approximately 35% were in a first lien position, while the remaining balance was second liens, compared to $95.6 million as of December 31, 2014, with approximately 35% in first lien positions and the remaining balance was in second liens. The average loan had a balance of approximately $84,000 and a loan to value of 71% as of March 31, 2015, compared to an average loan balance of $87,000 and a loan to value of approximately 72% as of December 31, 2014. Further, 0.4% and 0.3% of our total home equity lines of credit were over 30 days past due as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively.
Following is a summary of our loan composition at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. Of the $37.9 million in loan growth during the first quarter of 2015, $20.0 million was originated in the Greenville market, $11.4 million was originated in the Columbia market, and $6.5 million was originated in the Charleston market. In addition, $25.8 million of the increase was in loans secured by real estate, and $12.2 million in commercial business loans. In addition, the $6.7 million increase in consumer real estate loans is related to our focus to continue to originate high quality 1-4 family consumer real estate loans. Our average consumer real estate loan currently has a principal balance of $297,000, a term of eight years, and an average rate of 4.49%.
Nonperforming assets include real estate acquired through foreclosure or deed taken in lieu of foreclosure and loans on nonaccrual status. Generally, a loan is placed on nonaccrual status when it becomes 90 days past due as to principal or interest, or when we believe, after considering economic and business conditions and collection efforts, that the borrower’s financial condition is such that collection of the contractual principal or interest on the loan is doubtful. A payment of interest on a loan that is classified as nonaccrual is recognized as a reduction in principal when received. Our policy with respect to nonperforming loans requires the borrower to make a minimum of six consecutive payments in accordance with the loan terms and to show capacity to continue performing into the future before that loan can be placed back on accrual status. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we had no loans 90 days past due and still accruing.
Following is a summary of our nonperforming assets, including nonaccruing TDRs.
At March 31, 2015, nonperforming assets were $9.1 million, or 0.85% of total assets and 1.00% of gross loans. Comparatively, nonperforming assets were $10.0 million, or 0.97% of total assets and 1.14% of gross loans at December 31, 2014. Nonaccrual loans decreased $125,000 to $6.5 million at March 31, 2015 from $6.7 million at December 31, 2014. Nonaccrual loans at March 31, 2015 include three loans which were put on nonaccrual status during the first three months of 2015. In addition, during the first three months of 2015, one nonaccrual loan was returned to accrual status and three nonaccrual loans were paid off. The amount of foregone interest income on the nonaccrual loans in the first three months of 2015 and 2014 was approximately $100,000 and $148,000, respectively.
Nonperforming assets include other real estate owned which decreased by $737,000 from December 31, 2014 due to a write-down on one commercial property. The balance at March 31, 2015 includes six commercial properties totaling $2.0 million and three residential properties totaling $589,000. All of these properties are located in the Upstate of South Carolina. We believe that these properties are appropriately valued at the lower of cost or market as of March 31, 2015.
At March 31, 2015 and 2014, the allowance for loan losses represented 187.6% and 121.0% of the total amount of nonperforming loans, respectively. A significant portion, or 96%, of nonperforming loans at March 31, 2015 is secured by real estate. Our nonperforming loans have been written down to approximately 60% of their original nonperforming balance. We have evaluated the underlying collateral on these loans and believe that the collateral on these loans is sufficient to minimize future losses. Based on the level of coverage on nonperforming loans and analysis of our loan portfolio, we believe the allowance for loan losses of $12.2 million as of March 31, 2015 to be adequate.
As a general practice, most of our loans are originated with relatively short maturities of less than 10 years. As a result, when a loan reaches its maturity we frequently renew the loan and thus extend its maturity using the same credit standards as those used when the loan was first originated. Due to these loan practices, we may, at times, renew loans which are classified as nonperforming after evaluating the loan’s collateral value and financial strength of its guarantors. Nonperforming loans are renewed at terms generally consistent with the ultimate source of repayment and rarely at reduced rates. In these cases the Company will seek additional credit enhancements, such as additional collateral or additional guarantees to further protect the loan. When a loan is no longer performing in accordance with its stated terms, the Company will typically seek performance under the guarantee.
In addition, at March 31, 2015, 80.6% of our loans are collateralized by real estate and 87.2% of our impaired loans are secured by real estate. The Company utilizes third party appraisers to determine the fair value of collateral dependent loans. Our current loan and appraisal policies require the Company to obtain updated appraisals on an annual basis, either through a new external appraisal or an appraisal evaluation. Impaired loans are individually reviewed on a quarterly basis to determine the level of impairment. As of March 31, 2015, we do not have any impaired real estate loans carried at a value in excess of the appraised value. We typically charge-off a portion or create a specific reserve for impaired loans when we do not expect repayment to occur as agreed upon under the original terms of the loan agreement.
At March 31, 2015, impaired loans totaled $14.9 million for which $10.2 million of these loans have a reserve of approximately $5.0 million allocated in the allowance. During the first three months of 2015, the average recorded investment in impaired loans was approximately $15.0 million. Comparatively, impaired loans totaled $15.2 million at December 31, 2014, and $10.6 million of these loans had a reserve of approximately $5.0 million allocated in the allowance. During 2014, the average recorded investment in impaired loans was approximately $16.4 million.
We consider a loan to be a TDR when the debtor experiences financial difficulties and we provide concessions such that we will not collect all principal and interest in accordance with the original terms of the loan agreement. Concessions can relate to the contractual interest rate, maturity date, or payment structure of the note. As part of our workout plan for individual loan relationships, we may restructure loan terms to assist borrowers facing challenges in the current economic environment. As of March 31, 2015, we determined that we had loans totaling
33
$9.6 million, that we considered TDRs. As of December 31, 2014, we had loans totaling $9.7 million, that we considered TDRs.
Allowance for Loan Losses
The allowance for loan losses was $12.2 million and $10.7 million at March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, or 1.35% and 1.38% of outstanding loans, respectively. At December 31, 2014, our allowance for loan losses was $11.8 million, or 1.35% of outstanding loans, and we had net loans charged-off of $2.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2014.
During the three months ended March 31, 2015, we charged-off $145,000 of loans and recorded $9,000 of recoveries on loans previously charged-off, for net charge-offs of $136,000, or 0.06% of average loans, annualized. Comparatively, we charged-off $512,000 of loans and recorded $12,000 of recoveries on loans previously charged-off, resulting in net charge-offs of $500,000, or 0.27% of average loans, annualized, for the first three months of 2014.
Following is a summary of the activity in the allowance for loan losses.
| | | | |
| Three months ended March 31, | | Year ended |
(dollars in thousands) | 2015 | 2014 | | December 31, 2014 |
Balance, beginning of period | $ 11,752 | 10,213 | | 10,213 |
Provision | 625 | 1,000 | | 4,175 |
Loan charge-offs | (145) | (512) | | (2,887) |
Loan recoveries | 9 | 12 | | 251 |
Net loan charge-offs | (136) | (500) | | (2,636) |
Balance, end of period | $ 12,241 | 10,713 | | 11,752 |
| | | | |
Deposits and Other Interest-Bearing Liabilities
Our primary source of funds for loans and investments is our deposits, advances from the FHLB, and structured repurchase agreements. In the past, we have chosen to obtain a portion of our certificates of deposits from areas outside of our market in orderto obtain longer term deposits than are readily available in our local market. We have adopted guidelines regarding our use of brokered CDs that limit our brokered CDs to 25% of total deposits and dictate that our current interest rate risk profile determines the terms. In addition, we do not obtain time deposits of $100,000 or more through the Internet. These guidelines allow us to take advantage of the attractive terms that wholesale funding can offer while mitigating the related inherent risk.
Our retail deposits represented $771.9 million, or 90.8% of total deposits at March 31, 2015, while our out-of-market, or brokered, deposits represented $78.4 million, or 9.2% of our total deposits at March 31, 2015. At December 31, 2014, retail deposits represented 729.0 million, or 92.4% of our total deposits, and brokered CDs were $60.0 million, representing 7.6% of our total deposits. Of the $43.0 million increase in retail deposits during the first quarter of 2015, $28.3 million is related to the Greenville market, $4.7 million is related to the Columbia market, and $10.0 million is related to the Charleston market. Our loan-to-deposit ratio was 107% and 108% at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively.
34
The following is a detail of our deposit accounts:
| | | |
| March 31, | | December 31, |
(dollars in thousands) | 2015 | | 2014 |
Non-interest bearing | $ 152,589 | | 139,902 |
Interest bearing: | | | |
NOW accounts | 176,062 | | 149,137 |
Money market accounts | 227,297 | | 224,733 |
Savings | 8,516 | | 8,664 |
Time, less than $100,000 | 62,667 | | 62,646 |
Time and out-of-market deposits, $100,000 and over | 223,179 | | 203,825 |
Total deposits | $ 850,310 | | 788,907 |
The following table shows the average balance amounts and the average rates paid on deposits.
| | |
| Three months ended March 31, |
| 2015 | | 2014 |
(dollars in thousands) | Amount | Rate | | Amount | Rate |
Noninterest bearing demand deposits | $141,471 | -% | | 101,776 | -% |
Interest bearing demand deposits | 162,830 | 0.18% | | 150,936 | 0.16% |
Money market accounts | 228,265 | 0.36% | | 155,660 | 0.31% |
Savings accounts | 8,819 | 0.09% | | 7,189 | 0.09% |
Time deposits less than $100,000 | 62,749 | 0.72% | | 69,753 | 0.73% |
Time deposits greater than $100,000 | 214,141 | 0.72% | | 203,495 | 0.75% |
Total deposits | $818,275 | 0.38% | | 688,809 | 0.40% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
During the twelve months ended March 31, 2015, our average transaction account balances increased by $125.8 million, or 30.3%, from the three months ended March 31, 2014, while our average time deposit balances increased by $3.6 million during the 2015 period. In addition, during the past 12 months, we have continued to reduce the rates we pay on our interest-bearing deposits, as these deposits repriced; however, we do not anticipate a significant reduction in our deposit costs in the future.
During the past 12 months, we continued our focus on increasing core deposits, which exclude out-of-market deposits and time deposits of $100,000 or more, in order to provide a relatively stable funding source for our loan portfolio and other earning assets. Our core deposits were $627.1 million and $585.1 million at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. Included in time deposits of $100,000 or more at March 31, 2015 is $56.0 million of wholesale CDs scheduled to mature within the next 12 months at a weighted average rate of 0.55%.
All of our time deposits are certificates of deposits. The maturity distribution of our time deposits of $100,000 or more at March 31, 2015 was as follows:
| |
(dollars in thousands) | March 31, 2015 |
Three months or less | $ 55,599 |
Over three through six months | 31,449 |
Over six through twelve months | 70,021 |
Over twelve months | 66,110 |
Total | $223,179 |
| |
Time deposits that meet or exceed the FDIC insurance limit of $250,000 at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 were $142.7 million and $121.8 million, respectively.
35
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Liquidity represents the ability of a company to convert assets into cash or cash equivalents without significant loss, and the ability to raise additional funds by increasing liabilities. Liquidity management involves monitoring our sources and uses of funds in order to meet our day-to-day cash flow requirements while maximizing profits. Liquidity management is made more complicated because different balance sheet components are subject to varying degrees of management control. For example, the timing of maturities of our investment portfolio is fairly predictable and subject to a high degree of control at the time investment decisions are made. However, net deposit inflows and outflows are far less predictable and are not subject to the same degree of control.
At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our liquid assets, consisting of cash and due from banks and federal funds sold, amounted to $51.7 million and $41.3 million, or 4.8% and 4.0% of total assets, respectively. Our investment securities at March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 amounted to $54.0 million and $61.5 million, or 5.0% and 6.0% of total assets, respectively. Investment securities traditionally provide a secondary source of liquidity since they can be converted into cash in a timely manner. However, approximately 42% of these securities are pledged against outstanding debt. Therefore, the related debt would need to be repaid prior to the securities being sold in order for these securities to be converted to cash. In addition, approximately 25% of our investment securities are pledged to secure client deposits.
Our ability to maintain and expand our deposit base and borrowing capabilities serves as our primary source of liquidity. We plan to meet our future cash needs through the liquidation of temporary investments, the generation of deposits, loan payoffs, and from additional borrowings. In addition, we will receive cash upon the maturity and sale of loans and the maturity of investment securities. We maintain three federal funds purchased lines of credit with correspondent banks totaling $45.0 million for which there were no borrowings against the lines of credit at March 31, 2015.
We are also a member of the FHLB, from which applications for borrowings can be made. The FHLB requires that securities, qualifying mortgage loans, and stock of the FHLB owned by the Bank be pledged to secure any advances from the FHLB. The unused borrowing capacity currently available from the FHLB at March 31, 2015 was $119.9 million, based on the Bank’s $5.0 million investment in FHLB stock, as well as qualifying mortgages available to secure any future borrowings. However, we are able to pledge additional securities to the FHLB in order to increase our available borrowing capacity. In addition, at March 31, 2015 we had $37.2 million of letters of credit outstanding with the FHLB to secure client deposits.
We also have a line of credit with another financial institution for $10 million, which was unused at March 31, 2015. The line of credit bears interest at LIBOR plus 2.90% with a floor of 3.25% and a ceiling of 5.15%, and matures on June 6, 2017.
We believe that our existing stable base of core deposits, borrowings from the FHLB, and short-term repurchase agreements will enable us to successfully meet our long-term liquidity needs. However, as short-term liquidity needs arise, we have the ability to sell a portion of our investment securities portfolio to meet those needs.
Total shareholders’ equity at March 31, 2015 was $85.4 million. At December 31, 2014, total shareholders’ equity was $83.0 million. The $2.4 million increase from December 31, 2014 is primarily related to net income of $2.0 million during the first quarter of 2015.
The following table shows the return on average assets (net income divided by average total assets), return on average equity (net income divided by average equity), and equity to assets ratio (average equity divided by average assets) annualized for the three months ended March 31, 2015 and the year ended December 31, 2014. Since our inception, we have not paid cash dividends.
36
| | | |
| March 31, 2015 | | December 31, 2014 |
Return on average assets | 0.78% | | 0.69 % |
Return on average equity | 9.67% | | 8.92 % |
Return on average common equity | 9.67% | | 12.03 % |
Average equity to average assets ratio | 8.11% | | 7.76 % |
Tangible common equity to assets ratio | 7.96% | | 8.06 % |
| | | |
At both the holding company and Bank level, we are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies. Under the capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, we must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. Our capital amounts and classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings, and other factors, and the regulators can lower classifications in certain cases. Failure to meet various capital requirements can initiate regulatory action that could have a direct material effect on the financial statements.
In July 2013, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC approved the final rules to implement the Basel III regulatory capital reforms among other changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the final rules, which began to take effect for us in January 2015 and are subject to a phase-in period through January 1, 2019, minimum requirements will increase for both the quantity and quality of capital held by the Company and the Bank, which acts as a financial cushion to absorb losses, taking into account the impact of risk. The approved rule includes a new minimum ratio of common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets (“CET1”) of 4.5% and a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% of risk-weighted assets, which when fully phased-in, effectively results in a minimum CET1 ratio of 7.0%. Basel III also raises the minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets from 4.0% to 6.0% (which, with the capital conservation buffer, effectively results in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% when fully phased-in), effectively results in a minimum total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 10.5% (with the capital conservation buffer fully phased-in), and requires a minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%. Basel III also makes changes to the risk weights for certain assets and off-balance sheet exposures. Management expects that the capital ratios for the Company and Bank under Basel III will continue to exceed the well-capitalized minimum capital requirements.
The following table summarizes the capital amounts and ratios of the Bank and the regulatory minimum requirements.
| | |
| | March 31, 2015 |
| Actual | For capital adequacy purposes minimum | To be well capitalized under prompt corrective action provisions minimum |
(dollars in thousands) | Amount | Ratio | Amount | Ratio | Amount | Ratio |
Total Capital (to risk weighted assets) | $ 105,744 | 11.83% | 71,555 | 8.00% | 89,444 | 10.00% |
Tier 1 Capital (to risk weighted assets) | 94,581 | 10.57% | 53,666 | 6.00% | 71,555 | 8.00% |
Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (to risk weighted assets) | 94,581 | 10.57% | 40,250 | 4.50% | 58,139 | 6.50% |
Tier 1 Capital (to average assets) | 94,581 | 9.04% | 41,846 | 4.00% | 52,307 | 5.00% |
| | | | | | |
37
The following table summarizes the capital amounts and ratios of the Company and the minimum regulatory requirements.
| | |
|
| Actual | For capital adequacy purposes minimum | To be well capitalized under prompt corrective action provisions minimum |
(dollars in thousands) | Amount | Ratio | Amount | Ratio | Amount | Ratio |
Total Capital (to risk weighted assets) | $ 109,179 | 12.21% | 71,555 | 8.00% | N/A | N/A |
Tier 1 Capital (to risk weighted assets) | 97,986 | 10.96% | 53,666 | 6.00% | N/A | N/A |
Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (to risk weighted assets) | 84,986 | 9.50% | 40,250 | 4.50% | N/A | N/A |
Tier 1 Capital (to average assets) | 97,986 | 9.34% | 41,949 | 4.00% | N/A | N/A |
| | | | | | |
The ability of the Company to pay cash dividends is dependent upon receiving cash in the form of dividends from the Bank. The dividends that may be paid by the Bank to the Company are subject to legal limitations and regulatory capital requirements.
Effect of Inflation and Changing Prices
The effect of relative purchasing power over time due to inflation has not been taken into account in our consolidated financial statements. Rather, our financial statements have been prepared on an historical cost basis in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Unlike most industrial companies, our assets and liabilities are primarily monetary in nature. Therefore, the effect of changes in interest rates will have a more significant impact on our performance than will the effect of changing prices and inflation in general. In addition, interest rates may generally increase as the rate of inflation increases, although not necessarily in the same magnitude. As discussed previously, we seek to manage the relationships between interest sensitive assets and liabilities in order to protect against wide rate fluctuations, including those resulting from inflation.
Off-Balance Sheet Risk
Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend money to a client as long as the client has not violated any material condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require the payment of a fee. At March 31, 2015, unfunded commitments to extend credit were $176.7 million, of which $54.2 million was at fixed rates and $122.5 million was at variable rates. At December 31, 2014, unfunded commitments to extend credit were $167.3 million, of which approximately $52.2 million was at fixed rates and $115.0 million was at variable rates. A significant portion of the unfunded commitments related to consumer equity lines of credit. Based on historical experience, we anticipate that a significant portion of these lines of credit will not be funded. We evaluate each client’s credit worthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained, if deemed necessary by us upon extension of credit, is based on our credit evaluation of the borrower. The type of collateral varies but may include accounts receivable, inventory, property, plant and equipment, and commercial and residential real estate.
At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, there were commitments under letters of credit for $1.8 million and $2.6 million, respectively. The credit risk and collateral involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to customers. Since most of the letters of credit are expected to expire without being drawn upon, they do not necessarily represent future cash requirements.
A portion of our business is to originate mortgage loans that will be sold in the secondary market to investors. Loan types that we originate include conventional loans, jumbo loans and other governmental agency loan products. We adhere to the legal lending limits and guidelines as set forth by the various governmental agencies and investors to whom we sell loans. Under a “best efforts” selling procedure, we make our best effort to process, fund, and deliver
38
the loan to a particular investor. If the loan fails to fund, there is no immediate cost to us, as the market risk has been transferred to the investor. In the event of a customer loan default, we may be required to reimburse the investor.
Except as disclosed in this report, we are not involved in off-balance sheet contractual relationships, unconsolidated related entities that have off-balance sheet arrangements or transactions that could result in liquidity needs or other commitments that significantly impact earnings.
Market Risk and Interest Rate Sensitivity
Market risk is the risk of loss from adverse changes in market prices and rates, which principally arises from interest rate risk inherent in our lending, investing, deposit gathering, and borrowing activities. Other types of market risks, such as foreign currency exchange rate risk and commodity price risk, do not generally arise in the normal course of our business.
We actively monitor and manage our interest rate risk exposure in order to control the mix and maturities of our assets and liabilities utilizing a process we call asset/liability management. The essential purposes of asset/liability management are to ensure adequate liquidity and to maintain an appropriate balance between interest sensitive assets and liabilities in order to minimize potentially adverse impacts on earnings from changes in market interest rates. Our asset/liability management committee (“ALCO”) monitors and considers methods of managing exposure to interest rate risk. We have both an internal ALCO consisting of senior management that meets at various times during each month and a board ALCO that meets monthly. The ALCOs are responsible for maintaining the level of interest rate sensitivity of our interest sensitive assets and liabilities within board-approved limits.
As of March 31, 2015, the following table summarizes the forecasted impact on net interest income using a base case scenario given upward and downward movements in interest rates of 100, 200, and 300 basis points based on forecasted assumptions of prepayment speeds, nominal interest rates and loan and deposit repricing rates. Estimates are based on current economic conditions, historical interest rate cycles and other factors deemed to be relevant. However, underlying assumptions may be impacted in future periods which were not known to management at the time of the issuance of the Consolidated Financial Statements. Therefore, management’s assumptions may or may not prove valid. No assurance can be given that changing economic conditions and other relevant factors impacting our net interest income will not cause actual occurrences to differ from underlying assumptions. In addition, this analysis does not consider any strategic changes to our balance sheet which management may consider as a result of changes in market conditions.
Interest rate scenario | | Change in net interest income from base |
Up 300 basis points | | 15.46 % |
Up 200 basis points | | 9.68 % |
Up 100 basis points | | 4.42 % |
Base | | - |
Down 100 basis points | | (5.55)% |
Down 200 basis points | | (11.38)% |
Down 300 basis points | | (14.42)% |
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 footnotes to our audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2014, as filed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K.
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
39
policies. The judgment and assumptions we use are based on historical experience and other factors, which we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Our Critical Accounting Policies are the allowance for loan losses, fair value of financial instruments, other-than-temporary impairment analysis, other real estate owned, and income taxes. 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.
Accounting, Reporting, and Regulatory Matters
Recently Issued Accounting Standards
The following is a summary of recent authoritative pronouncements that could affect accounting, reporting, and disclosure of financial information by us:
In January 2014, the FASB amended Receivables topic of the Accounting Standards Codification. The amendments are intended to resolve diversity in practice with respect to when a creditor should reclassify a collateralized consumer mortgage loan to other real estate owned (“OREO”). In addition, the amendments require a creditor to reclassify a collateralized consumer mortgage loan to OREO upon obtaining legal title to the real estate collateral, or the borrower voluntarily conveying all interest in the real estate property to the lender to satisfy the loan through a deed in lieu of foreclosure or similar legal agreement. The amendments will be effective for the Company for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2014. In implementing this guidance, assets that are reclassified from real estate to loans are measured at the carrying value of the real estate at the date of adoption. Assets reclassified from loans to real estate are measured at the lower of the net amount of the loan receivable or the fair value of the real estate less costs to sell at the date of adoption. The Company will apply the amendments prospectively and does not expect these amendments to have a material effect on its financial statements.
In May 2014, the FASB issued guidance to change the recognition of revenue from contracts with customers. The core principle of the new guidance is that an entity should recognize revenue to reflect the transfer of goods and services to customers in an amount equal to the consideration the entity receives or expects to receive. The guidance will be effective for the Company for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company does not expect these amendments to have a material effect on its financial statements.
In June 2014, the FASB issued guidance which makes limited amendments to the guidance on accounting for certain repurchase agreements. The new guidance (1) requires entities to account for repurchase-to-maturity transactions as secured borrowings (rather than as sales with forward repurchase agreements), (2) eliminates accounting guidance on linked repurchase financing transactions, and (3) expands disclosure requirements related to certain transfers of financial assets that are accounted for as sales and certain transfers (specifically, repos, securities lending transactions, and repurchase-to-maturity transactions) accounted for as secured borrowings. The amendments will be effective for the Company for the first interim or annual period beginning after December 15, 2014. The Company does not expect these amendments to have a material effect on its financial statements.
In January 2015, the FASB issued guidance to eliminate from U.S. GAAP the concept of an extraordinary item, which is an event or transaction that is both (1) unusual in nature and (2) infrequently occurring. Under the new guidance, an entity will no longer (1) segregate an extraordinary item from the results of ordinary operations; (2) separately present an extraordinary item on its income statement, net of tax, after income from continuing operations; or (3) disclose income taxes and earnings-per-share data applicable to an extraordinary item. The amendments will be effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted provided that the guidance is applied from the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption. The Company does not expect these amendments to have a material effect on its financial statements.
In February 2015, the FASB issued guidance which amends the consolidation requirements and significantly changes the consolidation analysis required under U.S. GAAP. Although the amendments are expected to result in the deconsolidation of many entities, the Company will need to reevaluate all its previous consolidation
40
conclusions. The amendments will be effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2015, with early adoption permitted (including during an interim period), provided that the guidance is applied as of the beginning of the annual period containing the adoption date. The Company does not expect these amendments to have a material effect on its financial statements.
Other accounting standards that have been issued or proposed by the FASB or other standards-setting bodies that do not require adoption until a future date are not expected to have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements upon adoption.
Item 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK.
See Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Market Risk and Interest Rate Sensitivity and – Liquidity Risk.
Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports we file and submit under the Exchange Act is (i) recorded, processed, summarized and reported as and when required and (ii) accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There has been no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the three months ended March 31, 2015, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
We are a party to claims and lawsuits arising in the course of normal business activities. Management is not aware of any material pending legal proceedings against the Company which, if determined adversely, would have a material adverse impact on the company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Item 1A RISK FACTORS.
Not applicable
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
41
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.
42
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: May 1, 2015 | | /s/R. Arthur Seaver, Jr. |
| | R. Arthur Seaver, Jr. |
| | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
| | |
| | |
Date: May 1, 2015 | | /s/Michael D. Dowling |
| | Michael D. Dowling |
| | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
43
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 March 31, 2015, 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. |
| | |
44