vendor and failure to handle current or higher volumes, could adversely affect our ability to deliver products and services to our clients and otherwise conduct our business, and may harm our reputation. Financial or operational difficulties of a third party vendor could also hurt our operations if those difficulties interfere with the vendor’s ability to serve us. Replacing these third party vendors could also create significant delay and expense. Accordingly, use of such third parties creates an unavoidable inherent risk to our business operations.
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.
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 client’s audited financial statements conform with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the client. Our financial condition and results of operations could benegatively affected to the extent we rely on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading.
All of the loans that we make are subject to written loan policies adopted by our board of directors and to supervisory guidelines imposed by our regulators. Our loan policies are designed to reduce the risks associated with the loans that we make by requiring our loan officers to take certain steps that vary depending on the type and amount of the loan, prior to closing a loan. These steps include, among other things, making sure the proper liens are documented and perfected on property securing a loan, and requiring proof of adequate insurance coverage on property securing loans. Loans that do not fully comply with our loan policies are known as “exceptions.” We categorize exceptions as policy exceptions, financial statement exceptions and document exceptions. As a result of these exceptions, such loans may have a higher risk of loan loss than the other loans in our portfolio that fully comply with our loan policies. In addition, we may be subject to regulatory action by federal or state banking authorities if they believe the number of exceptions in our loan portfolio represents an unsafe banking practice.
We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could result in failures or disruptions in our client relationship management, deposit, loan, and other systems and also the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information. While we have systems, 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. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of client business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Furthermore, information security risks for financial institutions have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists, activists, and other external parties. 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’ confidential, proprietary and other information, or otherwise disrupt our or our customers’ or other third parties’ business operations. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may also be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities.
While we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber-attacks or other information security breaches to date, we may suffer such losses in the future and any information security breach could result in significant costs to us, which may include fines and penalties, potential liabilities from governmental or third party investigations, proceedings or litigation, legal, forensic and consulting fees and expenses, costs and diversion of management attention required for investigation and remediation actions, and the negative impact on our reputation and loss of confidence of our customers and others, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results.
Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented.
We regularly review and update our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
We may need to raise additional capital in the future to support further growth, but that capital may not be available when it is needed.
We are required by regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. To support our continued growth, we may need to raise additional capital. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend in part on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside our control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you of our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, on terms acceptable to us. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be materially impaired. In addition, if we decide to raise additional equity capital, your interest could be diluted.
Negative public opinion surrounding the 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 surroundingthe Company and the financial institutions industry generally, is inherent in our business. Negative public opinion can
52
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.
Regulatory and Legal 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 regulation by the Federal Reserve. The Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, the regulating authority that insures client deposits, and by our primary state regulator, the S.C. Board. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Bank must comply with applicable regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank. 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. The 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 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.
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 recent 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.
The Dodd-Frank Act may have a material adverse effect on our operations.
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which imposes significant regulatory and compliance changes. The key effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on our business are:
| · | changes to regulatory capital requirements; |
| · | exclusion of hybrid securities, including trust preferred securities, issued on or after May 19, 2010 from Tier 1 capital; |
53
| · | creation of new government regulatory agencies (such as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which oversees systemic risk, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”), which develops and enforces rules for bank and non-bank providers of consumer financial products); |
| · | potential limitations on federal preemption; |
| · | changes to deposit insurance assessments; |
| · | regulation of debit interchange fees we earn; |
| · | changes in retail banking regulations, including potential limitations on certain fees we may charge; and |
| · | changes in regulation of consumer mortgage loan origination and risk retention. |
In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act restricts the ability of banks to engage in certain proprietary trading or to sponsor or invest in private equity or hedge funds. The Dodd-Frank Act also contains provisions designed to limit the ability of insured depository institutions, their holding companies and their affiliates to conduct certain swaps and derivatives activities and to take certain principal positions in financial instruments.
Some provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act became effective immediately upon its enactment. Many provisions, however, will require regulations to be promulgated by various federal agencies in order to be implemented, some but not all of which have been proposed or finalized by the applicable federal agencies. The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act may have unintended effects, which will not be clear until after implementation. Certain changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with the new requirements maynegatively affect our results of operations and financial condition. While we cannot predict what effect any presently contemplated or future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on us, these changes could be materially adverse to investors in our common stock.
New capital rules that were recently issued generally require insured depository institutions and their holding companies to hold more capital. The impact of the new rules on our financial condition and operations is uncertain but could be materially adverse.
On July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule for the Basel III capital framework and, on July 9, 2013, the OCC also adopted a final rule and the FDIC adopted the same provisions in the form of an "interim final rule." These rules substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to us. The rules phase in over time beginning in 2015 and will become fully effective in 2019. The rules apply to the Company as well as to the Bank.
The final rules increase capital requirements and generally include two new capital measurements that will affect us, a risk-based common equity Tier 1 ratio and a capital conservation buffer. Common Equity Tier 1 (“CET1”) capital is a subset of Tier 1 capital and is limited to common equity (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income and certain other items. Other instruments that have historically qualified for Tier 1 treatment, including non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, are consigned to a category known as Additional Tier 1 capital and must be phased out over a period of nine years beginning in 2014. The rules permit bank holding companies with less than $15 billion in assets (such as us) to continue to include trust preferred securities and non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued before May 19, 2010 in Tier 1 capital, but not CET1. Tier 2 capital consists of instruments that have historically been placed in Tier 2, as well as cumulative perpetual preferred stock.
The final rules adjust all three categories of capital by requiring new deductions from and adjustments to capital that will result in more stringent capital requirements and may require changes in the ways we do business. Among other things, the current rule on the deduction of mortgage servicing assets from Tier 1 capital has been revised in ways that are likely to require a greater deduction than we currently make and that will require the deduction to be made from CET1. This deduction phases in over a three-year period from 2015 through 2017. We closely monitor our mortgage servicing assets, and we expect to maintain our mortgage servicing asset at levels below the deduction thresholds by a combination of sales of portions of these assets from time to time either on a
54
flowing basis as we originate mortgages or through bulk sale transactions. Additionally, any gains on sale from mortgage loans sold into securitizations must be deducted in full from CET1. This requirement phases in over three years from 2015 through 2017. Under the earlier rule and through 2014, no deduction is required.
Beginning in 2015, the minimum capital requirements for the Company and the Bank will be (i) a CET1 ratio of 4.5%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital (CET1 plus Additional Tier 1 capital) of 6% (up from 4%) and (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (the current requirement). Our leverage ratio requirement will remain at the 4% level now required. Beginning in 2016, a capital conservation buffer will phase in over three years, ultimately resulting in a requirement of 2.5% on top of the CET1, Tier 1 and total capital requirements, resulting in a required CET1 ratio of 7%, a Tier 1 ratio of 8.5%, and a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Failure to satisfy any of these three capital requirements will result in limits on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases and paying discretionary bonuses. These limitations will establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions. While the final rules will result in higher regulatory capital standards, it is difficult at this time to predict when or how any new standards will ultimately be applied to us.
In addition to the higher required capital ratios and the new deductions and adjustments, the final rules increase the risk weights for certain assets, meaning that we will have to hold more capital against these assets. For example, commercial real estate loans that do not meet certain new underwriting requirements must be risk-weighted at 150%, rather than the current 100%. There are also new risk weights for unsettled transactions and derivatives. We also will be required to hold capital against short-term commitments that are not unconditionally cancelable; currently, there are no capital requirements for these off-balance sheet assets. All changes to the risk weights take effect in full in 2015.
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 were to be unable to comply with such requirements. Implementation of changes to asset risk weightings for risk-based capital calculations, items included or deducted in calculating regulatory capital or additional capital conservation buffers, could result in management modifying our business strategy and could limit our ability to make distributions, including paying dividends or buying back our shares.
The federal banking agencies are likely to issue new liquidity standards that could result in our having to lengthen the term of our funding, restructure our business lines by forcing us to seek new sources of liquidity for them, and/or increase our holdings of liquid assets.
As part of the Basel III capital process, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has finalized a new liquidity standard, a liquidity coverage ratio, which requires a banking organization to hold sufficient "high quality liquid assets" to meet liquidity needs for a 30 calendar day liquidity stress scenario. A net stable funding ratio, which imposes a similar requirement over a one-year period, is under consideration. The U.S. banking regulators have said that they intend to adopt such liquidity standards, although they have not yet proposed a rule. New rules could restrict our operations by compelling us to reduce our holdings of illiquid assets and adversely affect our results and financial condition.
Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could adversely impact our financial condition.
Our deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain deposit insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, we are required to pay quarterly deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. Although we cannot predict what the insurance assessment rates will be in the future, either deterioration in our risk-based capital ratios or adjustments to the base assessment rates could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
We face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.
55
The federal Bank Secrecy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (which we refer to as the “Patriot Act”) and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain effective anti-money laundering programs and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports as appropriate. The federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, established by the U.S. Treasury to administer the Bank Secrecy Act, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and has recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Federal and state bank regulators also have begun to focus on compliance with Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering regulations. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient or the policies, procedures and systems of the financial institutions that we have already acquired or may acquire in the future are deficient, we would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions such as restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including our acquisition plans, which would negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us.
Federal, state and local consumer lending laws 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. Over the course of 2013, the CFPB has issued several rules on mortgage lending, notably a rule requiring all home mortgage lenders to determine a borrower's ability to repay the loan. Loans with certain terms and conditions and that otherwise meet the definition of a “qualified mortgage” may be protected from liability to a borrower for failing to make the necessary determinations. In 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 Community Reinvestment Act and result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on merger and acquisition activity and restrictions on expansion activity, which could negatively affect our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.
The Federal Reserve may require us to commit capital resources to support the Bank.
56
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 the 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.
The downgrade of the U.S. credit rating could negatively affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Recent U.S. debt ceiling and budget deficit concerns together with signs of deteriorating sovereign debt conditions in Europe, have increased the possibility of additional credit-rating downgrades and economic slowdowns in the U.S. Although U.S. lawmakers passed legislation to raise the federal debt ceiling in 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from "AAA" to "AA+" in August 2011. The impact of any further downgrades to the U.S. government's sovereign credit rating or its perceived creditworthiness could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions. In January 2013, the U.S. government adopted legislation to suspend the debt limit until May 19, 2013. In October 2013, the debt ceiling was suspended until February 7, 2014, and in February 2014 the debt ceiling was suspended further until March 16, 2015. Moody's and Fitch have each warned that they may downgrade the U.S. government's rating if the federal debt is not stabilized. A downgrade of the U.S. government's credit rating or a default by the U.S. government to satisfy its debt obligations likely would create broader financial turmoil and uncertainty, which would weigh heavily on the global banking system. It is possible that any such impact could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
We are party to various 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, clients and others make claims and take legal action pertaining to our performance of fiduciary responsibilities. Whether client claims and legal action 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 client demand for those products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Risks Related to 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
57
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, the Company cannot pay cash dividends on its common stock during any calendar quarter unless full dividends on the Series T Preferred Stock for the dividend period ending during the calendar quarter have been declared and the Company has not failed to pay a dividend in the full amount of the Series T Preferred Stock with respect to the period in which such dividend payment in respect of its common stock would occur. Further, 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.
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. If the Bank is not permitted to pay cash dividends to the Company, it is unlikely that we would be able to pay cash dividends on our common stock. Moreover, holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends only when, and if declared by our board of directors.
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 Global 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.
58
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.
Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws, South Carolina law, and state and federal banking regulations, could delay or prevent a takeover by a third party.
Our articles of incorporation and bylaws could delay, defer, or prevent a third party takeover, despite possible benefit to the shareholders, or otherwise adversely affect the price of our common stock. Our governing documents:
| · | authorize a class of preferred stock that may be issued in series with terms, including voting rights, established by the board of directors without shareholder approval; |
| · | authorize 10,000,000 shares of common stock and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock that may be issued by the board of directors without shareholder approval; |
| · | classify our board with staggered three year terms, preventing a change in a majority of the board at any annual meeting; |
| · | require advance notice of proposed nominations for election to the board of directors and business to be conducted at a shareholder meeting; |
| · | grant the board of directors the discretion, when considering whether a proposed merger or similar transaction is in the best interests of the Company and our shareholders, to take into account the effect of the transaction on the employees, clients and suppliers of the Company and upon the communities in which offices of the Company are located, to the extent permitted by South Carolina law; |
| · | provide that the number of directors shall be fixed from time to time by resolution adopted by a majority of the directors then in office, but may not consist of fewer than five nor more than 25 members; and |
| · | provide that no individual who is or becomes a "business competitor" or who is or becomes affiliated with, employed by, or a representative of any individual, corporation, or other entity which the board of directors, after having such matter formally brought to its attention, determines to be in competition with us or any of our subsidiaries (any such individual, corporation, or other entity being a "business competitor") shall be eligible to serve as a director if the board of directors determines that it would not be in our best interests for such individual to serve as a director (any financial institution having branches or affiliates within Greenville County, South Carolina is presumed to be a business competitor unless the board of directors determines otherwise). |
In addition, the South Carolina business combinations statute provides that a 10% or greater shareholder of a resident domestic corporation cannot engage in a "business combination" (as defined in the statute) with such
59
corporation for a period of two years following the date on which the 10% shareholder became such, unless the business combination or the acquisition of shares is approved by a majority of the disinterested members of such corporation's board of directors before the 10% shareholder's share acquisition date. This statute further provides that at no time (even after the two-year period subsequent to such share acquisition date) may the 10% shareholder engage in a business combination with the relevant corporation unless certain approvals of the board of directors or disinterested shareholders are obtained or unless the consideration given in the combination meets certain minimum standards set forth in the statute. The law is very broad in its scope and is designed to inhibit unfriendly acquisitions but it does not apply to corporations whose articles of incorporation contain a provision electing not to be covered by the law. Our articles of incorporation do not contain such a provision. An amendment of our articles of incorporation to that effect would, however, permit a business combination with an interested shareholder even though that status was obtained prior to the amendment.
Finally, the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978 and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 generally require filings and approvals prior to certain transactions that would result in a party acquiring control of the Company or the Bank.
An investment in our common stock is not an insured deposit.
An investment in our common stock is not a bank deposit and is not insured or guaranteed by the FDIC or any other government agency. Your investment in our common stock will be subject to investment risk and you may lose all or part of your investment.
Our common stock is equity and is therefore subordinate to our existing and future indebtedness and preferred stock.
Shares of common stock are equity interests and do not constitute indebtedness. As such, shares of common stock will rank junior to all of our indebtedness and to other non-equity claims against us and our assets available to satisfy claims against us, including in our liquidation. Additionally, holders of our common stock are subject to the prior dividend and liquidation rights of holders of our outstanding preferred stock. The issued and outstanding shares of our Series T Preferred Stock have an aggregate liquidation preference of $11,242,000. Our board of directors is authorized to issue additional classes or series of preferred stock without any action on the part of the holders of our common stock and we are permitted to incur additional debt. Upon liquidation, lenders and holders of our debt securities and preferred stock would receive distributions of our available assets prior to holders of our common stock.
The Series T Preferred Stock adversely affects net income available to our common shareholders and earnings per common share.
The aggregate liquidation preference of our outstanding Series T Preferred Stock is $11,242,000. If we do not repurchase all of the outstanding shares of the Series T Preferred Stock, we will continue to be required to pay dividends on the Series T Preferred Stock at a rate of 9.0% per annum. Any dividends on the Series T Preferred Stock will reduce the net income available to common shareholders and our earnings per common share.
Item 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS.
Not applicable
Item 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES.
Not applicable
Item 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.
Not applicable
Item 5. OTHER INFORMATION.
Not applicable
60
Item 6. EXHIBITS.
The exhibits required to be filed as part of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are listed in the Index to Exhibits attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.
61
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
| |
| | | SOUTHERN FIRST BANCSHARES, INC. |
| | | Registrant |
| | | |
| | | |
| Date: October 31, 2014 | | /s/R. Arthur Seaver, Jr. |
| | | R. Arthur Seaver, Jr. |
| | | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
| | | |
| | | |
| Date: October 31, 2014 | | /s/Michael D. Dowling |
| | | Michael D. Dowling |
| | | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
62
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
| |
Exhibit
Number | | Description |
| 31.1 | | Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Principal Executive Officer. |
| | | |
| 31.2 | | Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Principal Financial Officer. |
| | | |
| 32 | | Section 1350 Certifications. |
| | | |
| 101 | | The following materials from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southern First Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, formatted in eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): (i) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (ii) Consolidated Statements of Operations, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income, (iv) Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity, (v) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows and (vi) Notes to Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements. |
| | | |
63
