Risks Related to Our Business and Operations
Adverse events in Louisiana, where our business is concentrated, could adversely affect our results of operations and future growth.
Our business, the location of our branches and the real estate used as collateral on our real estate loans are primarily concentrated in Louisiana. At September 30, 2014, approximately 77.0% of the secured loans in our loan portfolio were secured by real estate and other collateral located in Louisiana. As a result, we are exposed to risks associated with a lack of geographic diversification. The occurrence of an economic downturn in Louisiana, or adverse changes in laws or regulations in Louisiana could impact the credit quality of our assets, the businesses of our customers and our ability to expand our business. Our success significantly depends upon the growth in population, income levels, deposits and housing in our market area. If the communities in which we operate do not grow or if prevailing economic conditions locally or nationally are unfavorable, our business may be negatively affected.
In addition, the market value of the real estate securing loans as collateral could be adversely affected by unfavorable changes in market and economic conditions. Adverse developments affecting commerce or real estate values in the local economies in our primary market areas could increase the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio. In addition, substantially all of our loans are to individuals and businesses in Louisiana. Our business customers may not have customer bases that are as diverse as businesses serving regional or national markets. Consequently, any decline in the economy of our market area could have an adverse impact on our revenues and financial condition. In particular, we may experience increased loan delinquencies, which could result in a higher provision for loan losses and increased charge-offs. Any sustained period of increased non-payment, delinquencies, foreclosures or losses caused by adverse market or economic conditions in our market area could adversely affect the value of our assets, revenues, results of operations and financial condition.
We have a significant number of loans secured by real estate, and a downturn in the local real estate market could negatively impact our profitability.
At September 30, 2014, approximately 70.0% of our total loan portfolio was secured by real estate, almost all of which is located in Louisiana. As a result of the severe recession in 2008 and 2009, real estate values nationally and in our Louisiana markets declined. Recently, real estate values both nationally and in our market areas have shown improvement. Future declines in the real estate values in our Louisiana markets could significantly impair the value of the particular collateral securing our loans and our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure for an amount necessary to satisfy the borrower’s obligations to us. This could require increasing our allowance for loan losses to address the decrease in the value of the real estate securing our loans which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.
Our loan portfolio consists of a high percentage of loans secured by non-farm non-residential real estate. These loans carry a greater credit risk than loans secured by one- to four-family properties.
Our loan portfolio includes non-farm non-residential real estate loans, primarily loans secured by commercial real estate such as office buildings, hotels and retail facilities. At September 30, 2014, our non-farm non-residential loans totaled $333.4 million, or 44.8% of our total loan portfolio. Our non-farm non-residential real estate loans expose us to greater risk of nonpayment and loss than one- to four-family family residential mortgage loans because repayment of the loans often depends on the successful operation and income stream of the borrowers. If we foreclose on these loans, our holding period for the collateral typically is longer than for a one- to four-family residential property because there are fewer potential purchasers of the collateral. In addition, non-farm non-residential real estate loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers compared to one- to four-family residential loans. Accordingly, charge-offs on non-farm non-residential loans may be larger on a per loan basis than those incurred with our residential or consumer loan portfolios. An unexpected adverse development on one or more of these types of loans can expose us to a significantly greater risk of loss compared to an adverse development with respect to a one- to four-family residential mortgage loan.
A large portion of our loan portfolio is comprised of commercial and industrial loans secured by receivables, inventory, equipment or other commercial collateral, the deterioration in value of which could increase the potential for future losses.
At September 30, 2014, $171.1 million, or 23.0% of our total loans, was comprised of commercial and industrial loans to businesses collateralized by general business assets including, among other things, accounts receivable, inventory and equipment and generally backed by a personal guaranty of the borrower or principal. These commercial and industrial loans are typically larger in amount than loans to individuals and, therefore, have the potential for larger losses on a single loan basis. Additionally, the repayment of commercial and industrial loans is subject to the ongoing business operations of the borrower. The collateral securing such loans generally includes moveable property such as equipment and inventory, which may decline in value more rapidly than we anticipate, or may be difficult to market and sell, exposing us to increased credit risk. Significant adverse changes in the economy or local market conditions in which our commercial lending customers operate could cause rapid declines in loan collectability and the values associated with general business assets, resulting in inadequate collateral coverage that may expose us to credit losses and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
A portion of our loan portfolio consists of syndicated loans, including syndicated loans known as shared national credits, secured by assets located generally outside of our market area. Syndicated loans may have a higher risk of loss than other loans we originate because we are not the lead lender and we have limited control over credit monitoring.
Over the last seven years, we have pursued a focused program to participate in select syndicated loans (loans made by a group of lenders, including us, who share or participate in a specific loan) with a larger regional financial institution as the lead lender. Syndicated loans are typically made to large businesses (which are referred to as shared national credits) or middle market companies (which do not meet the regulatory definition of shared national credits), both of which are secured by business assets or equipment, and commercial real estate located generally outside of our market area. The syndicate group for both types of loans usually consists of two to three other financial institutions. At September 30, 2014, we had $117.2 million in syndicated loans, or 15.7% of our total loan portfolio with our largest individual syndicated loan totaling $9.7 million. At September 30, 2014, shared national credit loans totaled $71.8 million, or 9.7% of our total loan portfolio. In addition at September 30, 2014, we had $45.4 million in syndicated loans that were not shared national credits. Syndicated loans may have a higher risk of loss than other loans we originate because we rely on the lead lender to monitor the performance of the loan. Moreover, our decision regarding the classification of a syndicated loan and loan loss provisions associated with a syndicated loan are made in part based upon information provided by the lead lender. A lead lender also may not monitor a syndicated loan in the same manner as we would for other loans that we originate. If our underwriting of these syndicated loans is not sufficient, our non-performing loans may increase and our earnings may decrease.
Interest rate shifts may reduce net interest income and otherwise negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.
The majority of our banking assets are monetary in nature and subject to risk from changes in interest rates. Like most financial institutions, our earnings and cash flows depend to a great extent upon the level of our net interest income, or the difference between the interest income we earn on loans, investments and other interest-earning assets, and the interest we pay on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Changes in interest rates can increase or decrease our net interest income, because different types of assets and liabilities may react differently, and at different times, to market interest rate changes.
When interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest-earning assets in a period, an increase in interest rates could reduce net interest income. Similarly, when interest-earning assets mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest-bearing liabilities, falling interest rates could reduce net interest income. Additionally, an increase in interest rates may, among other things, reduce the demand for loans and our ability to originate loans and decrease loan repayment rates. A decrease in the general level of interest rates may affect us through, among other things, increased prepayments on our loan portfolio and increased competition for deposits. Accordingly, changes in the level of market interest rates affect our net yield on interest-earning assets, loan origination volume and our overall results. Although our asset-liability management strategy is designed to control and mitigate exposure to the risks related to changes in market interest rates, those rates are affected by many factors outside of our control, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, deflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply, international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets.
We could recognize losses on securities held in our securities portfolio, particularly if interest rates increase or economic and market conditions deteriorate.
While we attempt to invest a significant percentage of our assets in loans (our loan to deposit ratio was 56.3% at September 30, 2014), we invest a large portion of our total assets (44.8% at September 30, 2014) in investment securities with the primary objectives of providing a source of liquidity, generating an appropriate return on funds invested, managing interest rate risk, meeting pledging requirements of our public fund deposits and meeting regulatory capital requirements. At September 30, 2014, the book value of our securities portfolio was $662.0 million. Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. For example, fixed-rate securities are generally subject to decreases in market value when interest rates rise. Additional factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency downgrades of the securities, defaults by the issuer or individual borrowers with respect to the underlying securities, and continued instability in the credit markets. Any of the foregoing factors could cause an other-than-temporary impairment in future periods and result in realized losses. The process for determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary usually requires difficult, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting interest rates, the financial condition of issuers of the securities and the performance of the underlying collateral, we may recognize realized and/or unrealized losses in future periods, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Public funds deposits are an important source of funds for us and a reduced level of those deposits may hurt our profits.
Public funds deposits are a significant source of funds for our lending and investment activities. At September 30, 2014, $539.8 million, or 40.9% of our total deposits, consisted of public funds deposits from local government entities such as school districts, hospital districts, sheriff departments and other municipalities, which are collateralized by letters of credit from the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) and investment securities. Given our dependence on high-average balance public funds deposits as a source of funds, our inability to retain such funds could significantly and adversely affect our liquidity. Further, our public funds deposits are primarily demand deposit accounts or short-term time deposits and are therefore more sensitive to interest rate risks. If we are forced to pay higher rates on our public funds accounts to retain those funds, or if we are unable to retain such funds and we are forced to resort to other sources of funds for our lending and investment activities, such as borrowings from the FHLB, the interest expense associated with these other funding sources may be higher than the rates we are currently paying on our public funds deposits, which would adversely affect our net income.
We may not be able to successfully maintain and manage our growth.
Continued growth depends, in part, upon the ability to expand market presence, to successfully attract core deposits, and to identify attractive commercial lending opportunities. Management may not be able to successfully manage increased levels of assets and liabilities. We may be required to make additional investments in equipment and personnel to manage higher asset levels and loan balances, which may adversely impact our efficiency, earnings and shareholder returns. In addition, franchise growth may increase through acquisitions and de novo branching. The ability to successfully integrate such acquisitions into our consolidated operations will have a direct impact on our financial condition and results of operations.
We depend primarily on net interest income for our earnings rather than noninterest income.
Net interest income is the most significant component of our operating income. For the nine month period ended September 30, 2014, our net interest income totaled $32.4 million in comparison to our total non-interest income of $4.7 million earned during the same period. For the year ended December 31, 2013, our net interest income totaled $39.8 million in comparison to our total non-interest income of $7.5 million earned during the same period. We do not rely on nontraditional sources of fee income utilized by some community banks, such as fees from sales of insurance, securities or investment advisory products or services. The amount of our net interest income is influenced by the overall interest rate environment, competition, and the amount of interest-earning assets relative to the amount of interest-bearing liabilities. In the event that one or more of these factors were to result in a decrease in our net interest income, we have limited sources of non-interest income to offset any decrease in our net interest income.
If our nonperforming assets increase, our earnings will be adversely affected.
At September 30, 2014, our non-performing assets, which consist of non-performing loans and other real estate owned, were $16.9 million, or 1.15% of total assets. Our non-performing assets adversely affect our net income in various ways:
| | Ÿ | we record interest income only on the cash basis or cost-recovery method for nonaccrual loans and we do not record interest income for other real estate owned; |
| | Ÿ | we must provide for probable loan losses through a current period charge to the provision for loan losses; |
| | Ÿ | non-interest expense increases when we write down the value of properties in our other real estate owned portfolio to reflect changing market values; |
| | Ÿ | there are legal fees associated with the resolution of problem assets, as well as carrying costs, such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance fees; and |
| | Ÿ | the resolution of non-performing assets requires the active involvement of management, which can distract them from more profitable activity. |
If additional borrowers become delinquent and do not pay their loans and we are unable to successfully manage our non-performing assets, our losses and troubled assets could increase significantly, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
If the allowance for loan losses is not sufficient to cover actual loan losses, earnings could decrease.
Loan customers may not repay their loans according to the terms of their loans, and the collateral securing the payment of their loans may be insufficient to assure repayment. We may experience significant credit losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. Various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of the loan portfolio are made, including the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of many loans. In determining the amount of the allowance for loan losses, management reviews the loans and the loss and delinquency experience and evaluates economic conditions.
At September 30, 2014, our allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans, net of unearned income, was 1.16% and as a percentage of total non-performing loans was 57.8%. The determination of the appropriate level of allowance is subject to judgment and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which are subject to material changes. If assumptions prove to be incorrect, the allowance for loan losses may not cover inherent losses in the loan portfolio at the date of the financial statements. Significant additions to the allowance would materially decrease net income. Non-performing loans may increase and non-performing or delinquent loans may adversely affect future performance. In addition, federal and state regulators periodically review the allowance for loan losses and may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses or recognize further loan charge-offs. Any significant increase in our allowance for loan losses or loan charge-offs as required by these regulatory agencies could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
Emphasis on the origination of short-term loans could expose us to increased lending risks.
At September 30, 2014, $603 million, or 81.0% of our total loans consisted of short-term loans, defined as loans whose payments are typically based on ten to 20-year amortization schedules but have maturities typically ranging from one to five years. This results in our borrowers having significantly higher final payments due at maturity, known as a “balloon payment.” In the event our borrowers are unable to make their balloon payments when they are due, we may incur significant losses in our loan portfolio. Moreover, while the shorter maturities of our loan portfolio help us to manage our interest rate risk, they also increase the reinvestment risk associated with new loan originations. During an economic slow-down, we might incur significant losses as our loan portfolio matures.
We rely on our management team and our board of directors for the successful implementation of our business strategy.
Our success depends significantly on the continued service and skills of our senior management team and our board of directors, particularly Marshall T. Reynolds, our Chairman, Alton B. Lewis, our President and Chief Executive Officer and Eric J. Dosch, our Chief Financial Officer. The implementation of our business and growth strategies also depends significantly on our ability to attract, motivate and retain highly qualified executives and directors. The loss of services of one or more of these individuals could have a negative impact on our business because of their skills, years of industry experience and difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel.
We have several large non-controlling shareholders, and such shareholders may independently vote their shares in a manner that you may not consider to be consistent with your best interest or the best interest of our shareholders as a whole.
Our principal shareholders (Marshall T. Reynolds, Douglas V. Reynolds, Daniel P. Harrington, William K. Hood and Edgar R. Smith III) beneficially own 45.2% of our outstanding common stock at September 30, 2014. Each of these shareholders will continue to have the ability to independently vote a meaningful percentage of our outstanding common stock on all matters put to a vote of our shareholders, including the election of our board of directors and certain other significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or acquisition transaction. On any such matter, the interests of these shareholders may not coincide with the interests of the other holders of our common stock and any such difference in interests may result in that shareholder voting its shares in a manner inconsistent with the interests of other shareholders.
We obtain a significant portion of our noninterest revenue through service charges on core deposit accounts, and regulations impacting service charges could reduce our fee income.
A significant portion of our noninterest revenue is derived from service charge income. During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, service charges, commissions and fees represented $3.3 million, or 69.9% of our total noninterest income. The largest component of this service charge income is overdraft-related fees. Management believes that changes in banking regulations pertaining to rules on certain overdraft payments on consumer accounts have and will continue to have an adverse impact on our service charge income. Additionally, changes in customer behavior, as well as increased competition from other financial institutions, may result in declines in deposit accounts or in overdraft frequency resulting in a decline in service charge income. A reduction in deposit account fee income could have a material adverse effect on our earnings.
We may be unable to successfully compete with others for business.
The area in which we operate is considered attractive from an economic and demographic viewpoint, and is a highly competitive banking market. We compete for loans and deposits with numerous regional and national banks and other community banking institutions, as well as other kinds of financial institutions and enterprises, such as securities firms, insurance companies, savings associations, credit unions, mortgage brokers and private lenders. Many competitors have substantially greater resources than we do. The differences in resources may make it harder for us to compete profitably, reduce the rates that we can earn on loans and investments, increase the rates we must offer on deposits and other funds, and adversely affect our overall financial condition and earnings.
Hurricanes or other adverse weather conditions in Louisiana can have an adverse impact on our market area.
Our market area in Southeast Louisiana is close to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico, areas which are susceptible to hurricanes, tropical storms and other natural disasters and adverse weather conditions. For example, Hurricane Katrina hit the greater New Orleans area in August 2005 causing widespread damage. Similar future events could potentially cause widespread property damage, require the relocation of an unprecedented number of residents and business operations, and severely disrupt normal economic activity in our market areas, which may have an adverse effect on our operations, loan originations and deposit base. Moreover, our ability to compete effectively with financial institutions whose operations are not concentrated in areas affected by hurricanes or other adverse weather conditions or whose resources are greater than ours will depend primarily on our ability to continue normal business operations following such event. The severity and duration of the effects of hurricanes or other adverse weather conditions will depend on a variety of factors that are beyond our control, including the amount and timing of government, private and philanthropic investments including deposits in the region, the pace of rebuilding and economic recovery in the region and the extent to which a hurricane’s property damage is covered by insurance. The occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We face risks related to our operational, technological and organizational infrastructure.
Our ability to grow and compete is dependent on our ability to build or acquire the necessary operational and technological infrastructure and to manage the cost of that infrastructure as we expand. Similar to other large corporations, operational risk can manifest itself in many ways, such as errors related to failed or inadequate processes, faulty or disabled computer systems, fraud by employees or outside persons and exposure to external events. As discussed below, we are dependent on our operational infrastructure to help manage these risks. In addition, we are heavily dependent on the strength and capability of our technology systems which we use both to interface with our customers and to manage our internal financial and other systems. Our ability to develop and deliver new products that meet the needs of our existing customers and attract new ones depends on the functionality of our technology systems. Additionally, our ability to run our business in compliance with applicable laws and regulations is dependent on these infrastructures.
We continuously monitor our operational and technological capabilities and make modifications and improvements when we believe it will be cost effective to do so. In some instances, we may build and maintain these capabilities ourselves. We also outsource some of these functions to third parties. These third parties may experience errors or disruptions that could adversely impact us and over which we may have limited control. We also face risk from the integration of new infrastructure platforms and/or new third party providers of such platforms into its existing businesses.
A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, could impair our liquidity, disrupt our businesses, result in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, damage our reputation and cause financial losses.
Our businesses are dependent on their ability to process and monitor, on a daily basis, a large number of transactions, many of which are highly complex, across numerous and diverse markets. These transactions, as well as the information technology services we provide to clients, often must adhere to client-specific guidelines, as well as legal and regulatory standards. Due to the breadth of our client base and our geographical reach, developing and maintaining our operational systems and infrastructure is challenging, particularly as a result of rapidly evolving legal and regulatory requirements and technological shifts. Our financial, accounting, data processing or other operating systems and facilities may fail to operate properly or become disabled as a result of events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, such as a spike in transaction volume, cyber-attack or other unforeseen catastrophic events, which may adversely affect our ability to process these transactions or provide services.
In addition, our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information on our computer systems and networks. Although we take protective measures to maintain the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information across all geographic and product lines, and endeavor to modify these protective measures as circumstances warrant, the nature of the threats continues to evolve. As a result, our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, loss or destruction of data (including confidential client information), account takeovers, unavailability of service, computer viruses or other malicious code, cyber-attacks and other events that could have an adverse security impact. Despite the defensive measures we take to manage our internal technological and operational infrastructure, these threats may originate externally from third parties such as foreign governments, organized crime and other hackers, and outsource or infrastructure-support providers and application developers, or may originate internally from within our organization. Given the increasingly high volume of our transactions, certain errors may be repeated or compounded before they can be discovered and rectified.
Changes in accounting policies or in accounting standards could materially affect how we report our financial condition and results of operations.
Accounting policies are essential to understanding our financial condition and results of operations. Some of these policies require the use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of our assets or liabilities and financial results. Some of our accounting policies are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective, and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain, and because it is likely that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. If such estimates or assumptions underlying our financial statements are incorrect, we may experience material losses.
From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission change the financial accounting and reporting standards or the interpretation of those standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes are beyond our control, can be difficult to predict and could materially affect how we report our financial condition and results of operations. We could also be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, which may result in our restating our prior period financial statements.
We hold certain intangible assets that could be classified as impaired in the future. If these assets are considered to be either partially or fully impaired in the future, our earnings and the book values of these assets would decrease.
We are required to test goodwill and core deposit intangible assets for impairment on a periodic basis. The impairment testing process considers a variety of factors, including macroeconomic conditions, industry and market considerations, cost factors, and financial performance. If an impairment determination is made in a future reporting period, our earnings and the book value of these intangible assets will be reduced by the amount of the impairment which would adversely affect our financial performance.
A lack of liquidity could adversely affect our operations and jeopardize our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Liquidity is essential to our business. We rely on our ability to generate deposits and effectively manage the repayment and maturity schedules of our loans and investment securities, respectively, to ensure that we have adequate liquidity to fund our operations. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of our investment securities, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our most important source of funds is deposits. Deposit balances can decrease when customers perceive alternative investments as providing a better risk/return tradeoff. If customers move money out of bank deposits and into other investments such as money market funds, we would lose a relatively low-cost source of funds, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income. As stated above, public funds are a sizeable portion of our deposits. Loss of a large public funds depositor at the end of a contract would negatively impact liquidity.
Other primary sources of funds consist of cash flows from operations, maturities and sales of investment securities, and proceeds from the issuance and sale of our equity securities to investors. Additional liquidity is provided by the ability to borrow from the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) or the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (“Federal Reserve Bank”). We also may borrow funds from third-party lenders, such as other financial institutions. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities, or on terms that are acceptable to us, could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry. Our access to funding sources could also be affected by a decrease in the level of our business activity as a result of a downturn in our target markets or by one or more adverse regulatory actions against us.
Any decline in available funding could adversely impact our ability to originate loans, invest in securities, meet our expenses, or to fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our dividend policy may change without notice, and our future ability to pay dividends is also subject to regulatory restrictions.
Holders of our common stock are entitled to receive only such cash dividends as our board of directors may declare out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends.
Although First Guaranty Bancshares, and First Guaranty Bank prior to the one-for-one share exchange that resulted in First Guaranty Bank becoming the wholly-owned subsidiary of First Guaranty Bancshares, paid a quarterly dividend to our shareholders for 85 consecutive quarters at September 30, 2014, we have no obligation to continue paying dividends, and we may change our dividend policy at any time without prior notice to our shareholders.
Any declaration and payment of dividends on common stock will substantially depend upon our earnings and financial condition, liquidity and capital requirements, regulatory and state law restrictions, general economic conditions and regulatory climate and other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors. Furthermore, consistent with our strategic plans, growth initiatives, capital availability, projected liquidity needs, and other factors, we have made, and will continue to make, capital management decisions and policies that could adversely impact the amount of dividends, if any, paid to our shareholders.
The dividend rate on our 39,435 shares of Senior Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series C (“Series C Preferred Stock”) that we issued to the United States Department of the Treasury as part of our participation in the Small Business Lending Fund (“SBLF”) will increase to 9.0% if we have not redeemed the Series C Preferred Stock on or prior to March 22, 2016, which will impact net income available to holders of our common stock and earnings per share of our common stock.
The per annum dividend rate on the shares of our Series C Preferred Stock was 1.0% per annum at September 30, 2014. Beginning on March 22, 2016, the per annum dividend rate on the Series C Preferred Stock will increase to a fixed rate of 9.0% if any Series C Preferred Stock remains outstanding. At the current dividend rate of 1.0% per annum, the total dividend paid on our Series C Preferred Stock is $394,350. Assuming the increased dividend rate of 9.0% per annum and assuming we have not redeemed any of our Series C Preferred Stock, the annual dividend payable on our Series C Preferred Stock would be $3.5 million. Depending on our financial condition at the time, any such increase in the dividend rate could have a material negative effect on our financial condition, including reducing our net income available to holders of our common stock and our earnings per share.
Failure to pay dividends on our Series C Preferred Stock may have negative consequences, including limiting our ability to pay dividends in the future.
The Series C Preferred Stock issued in connection with our participation in the SBLF pays a non-cumulative quarterly dividend in arrears. Such dividends are not cumulative but we may only declare and pay dividends on our common stock (or any other equity securities junior to the Series C Preferred Stock) if we have declared and paid dividends on the Series C Preferred Stock for the current dividend period.
We are subject to environmental liability risk associated with lending activities.
A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, we may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses to address unknown liabilities and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit our ability to use or sell the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase our exposure to environmental liability. Although we have policies and procedures to perform an environmental review before initiating any foreclosure action on nonresidential real property, these reviews may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Risks Related to Our Industry
We operate in a highly regulated environment and may be adversely affected by changes in federal, state and local laws and regulations.
We are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by federal and state banking authorities. Any change in applicable regulations or federal, state or local legislation could have a substantial impact on us and our operations. Additional legislation and regulations that could significantly affect our powers, authority and operations may be enacted or adopted in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Further, regulators have significant discretion and authority to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of laws by banks and bank holding companies in the performance of their supervisory and enforcement duties. The exercise of regulatory authority may have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition. Like other bank holding companies and financial institutions, we must comply with significant anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws. Under these laws, we are required, among other things, to enforce a customer identification program and file currency transaction and suspicious activity reports with the federal government. Government agencies have substantial discretion to impose significant monetary penalties on institutions which fail to comply with these laws or make required reports.
Federal and state regulators periodically examine our business, and we may be required to remediate adverse examination findings.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve Board”), the FDIC and the OFI periodically examine our business, including our compliance with laws and regulations. If, as a result of an examination, a federal banking agency were to determine that our financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity or other aspects of any of our operations had become unsatisfactory, or that we were in violation of any law or regulation, it may take a number of different remedial actions as it deems appropriate. These actions include the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative action to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our capital, to restrict our growth, to assess civil monetary penalties against our officers or directors, to remove officers and directors and, if it is concluded that such conditions cannot be corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, to terminate our deposit insurance and place us into receivership or conservatorship. If we become subject to any regulatory actions, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and growth prospects.
41
Financial reform legislation enacted by Congress will, among other things, tighten capital standards and result in new laws and regulations that likely will increase our costs of operations.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law on July 21, 2010. This law significantly changed the then-existing bank regulatory structure and affected the lending, deposit, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act changed the regulatory structure to which we are subject in numerous ways, including, but not limited to, the following:
| | Ÿ | the base for FDIC insurance assessments has been changed to a bank’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity, rather than upon its deposit base, while the FDIC’s authority to raise insurance premiums has been expanded; |
| | Ÿ | the current standard deposit insurance limit has been permanently raised to $250,000; |
| | Ÿ | the FDIC must raise the ratio of reserves to deposits from 1.15% to 1.35% for deposit insurance purposes by September 30, 2020 and to “offset the effect” of increased assessments on insured depository institutions with assets of less than $10.0 billion; |
| | Ÿ | the interchange fees payable on debit card transactions have been limited; |
| | Ÿ | there are multiple new provisions affecting corporate governance and executive compensation at all publicly traded companies; and |
| | Ÿ | all federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on commercial demand deposit accounts have been repealed. |
In addition to the foregoing, the Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) as an independent entity within the Federal Reserve. The CFPB has broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards, as well as with respect to certain mortgage-related matters, such as steering incentives, determinations as to a borrower’s ability to repay and prepayment penalties.
Our management continues to assess the impact on our operations of the Dodd-Frank Act and its regulations, many of which have yet to be proposed or adopted or are to be phased-in over time. Because the full impact of many of the regulations adopted pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act may not be known for some time, it is difficult to predict at this time what specific impact the Dodd-Frank Act will have on us. However, it is expected that at a minimum our operating and compliance costs will increase, and our interest expense could increase.
We will become subject to more stringent capital requirements, which may adversely impact our return on equity, require us to raise additional capital, or constrain us from paying dividends or repurchasing shares.
In July 2013, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board approved a new rule that will substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to First Guaranty Bancshares, on a consolidated basis, and First Guaranty Bank, on a stand -alone basis. The final rule implements the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act.
The final rule includes new minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which will be effective for First Guaranty Bancshares and First Guaranty Bank on January 1, 2015, and refines the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating these ratios. The new minimum capital requirements will be: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%. The final rule also establishes a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5%, and will result in the following minimum ratios: (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement would be phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and would increase each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution will be subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital level falls below the buffer amount. These limitations will establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that can be utilized for such actions.
The application of more stringent capital requirements for First Guaranty Bank and First Guaranty Bancshares could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, and result in regulatory actions constraining us from paying dividends or repurchasing shares if we are unable to comply with such requirements.
We are subject to the CRA and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to material penalties.
The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The CFPB, the United States Department of Justice and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. A successful challenge to an institution’s performance under the CRA or fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity and restrictions on expansion activity. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation.
Difficult market conditions have adversely affected the industry in which we operate.
If capital and credit markets experience volatility and disruption as they did during the recent financial crisis, we may face the following risks:
| | Ÿ | increased regulation of our industry; |
| | Ÿ | compliance with such regulation may increase our costs and limit our ability to pursue business opportunities; |
| | Ÿ | market developments and the resulting economic pressure on consumers may affect consumer confidence levels and may cause increases in delinquencies and default rates, which, among other effects, could affect our charge-offs and provision for loan losses. Competition in the industry could intensify as a result of the increasing consolidation of financial institutions in connection with the current market conditions; |
| | Ÿ | market disruptions make valuation even more difficult and subjective, and our ability to measure the fair value of our assets could be adversely affected. If we determine that a significant portion of our assets have values significantly below their recorded carrying value, we could recognize a material charge to earnings in the quarter in which such determination was made, our capital ratios would be adversely affected and a rating agency might downgrade our credit rating or put us on credit watch; and |
| | Ÿ | the downgrade of the United States government’s sovereign credit rating, any related rating agency action in the future, and the downgrade of the sovereign credit ratings for several European nations could negatively impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. |
Changes in the policies of monetary authorities and other government action could adversely affect our profitability.
The results of operations are affected by credit policies of monetary authorities, particularly the policies of the Federal Reserve Board. The instruments of monetary policy employed by the Federal Reserve Board include open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate or the federal funds rate on bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. In view of changing conditions in the national economy and in the money markets, particularly in light of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks and the current military operations in the Middle East, we cannot predict possible future changes in interest rates, deposit levels, loan demand or our business and earnings. Furthermore, the actions of the United States government and other governments in responding to such terrorist attacks or the military operations in the Middle East may result in currency fluctuations, exchange controls, market disruption and other adverse effects.
Future legislative or regulatory actions responding to perceived financial and market problems could impair our rights against borrowers.
Future legislative or regulatory actions responding to perceived financial and market problems could impair our rights against borrowers in the event of their default on their outstanding loan obligations. There have been proposals made by members of Congress and others that would reduce the amount distressed borrowers are otherwise contractually obligated to pay under their mortgage loans and limit an institution’s ability to foreclose on mortgage collateral. If proposals such as these or other proposals limiting our rights as a creditor were to be implemented, we could experience increased credit losses or increased expense in pursuing its remedies as a creditor.
We may be required to pay significantly higher FDIC insurance premiums or special assessments that could adversely affect our earnings.
We may be required to pay significantly higher FDIC insurance premiums or additional special assessments that could adversely affect our earnings. A bank’s regular assessments are determined by its risk classification, which is based on its regulatory capital levels and the level of supervisory concern that it poses. Recent insured depository institution failures, as well as deterioration in banking and economic conditions generally, have significantly increased the losses of the FDIC, resulting in a decline in the designated reserve ratio of the FDIC to historical lows. To restore this reserve ratio and bolster its funding position, the FDIC imposed a special assessment on depository institutions and also increased deposit insurance assessment rates. In the event of bank or financial institution failures, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC insurance premiums. Any future increases or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums may materially adversely affect our results of operations.
Item 6. ExhibitsThe following exhibits are either field as part of this report or are incorporated herein by reference.
