UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Form 10-K/A

 

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009

 

Commission file number 000-19297

FIRST COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

(276) 326-9000

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  o Yes     þ No

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.  o Yes     þ No

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  þ Yes     o No

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  o Yes     o No

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  o Yes     þ No

 

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

 

Approximately $193.61 million based on the closing sales price at June 30, 2009.

 

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

 

Class — Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value; 17,765,164 shares outstanding as of February 26, 2010.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the annual meeting of shareholders held on April 27, 2010, are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K/A.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Overview

 

First Community Bancshares, Inc. (“the Company”) is filing this second amendment to its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Original Filing”), to amend and restate financial statements and other financial information in the Original Filing as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to reflect the correction of a computational error in its model used to calculate its allowance for loan losses. For the same reason, the Company also is restating the financial statements and other financial information filed with the SEC for the year ended December 31, 2008 and each of the quarters ended March 31, 2009, June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009, and March 31, 2010.

 

Background

 

The reason for the restatement is to correct a computational error in the model that the Company used to calculate the quantitative basis for its allowance for loan losses for the periods indicated. The Company identified the computational error as a result of one of its routine internal audits. In connection with its determination of the appropriate loan loss reserves at December 31, 2008, the Company made certain modifications to its loan loss reserves model with respect to a $130.76 million pool of loans. However, in calculating the loan loss reserves for this pool of loans, the computational error resulted in the Company’s historical quarterly net charge-off rates not being annualized.

 

The Company has corrected the computational error in its model for calculating the allowance for loan losses. Based on the Company’s modeling using the corrected computations, the Company, in consultation with the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors, determined that the amount of the allowance for loan losses should be increased by an aggregate of $2.55 million for the period beginning December 31, 2008 and ending March 31, 2010.

 

Amendments to the Original Filing

 

The following sections of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A have been revised to reflect the restatement: Part I — Item 1 — Business and Item 1A — Risk Factors; Part II — Item 6 — Selected Financial Data, Item 7 — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Item 8 — Financial Statements and Supplementary Data and Item 9A — Controls and Procedures; and Part IV — Item 15 — Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules. Except to the extent relating to the restatement of the Company’s financial statements and other financial information described above, the financial statements and other disclosures in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A do not reflect any events that have occurred after the Original Filing was filed with the SEC on March 4, 2010. This Annual Report on Form 10-K/A does not modify or update those disclosures affected by subsequent events. Information not affected by the restatement is unchanged and reflects the disclosures made at the time of the Original Filing. Although the Company is amending only certain portions of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, for convenience and ease of reference, it is filing the entire Annual Report on this Form 10-K/A.

 

 

General

 

First Community Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) is a financial holding company incorporated in the State of Nevada and serves as the holding company for First Community Bank, N. A. (the “Bank”), a national banking association that conducts commercial banking operations within the states of Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee. The Company also owns GreenPoint Insurance Group, Inc. (“GreenPoint”), a full-service insurance agency, and Investment Planning Consultants (“IPC”), an investment advisory. The Company had total consolidated assets of approximately $2.27 billion at December 31, 2009, and conducts its banking operations through fifty-seven locations.

 

The Company provides a mechanism for ownership of the subsidiary banking operations, provides capital funds as required, and serves as a conduit for distribution of dividends to stockholders. The Company’s banking operations are expected to remain the principal business and major source of revenue for the Company. The Company also considers and evaluates options for growth and expansion of the existing subsidiary banking operations. The Company currently derives substantially all of its revenues from dividends paid to it by the Bank. Dividend payments by the Bank are determined in relation to earnings, asset growth and capital position and are subject to certain restrictions by regulatory agencies as described more fully under “Regulation and Supervision — The Company” of this item.

 

Although the Company is a corporate entity, legally separate and distinct from its affiliates, bank holding companies, such as the Company, are generally required to act as a source of financial strength for their subsidiary banks. The principal source of the Company’s income is dividends from the Bank. There are certain regulatory restrictions on the extent to which the Bank can pay dividends or otherwise provide funds to the Company. See “Supervision and Regulation — The Bank” in Item 1 hereof.

 

Operating Segments

 

The Company’s operations are managed along two reportable business segments consisting of community banking and insurance services. See Note 20 — Segment Information in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 hereof.

 

Competition

 

There is significant competition among banks in the Company’s market areas. In addition, the Company also competes with other providers of financial services, such as savings and loan associations, credit unions, consumer finance companies, securities firms, insurance companies, insurance agencies, commercial finance and leasing companies, full service brokerage firms and discount brokerage firms. Some of the Company’s competitors have greater resources and, as such, may have higher lending limits and may offer other services that are not provided by the Company. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Executive Overview — Competition” in Item 7 hereof.

 

Employees

 

The Company and its subsidiaries employed 646 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2009. Management considers employee relations to be excellent.

 

Regulation and Supervision

 

General

 

The supervision and regulation of the Company and its subsidiaries by the banking agencies is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and the banking system as a whole, and not for the protection of stockholders or creditors. The banking

agencies have broad enforcement power over bank holding companies and banks, including the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties for violations of laws and regulations.

 

The following description summarizes some of the laws to which the Company and the Bank are subject. References in the following description to applicable statutes and regulations are brief summaries of these statutes and regulations, do not purport to be complete, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations.

 

The Company

 

The Company is a financial holding company pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB Act”) and a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”). Accordingly, the Company is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve Board”). The BHCA, the GLB Act, and other federal laws subject financial and bank holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage, and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations.

 

Regulatory Restrictions on Dividends; Source of Strength.  It is the policy of the Federal Reserve Board that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only from income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. The policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.

 

Under Federal Reserve Board policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to each of its banking subsidiaries and commit resources to their support. Such support may be required at times when, absent this Federal Reserve Board policy, a holding company may not be inclined to provide it. As discussed below, a bank holding company in certain circumstances could be required to guarantee the capital plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary.

 

Scope of Permissible Activities.  Under the BHCA, bank holding companies generally may not acquire a direct or indirect interest in or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank or bank holding company or engage in activities other than those of banking, managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiaries, except that it may engage in, directly or indirectly, certain activities that the Federal Reserve Board determined to be closely related to banking or managing and controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the GLB Act eliminated the barriers to affiliations among banks, securities firms, insurance companies and other financial service providers and permits bank holding companies to become financial holding companies and thereby affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature. The GLB Act defines “financial in nature” to include securities underwriting, dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities and activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined to be closely related to banking. No regulatory approval is generally required for a financial holding company to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature, as determined by the Federal Reserve Board.

 

Under the GLB Act, a bank holding company may become a financial holding company by filing a declaration with the Federal Reserve Board if each of its subsidiary banks is well-capitalized under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) prompt corrective action provisions, is well managed and has at least a satisfactory rating under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”). The Company elected financial holding company status in December 2006.

 

Anti-Tying Restrictions.  Bank holding companies and their affiliates are prohibited from tying the provision of certain services, such as extensions of credit, to other services offered by a holding company or its affiliates.

Stock Repurchases.  A bank holding company is required to give the Federal Reserve Board prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve Board may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation.

 

Capital Adequacy Requirements.  The Federal Reserve Board has promulgated capital adequacy guidelines for use in its examination and supervision of bank holding companies. If a bank holding company’s capital falls below minimum required levels, then the bank holding company must implement a plan to increase its capital, and its ability to pay dividends, make acquisitions of new banks or engage in certain other activities such as issuing brokered deposits may be restricted or prohibited.

 

The Federal Reserve Board currently uses two types of capital adequacy guidelines for holding companies, a two-tiered risk-based capital guideline and a leverage capital ratio guideline. The two-tiered risk-based capital guideline assigns risk weightings to all assets and certain off-balance sheet items of the holding company’s operations, and then establishes a minimum ratio of the holding company’s Tier 1 capital to the aggregate dollar amount of risk-weighted assets (which amount is usually less than the aggregate dollar amount of such assets without risk weighting) and a minimum ratio of the holding company’s total capital (Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital, as adjusted) to the aggregate dollar amount of such risk-weighted assets. The leverage ratio guideline establishes a minimum ratio of the holding company’s Tier 1 capital to its total tangible assets (total assets less goodwill and certain identifiable intangibles), without risk-weighting.

 

Under both guidelines, Tier 1 capital (sometimes referred to as “core capital”) is defined to include: common shareholders’ equity (including retained earnings), qualifying non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus, qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus, trust preferred securities, and minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries (limited to a maximum of 25% of Tier 1 capital). Goodwill and most intangible assets are deducted from Tier 1 capital. For purposes of the total risk-based capital guidelines, Tier 2 capital (sometimes referred to as “supplementary capital”) is defined to include: allowances for loan and lease losses (limited to 1.25% of risk-weighted assets), perpetual preferred stock not included in Tier 1 capital, intermediate-term preferred stock and any related surplus, certain hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt securities, and intermediate-term subordinated debt instruments (subject to limitations). The maximum amount of qualifying Tier 2 capital is 100% of qualifying Tier 1 capital. For purposes of the total capital guideline, total capital equals Tier 1 capital, plus qualifying Tier 2 capital, minus investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries, reciprocal holdings of bank holding company capital securities, and deferred tax assets and other deductions. The Federal Reserve Board’s current capital adequacy guidelines require that a bank holding company maintain a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 4% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8%. At December 31, 2009, the Company’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets was 12.56% and its ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets was 13.81%.

 

In addition to the risk-based capital guidelines, the Federal Reserve Board uses a leverage ratio as an additional tool to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. The leverage ratio is a company’s Tier 1 capital divided by its average total consolidated assets. Certain highly rated bank holding companies may maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 3.0%, but other bank holding companies are required to maintain a leverage ratio of 4.0% or more, depending on their overall condition. At December 31, 2009, the Company’s leverage ratio was 8.51%.

 

The federal banking agencies’ risk-based and leverage ratios are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria, assuming that they have the highest regulatory rating. Banking organizations not meeting these criteria are expected to operate with capital positions well above the minimum ratios. The federal bank regulatory agencies may set capital requirements for a particular banking organization that are higher than the minimum ratios when circumstances warrant. Federal Reserve Board guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels, without significant reliance on intangible assets.

Acquisitions by Bank Holding Companies.  The BHCA requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board before it may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank, if after such acquisition it would own or control, directly or indirectly, more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank. In approving bank acquisitions by bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve Board is required to consider the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding company and the banks concerned, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, and various competitive factors.

 

Incentive Compensation.  On October 22, 2009, the Federal Reserve Board issued a comprehensive proposal on incentive compensation policies (the “Incentive Compensation Proposal”) intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The Incentive Compensation Proposal, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. The Federal Reserve Board indicated that all banking organizations are to evaluate their incentive compensation arrangements and related risk management, control, and corporate governance processes and immediately address deficiencies in these arrangements or processes that are inconsistent with safety and soundness.

 

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

 

In addition, on January 12, 2010, FDIC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on whether certain employee compensation structures pose risks that should be captured in the deposit insurance assessment program through higher deposit assessment rates.

 

The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future. It cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect the Company’s ability to hire, retain and motivate its key employees.

 

The Bank

 

The Bank is a national association and is subject to supervision and regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (“OCC”). Since the deposits of the Bank are insured by the FDIC, the Bank is also subject to supervision and regulation by the FDIC. Because the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Company, and because the Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Board also has regulatory authority which directly affects the Bank.

 

Restrictions on Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders.  Transactions between the Bank and its nonbanking subsidiaries and/or affiliates, including the Company, are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. In general, Section 23A imposes limits on the amount of such transactions, and also requires certain levels of collateral for loans to affiliated parties. It also limits the amount of advances to third parties which are collateralized by the securities or obligations of the Company or its subsidiaries.

 

Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which generally requires that certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to

the Bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other nonaffiliated persons. The Federal Reserve Board has issued Regulation W which codifies prior regulations under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and interpretive guidance with respect to affiliate transactions.

 

The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured institutions and their subsidiaries and holding companies. These restrictions include limits on loans to one borrower and conditions that must be met before such a loan can be made. There is also an aggregate limitation on all loans to such persons. These loans cannot exceed the institution’s total unimpaired capital and surplus, and the FDIC may determine that a lesser amount is appropriate.

 

Restrictions on Distribution of Subsidiary Bank Dividends and Assets.  Dividends paid by the Bank have provided the Company’s operating funds and for the foreseeable future it is anticipated that dividends paid by the Bank to the Company will continue to be the Company’s primary source of operating funds.

 

Capital adequacy requirements of the OCC limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by the Bank. The Bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, it would be classified as “undercapitalized.” In addition, without the OCC’s approval, dividends may not be paid by the Bank in an amount in any calendar year which exceeds its total net profits for that year, plus its retained profits for the preceding two years, less any required transfers to capital surplus. National banks also may not pay dividends in excess of total retained profits, including current year’s earnings after deducting bad debts in excess of reserves for loan losses. In some cases, the OCC may find a dividend payment that meets these statutory requirements to be an unsafe or unsound practice. As a result of securities impairments and a special dividend from the Bank in 2008, the Bank is limited as to the dividends it can pay. Accordingly, the Bank would need permission from the OCC prior to paying dividends.

 

Because the Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries, its right to participate in the distribution of assets of any subsidiary upon the subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization will be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. In the event of liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors and other general or subordinated creditors are entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of holders of any obligation of the institution to its shareholders, including any depository institution holding company or any shareholder or creditor thereof.

 

Examinations.  Under the FDICIA, all insured institutions must undergo regular on-site examination by their appropriate banking agency and such agency may assess the institution for its costs of conducting the examination. The OCC periodically examines and evaluates national banks, such as the Bank. These examinations review areas such as capital adequacy, reserves, loan portfolio quality and management, consumer and other compliance issues, investments, information systems, disaster recovery and contingency planning and management practices. Based upon such an evaluation, the OCC may revalue the assets of a bank and require that it establish specific reserves to compensate for the difference between the OCC determined value and the book value of such assets.

 

Capital Adequacy Requirements.  The OCC has adopted regulations establishing minimum requirements for the capital adequacy of insured national banks. The OCC may establish higher minimum requirements if, for example, a bank has previously received special attention or has a high susceptibility to interest rate risk.

 

The OCC’s risk-based capital guidelines generally require national banks to have a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4.0% and a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8.0%. The capital categories have the same definitions for the Bank as for the Company. See “Regulation and Supervision — The Company — Capital Adequacy Requirements” above. At December 31, 2009, the Bank’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets was 10.50% and its ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets was 11.76%.

 

The OCC’s leverage guidelines require national banks to maintain Tier 1 capital of no less than 4.0% of average total assets, except in the case of certain highly rated banks for which the requirement is 3.0% of average total assets. At December 31, 2009, the Bank’s leverage ratio was 7.09%.

 

Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies.  The federal banking regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to capital-deficient institutions. Agency regulations define, for each capital category, the levels at which institutions are “well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly

undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized.” A “well-capitalized” institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 5.0% or higher; and is not subject to any written agreement, order or directive requiring it to maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. An “adequately capitalized” institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 4.0% or higher (3.0% or higher if the bank was rated a composite 1 in its most recent examination report and is not experiencing significant growth); and does not meet the criteria for a well-capitalized bank. An “undercapitalized” institution has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%. A “significantly undercapitalized” institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%. A “critically undercapitalized” institution’s tangible equity is equal to or less than 2.0% of average quarterly tangible assets. An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes. The Bank was classified as “well-capitalized” for purposes of the FDIC’s prompt corrective action regulation as of December 31, 2009.

 

In addition to requiring undercapitalized institutions to submit a capital restoration plan, agency regulations contain broad restrictions on certain activities of undercapitalized institutions including asset growth, acquisitions, branch establishment and expansion into new lines of business. With certain exceptions, an insured depository institution is prohibited from making capital distributions, including dividends, and is prohibited from paying management fees to control persons if the institution would be undercapitalized after any such distribution or payment.

 

As an institution’s capital decreases, the federal regulators’ enforcement powers become more severe. A significantly undercapitalized institution is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management and other restrictions. The FDIC has limited discretion in dealing with a critically undercapitalized institution and is generally required to appoint a receiver or conservator. Similarly, within 90 days of a national bank becoming critically undercapitalized, the OCC must appoint a receiver or conservator unless certain findings are made with respect to the institution’s continued viability.

 

Banks with risk-based capital and leverage ratios below the required minimums may also be subject to certain administrative actions, including the termination of deposit insurance upon notice and hearing, or a temporary suspension of insurance without a hearing in the event the institution has no tangible capital.

 

Deposit Insurance Assessments.  The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. The FDIC utilizes a risk-based assessment system to evaluate the risk of each financial institution based on three primary sources of information: (1) its supervisory rating, (2) its financial ratios, and (3) its long-term debt issuer rating, if the institution has one. The FDIC’s base assessment schedule can be adjusted up or down, and premiums for 2009 ranged from 12 basis points in the lowest risk category to 45 basis points for banks in the highest risk category. Premiums for 2010 are currently set at 2009 rates. During 2009 the FDIC also imposed a special assessment for all insured depositories that amounted to $988 thousand for the Bank.

 

In November 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule requiring subject institutions to prepay approximately three years of deposit insurance assessments. On December 30, 2009, the Bank made of a payment of approximately $10.88 million to the FDIC for its estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012. The Bank’s FDIC insurance expense totaled $4.26 million and $202 thousand in 2009 and 2008, respectively. FDIC insurance expense includes deposit insurance assessments and Financing Corporation (“FICO”) assessments related to outstanding FICO bonds. The FICO is a mixed-ownership government corporation established by the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 whose sole purpose was to function as a financing vehicle for the now defunct Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, the Bank received a one-time assessment credit of $1.13 million to be applied against future

deposit insurance assessments, subject to certain limitations. This credit was utilized to offset $81 thousand, $693 thousand, and $356 thousand of deposit insurance assessments during 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively.

 

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the amount of any proposed increase in its deposit insurance premium rate, as such changes are dependent upon a variety of factors, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. Given the enacted and proposed increases in FDIC assessments for insured financial institutions in 2009, the Company anticipates that FDIC assessments on deposits will have a significantly greater impact upon operating expenses in 2010 compared to 2009 and 2008, and could affect its reported earnings, liquidity and capital for the period.

 

Under the FDIA, the FDIC may terminate deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC.

 

Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program.  In November 2008, the FDIC adopted a final rule relating to the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (“TLG Program”). Under the TLG Program, the FDIC will (i) guarantee, through the earlier of maturity or December 31, 2012, certain newly issued senior unsecured debt issued by participating institutions on or after October 14, 2008, and before June 30, 2009 and (ii) provide full FDIC deposit insurance coverage for non-interest bearing transaction deposit accounts, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (“NOW”) accounts paying less than 0.5% interest per annum and Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts held at participating FDIC-insured institutions through June 30, 2010. Coverage under the TLG Program was available for the first 30 days without charge. The fee assessment for coverage of senior unsecured debt ranges from 50 basis points to 100 basis points per annum, depending on the initial maturity of the debt. The fee assessment for deposit insurance coverage is 10 basis points per quarter on amounts in covered accounts exceeding $250,000. In December 2008, the Company elected to participate in both guarantee programs and did not opt out of the six-month extension of the transaction account guarantee program. During the six-month extension period in 2010, the fee assessment increases to 15 basis points per quarter for institutions that are in Risk Category 1 of the risk-based premium system.

 

Safety and Soundness Standards.  The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (the “FDIA”), requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to prescribe standards, by regulations or guidelines, relating to internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, stock valuation and compensation, fees and benefits, and such other operational and managerial standards as the agencies deem appropriate. Guidelines adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines. The guidelines prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder. In addition, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an agency to order an institution that has been given notice by an agency that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an acceptable compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution is subject under the “prompt corrective action” provisions of FDIA. See “Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies” above. If an institution fails to comply with such an order, the agency may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties.

 

Enforcement Powers.  The FDIC and the other federal banking agencies have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and supervisory agreements could subject the Company or the Bank, as well as officers, directors and other institution-affiliated parties of these organizations, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil money penalties. The appropriate federal banking agency may appoint the FDIC as conservator or receiver for a banking institution (or the FDIC may appoint itself, under certain circumstances) if any one or more of a number of circumstances exist,

including, without limitation, the fact that the banking institution is undercapitalized and has no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized; fails to become adequately capitalized when required to do so; fails to submit a timely and acceptable capital restoration plan; or materially fails to implement an accepted capital restoration plan.

 

Consumer Laws and Regulations.  In addition to the laws and regulations discussed herein, the Bank is also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the list set forth herein is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Fair Housing Act, and various state counterparts. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. The Bank must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of their ongoing customer relations.

 

In addition, federal law currently contains extensive customer privacy protection provisions. Under these provisions, a financial institution must provide to its customers, at the inception of the customer relationship and annually thereafter, the institution’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of customers’ nonpublic personal financial information. These provisions also provide that, except for certain limited exceptions, a financial institution may not provide such personal information to unaffiliated third parties unless the institution discloses to the customer that such information may be so provided and the customer is given the opportunity to opt out of such disclosure.

 

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.  The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“Patriot Act”) was enacted in October 2001. The Patriot Act has broadened existing anti-money laundering legislation while imposing new compliance and due diligence obligations on banks and other financial institutions, with a particular focus on detecting and reporting money laundering transactions involving domestic or international customers. The U.S. Treasury Department has issued and will continue to issue regulations clarifying the Patriot Act’s requirements. The Patriot Act requires all “financial institutions,” as defined, to establish certain anti-money laundering compliance and due diligence programs. Recently, the regulatory agencies have intensified their examination procedures in light of the Patriot Act’s anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act requirements. The Company believes that its controls and procedures were in compliance with the Patriot Act as of December 31, 2009.

 

Regulatory Reform.  In June 2009, President Obama’s administration proposed a wide range of regulatory reforms that, if enacted, may have significant effects on the financial services industry in the United States. Significant aspects of the administration’s proposals that may affect the Company included, among other things, proposals: (i) to reassess and increase capital requirements for banks and bank holding companies and examine the types of instruments that qualify as regulatory capital; (ii) to combine the OCC and the Office of Thrift Supervision into a National Bank Supervisor with a unified federal bank charter; (iii) to expand the current eligibility requirements for financial holding companies, such as the Company, so that the financial holding company must be “well capitalized” and “well managed” on a consolidated basis; (iv) to create a federal consumer financial protection agency to be the primary federal consumer protection supervisor with broad examination, supervision and enforcement authority with respect to consumer financial products and services; (v) to further limit the ability of banks to engage transactions with affiliates; and (vi) to subject all “over-the-counter” derivatives markets to comprehensive regulation.

 

The U.S. Congress, state lawmaking bodies and federal and state regulatory agencies continue to consider a number of wide-ranging and comprehensive proposals for altering the structure, regulation and competitive relationships of the nation’s financial institutions, including rules and regulations related to the administration’s proposals. Separate comprehensive financial reform bills intended to address the proposals set forth by the administration were introduced in both houses of Congress in the second half of 2009 and remain under review by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. In addition, both the U.S. Treasury Department and the Basel Committee have issued policy statements regarding proposed significant changes to the regulatory capital framework applicable to banking organizations, as discussed above. The Company cannot predict whether or in what form further legislation or regulations may be adopted or the extent to which the Company may be affected thereby.

Participation in the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program

 

On November 21, 2008, the Company issued and sold to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) (i) 41,500 shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock and (ii) a warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase 176,546 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $1.00 per share (the “Common Stock”), for an aggregate purchase price of $41.50 million in cash. On June 5, 2009 the Company completed a public offering of its Common Stock that resulted in the reduction of the shares of Common Stock underlying the Warrant from 176,546 shares to 88,273 shares. On July 8, 2009, the Company repurchased from the Treasury all of the Series A Preferred Stock that it had issued to the Treasury in November 2008. The Company did not repurchase the Warrant.

 

The Warrant has a 10-year term and was immediately exercisable upon its issuance, with an initial per share exercise price of $35.26. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Treasury has agreed not to exercise voting power with respect to any share of Common Stock issued upon exercise of the Warrant. In accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Company registered the Warrant and the shares of Common Stock underlying the Warrant with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Warrant is not subject to any contractual restrictions on transfer. As required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Secretary of the Treasury is required to liquidate the Warrant following the repurchase of the Series A Preferred Stock by the Company, which occurred in July 2009.

 

Website Access to Company Documents

 

The Company makes available free of charge on its website at www.fcbinc.com its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments thereto, as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company files such reports with, or furnishes them to, the SEC. Investors are encouraged to access these reports and the other information about the Company’s business on its website. Information found on the Company’s website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A. The Company will also provide copies of its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, free of charge, upon written request of its Investor Relations Department at the Company’s main address, P.O. Box 989, Bluefield, VA 24605.

 

Also posted on the Company’s website, and available in print upon request of any shareholder to the Company’s Investor Relations Department, are the charters of the standing committees of its Board of Directors, the Standards of Conduct governing the Company’s directors, officers, and employees, and the Company’s Insider Trading & Disclosure Policy.

 

Forward-Looking Statements

 

This Annual Report on Form 10-K/A may include “forward-looking statements”, which are made in good faith by the Company pursuant to the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include, among others, statements with respect to the Company’s beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, guidelines, expectations, anticipations, estimates and intentions that are subject to significant risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, many of which are beyond the Company’s control. The words “may”, “could”, “should”, “would”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “expect”, “intend”, “plan” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The following factors, among others, could cause the Company’s financial performance to differ materially from that expressed in such forward-looking statements: the strength of the United States economy in general and the strength of the local economies in which the Company conducts operations; the effects of, and changes in, trade, monetary and fiscal policies and laws, including interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve Board; inflation, interest rate, market and monetary fluctuations; the timely development of competitive new products and services of the Company and the acceptance of these products and services by new and existing customers; the willingness of customers to substitute competitors’ products and services for the Company’s products and services and vice versa; the impact of changes in financial services laws and regulations (including laws concerning taxes, banking, securities and insurance); technological changes; the effect of acquisitions, including, without limitation, the failure to achieve the expected revenue growth and/or expense savings from such acquisitions; the growth and profitability of the Company’s noninterest or fee income being less than expected; unanticipated regulatory or judicial proceedings; changes in

consumer spending and saving habits; and the success of the Company at managing the risks involved in the foregoing.

 

The Company cautions that the foregoing list of important factors is not all-inclusive. If one or more of the factors affecting these forward-looking statements proves incorrect, then the Company’s actual results, performance, or achievements could differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A. Therefore, the Company cautions you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

 

The Company does not intend to update these forward-looking statements, whether written or oral, to reflect change. All forward-looking statements attributable to the Company are expressly qualified by these cautionary statements.

 

 

Changes in the fair value of the Company’s securities may reduce its stockholders’ equity and net income.

 

At December 31, 2009, $486.06 million of the Company’s securities were classified as available-for-sale. At such date, the aggregate unrealized losses on the Company’s available-for-sale securities were $27.39 million. The Company increases or decreases stockholders’ equity by the amount of the change in the unrealized gain or loss (the difference between the estimated fair value and the amortized cost) of the Company’s available-for-sale securities portfolio, net of the related tax benefit, under the category of accumulated other comprehensive income/loss. Therefore, a decline in the estimated fair value of this portfolio will result in a decline in reported stockholders’ equity, as well as book value per common share and tangible book value per common share. This decrease will occur even though the securities are not sold. In the case of debt securities, if these securities are never sold and there are no further credit impairments, the decrease will be recovered over the life of the securities. In the case of equity securities which have no stated maturity, the declines in fair value may or may not be recovered over time.

 

The Company conducts periodic reviews and evaluations of its entire securities portfolio to determine if the decline in the fair value of any security below its cost basis is other-than-temporary. Factors which the Company considered in its analysis of debt securities include, but are not limited to, intent to sell the security, evidence available to determine if it is more likely than not that the Company will have to sell the securities before recovery of the amortized cost, and probable credit losses. Probable credit losses are evaluated based upon, but are not limited to: the present value of future cash flows, the severity and duration of the decline in fair value of the security below its amortized cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, whether the decline appears to be related to issuer conditions or general market or industry conditions, the payment structure of the security, failure of the security to make scheduled interest or principal payments, and changes to the rating of the security by rating agencies. The Company generally views changes in fair value for debt securities caused by changes in interest rates as temporary, which is consistent with the Company’s experience. If the Company deems such decline to be other-than-temporary, the security is written down to a new cost basis and the resulting loss is charged to earnings as a component of non-interest income. For the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company reported other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) charges of $77.59 million on its debt securities portfolio.

 

Factors that the Company considers in its analysis of equity securities include, but are not limited to: intent to sell the security before recovery of the cost, the severity and duration of the decline in fair value of the security below its cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, and whether the decline appears to be related to issuer conditions or general market or industry conditions.

 

The Company continues to monitor the fair value of its entire securities portfolio as part of its ongoing OTTI evaluation process. No assurance can be given that the Company will not need to recognize OTTI charges related to securities in the future.

The current economic environment poses significant challenges for the Company and could adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations.

 

There has been significant disruption and volatility in the financial and capital markets since 2007. The financial markets and the financial services industry in particular suffered unprecedented disruption, causing a number of institutions to fail or require government intervention to avoid failure. These conditions were largely the result of the erosion of the U.S. and global credit markets, including a significant and rapid deterioration in the mortgage lending and related real estate markets. Dramatic declines in the housing markets over the past three years, with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment, have resulted in significant writedowns of asset values by financial institutions. As a consequence, the Company recently experienced losses resulting primarily from substantial impairment charges on investment securities. Continued declines in real estate values, home sales volumes, and financial stress on borrowers as a result of the uncertain economic environment could have an adverse effect on the Company’s borrowers or their customers, which could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. A worsening of these conditions would likely exacerbate the adverse effects on the Company and others in the financial institutions industry. There can be no assurance that the economic conditions that have adversely affected the financial services industry, and the capital, credit and real estate markets generally, will improve significantly, in which case the Company could continue to experience losses, writedowns of assets, further impairment charges of investment securities and capital and liquidity constraints or other business challenges. A further deterioration in local economic conditions, particularly within the Company’s geographic regions and markets, could drive losses beyond that which is provided for in its allowance for loan losses. The Company may also face the following risks in connection with these events:

 

 

As the above conditions or similar ones continue to exist or worsen, the Company could experience continuing or increased adverse effects on its financial condition and results of operations.

 

The Company and its subsidiary business are subject to interest rate risk and variations in interest rates may negatively affect its financial performance.

 

The Company’s earnings and cash flows are largely dependent upon its net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest income earned on interest-earning assets, such as loans and securities, and interest expense paid on interest bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowed funds. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond the Company’s control, including general economic conditions and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies and, in particular, the Federal Reserve Board. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence not only the interest the Company receives on loans and securities and the amount of interest it pays on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect (i) the Company’s ability to originate loans and obtain deposits, and (ii) the fair value of the Company’s financial assets and liabilities. If the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster rate than the interest rates received on loans and other investments, the Company’s net interest income, and therefore

earnings, could be adversely affected. Earnings could also be adversely affected if the interest rates received on loans and other investments fall more quickly than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings.

 

The Bank’s allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual losses.

 

Like all financial institutions, the Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses to provide for probable losses. The Bank’s allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual loan losses, and future provisions for loan losses could materially and adversely affect the Bank’s operating results. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires the Bank to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. The Bank’s allowance for loan losses is determined by analyzing historical loan losses, current trends in delinquencies and charge-offs, plans for problem loan resolution, changes in the size and composition of the loan portfolio, and industry information. Also included in management’s estimates for loan losses are considerations with respect to the impact of economic events, the outcome of which are uncertain. The amount of future losses is susceptible to changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates, that may be beyond the Bank’s control, and these losses may exceed current estimates. Federal regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review the Bank’s loans and allowance for loan losses. Although the Company believes that the Bank’s allowance for loan losses is adequate to provide for probable losses, there are no assurances that future increases in the allowance for loan losses will not be needed or that regulators will not require the Bank to increase its allowance. Either of these occurrences could materially and adversely affect the Company’s earnings and profitability.

 

The Company has experienced increases in the levels of non-performing assets and loan charge-offs in recent periods. The Company’s total non-performing assets amounted to $22.11 million at December 31, 2009, $14.09 million at December 31, 2008, and $3.47 million at December 31, 2007. The Company had $9.31 million of net loan charge-offs for the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to $5.45 million and $2.43 million in net loan charge-offs for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Company’s provision for loan losses was $15.80 million for the year ended December 31, 2009, $9.23 million for the year ended December 31, 2008, and $717 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2007. At December 31, 2009, the ratios of the Company’s allowance for loan losses to non-accrual loans and to total loans outstanding was 138.51% and 1.74%, respectively. Additional increases in the Company’s non-performing assets or loan charge-offs may require it to increase its allowance for loan losses, which would have an adverse effect upon the Company’s future results of operations.

 

The declining real estate market could impact the Company’s business.

 

The Company’s business activities are conducted in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and the surrounding region. During 2008 and 2009, the real estate market in these regions experienced declines with falling home prices and increased foreclosures. As the Company’s net charge-offs increased during this period and in recognition of the continued deterioration in the real estate market and the potential for further increases in non-performing assets, the Company increased its provision for loan losses during 2008 and 2009. A continued downturn in this regional real estate market could hurt the Company’s business because of the geographic concentration within this regional area and because the vast majority of the Company’s loans are secured by real estate. If there is a further decline in real estate values, the collateral for the Company’s loans will provide less security. As a result, the Company’s ability to recover on defaulted loans by selling the underlying real estate will be diminished, and it will be more likely to suffer losses on defaulted loans.

 

The Company’s level of credit risk is increasing due to its focus on commercial and construction lending, and the concentration on small businesses and middle market customers with heightened vulnerability to economic conditions.

 

As of December 31, 2009, the Company’s largest outstanding commercial business loan and largest outstanding commercial real estate loan amounted to $15.34 million and $7.92 million, respectively. At such date, the Company’s commercial business loans amounted to $96.37 million, or 6.91% of the Company’s total loan portfolio, and the Company’s commercial real estate loans amounted to $450.61 million, or 32.33% of the Company’s total loan portfolio. Commercial business and commercial real estate loans generally are considered

riskier than single-family residential loans because they have larger balances to a single borrower or group of related borrowers. Commercial business and commercial real estate loans involve risks because the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans typically depends primarily on the successful operation of the businesses or the properties securing the loans. Most of the Company’s commercial business loans are made to small business or middle market customers who may have a heightened vulnerability to economic conditions. Moreover, a portion of these loans have been made or acquired by the Company in recent years and the borrowers may not have experienced a complete business or economic cycle.

 

In addition to commercial real estate and commercial business loans, the Company holds a portfolio of construction loans. At December 31, 2009, the Company’s construction loans amounted to $124.90 million, or 8.96% of the Company’s total loan portfolio. Construction loans generally have a higher risk of loss than single-family residential mortgage loans due primarily to the critical nature of the initial estimates of a property’s value upon completion of construction compared to the estimated costs, including interest, of construction as well as other assumptions. If the estimates upon which construction loans are made prove to be inaccurate, the Company may be confronted with projects that, upon completion, have values which are below the loan amounts. The nature of the allowance for loan losses requires that the Company must use assumptions regarding, among other factors, individual loans and the economy. While the Company is not aware of any specific, material impediments impacting any of its builder/developer borrowers at this time, there continues to be nationwide reports of significant problems which have adversely affected many property developers and builders as well as the institutions that have provided those loans. If any of the builder/developers to which the Company has extended construction loans experience the type of difficulties that are being reported, it could have adverse consequences upon its future results of operations.

 

The Bank may suffer losses in its loan portfolio despite its underwriting practices.

 

The Bank seeks to mitigate the risks inherent in the Bank’s loan portfolio by adhering to specific underwriting practices. These practices include analysis of a borrower’s prior credit history, financial statements, tax returns and cash flow projections, valuation of collateral based on reports of independent appraisers and verification of liquid assets. Although the Bank believes that its underwriting criteria are appropriate for the various kinds of loans it makes, the Bank may incur losses on loans that meet its underwriting criteria, and these losses may exceed the amounts set aside as reserves in the Bank’s allowance for loan losses.

 

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation which could adversely affect them.

 

The Company and its subsidiaries’ operations are subject to extensive regulation and supervision by federal and state governmental authorities and are subject to various laws and judicial and administrative decisions imposing requirements and restrictions on part or all of the Company’s operations. Banking regulations governing the Company’s operations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not security holders. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. Changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations or policies, could affect the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such changes could subject the Company to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products the Company 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 result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties and/or reputation damage, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. While the Company has policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, there can be no assurance that such violations will not occur. These laws, rules and regulations, or any other laws, rules or regulations, that may be adopted in the future, could make compliance more difficult or expensive, restrict the Company’s ability to originate, broker or sell loans, further limit or restrict the amount of commissions, interest or other charges earned on loans originated or sold by the Bank and otherwise adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition or prospects.

 

On October 3, 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the Treasury was granted the authority to take a range of actions for the purpose of stabilizing

and providing liquidity to the U.S. financial markets and has proposed several programs, including the purchase by the Treasury of certain troubled assets from financial institutions and the direct purchase by the Treasury of equity of financial institutions. There can be no assurance, however, as to the actual impact that the foregoing or any other governmental program will have on the financial markets. The failure of the financial markets to stabilize and a continuation or worsening of current financial market conditions could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, access to credit or the trading price of its Common Stock. In addition, current initiatives of President Obama’s administration may adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

 

The financial services industry is likely to face increased regulation and supervision as a result of the recent financial crisis. Such additional regulation and supervision may increase the Company’s costs and limit its ability to pursue business opportunities. The affects of such recently enacted, and proposed, legislation and regulatory programs on the Company cannot reliably be determined at this time.

 

The Bank’s ability to pay dividends is subject to regulatory limitations which, to the extent the Company requires such dividends in the future, may affect the Company’s ability to pay its obligations and pay dividends.

 

The Company is a separate legal entity from the Bank and its subsidiaries and does not have significant operations of its own. The Company currently depends on the Bank’s cash and liquidity as well as dividends to pay the Company’s operating expenses and dividends to shareholders. No assurance can be made that in the future the Bank will have the capacity to pay the necessary dividends and that the Company will not require dividends from the Bank to satisfy the Company’s obligations. The availability of dividends from the Bank is limited by various statutes and regulations. It is possible, depending upon the financial condition of the Bank and other factors, that the OCC, the Bank’s primary regulator, could assert that payment of dividends or other payments by the Bank are an unsafe or unsound practice. In the event the Bank is unable to pay dividends sufficient to satisfy the Company’s obligations or is otherwise unable to pay dividends to the Company, the Company may not be able to service its obligations as they become due, including payments required to be made to the FCBI Capital Trust, a business trust subsidiary of the Company, or pay dividends on the Company’s Common Stock. Consequently, the inability to receive dividends from the Bank could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects. As a result of securities impairments and a special dividend from the Bank in 2008, the Bank does not have retained profits from which it can pay dividends. Accordingly, the Bank would need permission from the OCC prior to paying dividends to the Company.

 

The Company faces strong competition from other financial institutions, financial service companies and other organizations offering services similar to those offered by the Company and its subsidiaries, which could hurt the Company’s business.

 

The Company’s business operations are centered primarily in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Increased competition within this region may result in reduced loan originations and deposits. Ultimately, the Company may not be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors. Many competitors offer the types of loans and banking services that the Bank offers. These competitors include other savings associations, national banks, regional banks and other community banks. The Company also faces competition from many other types of financial institutions, including finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, credit unions, mortgage banks and other financial intermediaries. In particular, the Bank’s competitors include other state and national banks and major financial companies whose greater resources may afford them a marketplace advantage by enabling them to maintain numerous banking locations and mount extensive promotional and advertising campaigns.

 

Additionally, banks and other financial institutions with larger capitalization and financial intermediaries not subject to bank regulatory restrictions have larger lending limits and are thereby able to serve the credit needs of larger clients. These institutions, particularly to the extent they are more diversified than the Company, may be able to offer the same loan products and services that the Company offers at more competitive rates and prices. If the Company is unable to attract and retain banking clients, the Company may be unable to continue the Bank’s loan and deposit growth and the Company’s business, financial condition and prospects may be negatively affected.

Potential Acquisitions May Disrupt the Company’s Business and Dilute Stockholder Value

 

The Company may seek merger or acquisition partners that are culturally similar and have experienced management and possess either significant market presence or have potential for improved profitability through financial management, economies of scale or expanded services. Acquiring other banks, businesses, or branches involves various risks commonly associated with acquisitions, including, among other things:

 

 

The Company regularly evaluates merger and acquisition opportunities and conducts due diligence activities related to possible transactions with other financial institutions and financial services companies. As a result, merger or acquisition discussions and, in some cases, negotiations may take place and future mergers or acquisitions involving cash, debt or equity securities may occur at any time. Acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and market values, and, therefore, some dilution of the Company’s tangible book value and net income per common share may occur in connection with any future transaction. Furthermore, failure to realize the expected revenue increases, cost savings, increases in geographic or product presence, and/or other projected benefits from an acquisition could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

 

In the third quarter of 2009, the Company completed its acquisition of TriStone Community Bank, located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Details of recent acquisitions are presented in Note 3 — Merger, Acquisition and Branching Activity in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 hereof.

 

The Company’s goodwill may be determined to be impaired.

 

As of December 31, 2009, the carrying amount of the Company’s goodwill was $84.65 million. The Company tests goodwill for impairment on an annual basis, or more frequently if necessary. Quoted market prices in active markets are the best evidence of fair value and are to be used as the basis for measuring impairment, when available. Other acceptable valuation methods include present-value measurements based on multiples of earnings or revenues, or similar performance measures. If the Company determines that the carrying amount of its goodwill exceeds its implied fair value, the Company would be required to write down the value of the goodwill on its balance sheet. This, in turn, would result in a charge against earnings and, thus, a reduction in the Company’s stockholders’ equity and certain related capital measures.

 

The Company may lose members of its management team and have difficulty attracting skilled personnel.

 

The Company’s success depends, in large part, on its ability to attract and retain key people. Competition for the best people can be intense and the Company may not be able to hire such people or to retain them. The unexpected loss of services of key personnel of the Company could have a material adverse impact on its business because of their skills, knowledge of the Company’s market, years of industry experience and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel. In addition, recent regulatory proposals and guidance relating to compensation may negatively impact the Company’s ability to retain and attract skilled personnel.

Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition.

 

The Bank’s FDIC insurance premiums increased substantially in 2009, and the Company expects to pay significantly higher premiums in the future. A large number of depository institution failures have significantly depleted the DIF and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits. In order to restore the DIF to its statutorily mandated minimum of 1.15 percent over a period of several years, the FDIC increased deposit insurance premium rates at the beginning of 2009 and imposed a special assessment on June 30, 2009, which amounted to $988 thousand for the Bank. The FDIC may impose additional special assessments in the future.

 

In November 2009, in order to ensure sufficient liquidity to pay for projected depository institution failures, the FDIC adopted a final rule pursuant to which all insured depository institutions were required to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012. For purposes of calculating the prepaid assessment amount, an institution’s assessment base for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, is increased quarterly by an estimated five percent annual growth rate through the end of 2012. An institution’s assessment rate for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010 is equal to the rate in effect on September 30, 2009, under the proposed rule, but is increased by three basis points for all of 2011 and 2012. Under the final rule, the Company was required to make a payment to the FDIC on December 30, 2009, and to record the payment as a prepaid expense, which would be amortized to expense over three years. On December 30, 2009, the Company paid $10.88 million as prepayment of its estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012.

 

The Company may need to raise additional capital in the future, and such capital may not be available when needed or at all.

 

The Company may need to raise additional capital in the future to provide it with sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet its commitments and business needs, particularly if its asset quality or earnings were to deteriorate significantly. The Company’s 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 its control, and its financial performance. Economic conditions and the loss of confidence in financial institutions may increase the Company’s cost of funding and limit access to certain customary sources of capital, including inter-bank borrowings, repurchase agreements and borrowings from the discount window of the Federal Reserve Board. Any occurrence that may limit the Company’s access to the capital markets may adversely affect the Company’s capital costs and its ability to raise capital and, in turn, its liquidity. Accordingly, the Company cannot provide any assurance that additional capital will be available on acceptable terms or at all. An inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s businesses, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Liquidity risk could impair the Company’s ability to fund its operations and jeopardize its financial condition.

 

Liquidity is essential to the Company’s business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, equity/debt offerings and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on the Company’s liquidity. The Company’s access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance its activities, or on terms attractive to the Company, could be impaired by factors that affect the Company specifically or the financial services industry in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact the Company’s access to liquidity sources include a reduction in its credit ratings, if any, an increase in costs of capital in financial capital markets, a decrease in the level of its business activity due to a market downturn or adverse regulatory action against the Company, or a decrease in depositor or investor confidence in it. The Company’s ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to it, such as a severe disruption of the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole.

 

The Company has no unresolved staff comments as of the filing date of this 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

The Company generally owns its offices, related facilities, and unimproved real property. The principal offices of the Company are located at One Community Place, Bluefield, Virginia, where the Company owns and occupies approximately 36,000 square feet of office space. As of December 31, 2009, the Company operated in 57 locations throughout the five states of Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee. The Company owns 43 of its banking offices while others are leased or are located on leased land. The Company also operates nine insurance offices throughout North Carolina and Virginia, including its headquarters in High Point, North Carolina. The Company owns one of its insurance offices and leases the remaining locations. There are no mortgages or liens against any property of the Company. A complete listing of all branches and ATM sites can be found on the Internet at www.fcbresource.com. Information on such website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

 

 

The Company is currently a defendant in various legal actions and asserted claims involving lending and collection activities and other matters in the normal course of business. Although the Company and legal counsel are unable to assess the ultimate outcome of each of these matters with certainty, they are of the belief that the resolution of these actions should not have a material adverse affect on the financial position or the results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

Common Stock Market Prices and Dividends

 

The number of common stockholders of record on February 22, 2010, was 2,802 and outstanding shares totaled 17,765,164. The number of common stockholders is measured by the number of recordholders. The Company’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select market under the symbol “FCBC”.

 

Cash dividends on common stock for 2009 totaled $0.30 per share and $1.12 per share in 2008. Total dividends paid on common stock for the current and prior years totaled $4.62 million and $12.45 million, respectively. Total dividends paid on preferred stock for the 2009 totaled $1.12 million. Details of the restrictions on cash dividends are set forth in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations- Liquidity and Capital Resources in Item 6 hereof and Note 15 — Regulatory Capital Requirements and Restrictions of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 hereof.

 

The following table sets forth the high and low stock prices and dividends paid per share on the Company’s common stock during the periods indicated.

 

 

 

Stock Repurchase Plans

 

The following table provides information with respect to purchases made by or on behalf of the Company or any “affiliated purchaser” (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) of the Company’s Common Stock during the fourth quarter of 2009.

 

 

 

Total Return Analysis

 

The following chart was compiled by SNL Securities LC, and compares cumulative total shareholder return of the Company’s Common Stock for the five-year period ended December 31, 2009, with the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index, the NASDAQ Composite index, and the Asset Size & Regional Peer Group. The Asset Size & Regional Peer Group consists of 53 bank holding companies that are traded on the NASDAQ, OTC Bulletin Board, and pink sheets with total assets between $1 billion and $5 billion and are located in the Southeast Region of the United States. The cumulative returns include reinvestment of dividends by the Company.

 

Total Return Performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following consolidated selected financial data is derived from the Company’s audited financial statements as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2009. The following consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A. All of the Company’s acquisitions during the five years ended December 31, 2009 were accounted for using the purchase method. Accordingly, the operating results of the acquired companies are included with the Company’s results of operations since their respective dates of acquisition.

 

The consolidated selected financial data set forth in this Item 6 for the year ended December 31, 2009 has been restated. For additional information concerning the restated financial information, see Note 2 - Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

 

 

 

Restatement

 

As a result of a routine internal audit, the Company determined there was a computational error in the model that it uses to calculate the quantitative basis for its allowance for loan losses. In connection with its determination of the appropriate loan loss reserve at December 31, 2008, the Company made certain modifications to its loan loss reserve model with respect to a $130.76 million pool of loans. However, in calculating the loan loss reserves for this pool of loans, the historical quarterly net charge-off rates were not annualized as was the case with all other quarterly loss rates in the model. The Company has corrected the computational error in its model for calculating the allowance for loan losses. The financial information for the year ending December 31, 2009 provided in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations has been restated to reflect the correction of the computational error. For additional information, see the Explanatory Note immediately preceding Part I, Item 1 and Note 2. - Restatement of Consolidated Financial Statements of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

 

Executive Overview

 

First Community Bancshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that, through its bank subsidiary, provides commercial banking services and has positioned itself as a regional community bank and a financial services alternative to larger banks which often provide less emphasis on personal relationships, and smaller community banks which lack the capital and resources to efficiently serve customer needs. The Company has focused its growth efforts on building financial partnerships and more enduring and complete relationships with businesses and individuals through a very personal and local approach to banking and financial services. The Company and its operations are guided by a strategic plan which includes growth through acquisitions and through office expansion in new market areas including strategically identified metro markets in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. While the Company’s mission remains that of a community bank, management believes that entry into new markets will accelerate the Company’s growth rate by diversifying the demographics of its customer base and customer prospects and by generally increasing its sales and service network.

 

Economy

 

The local economies in which the Company operates are diverse and span a five-state region. The economies of West Virginia and Southwest Virginia have significant exposure to extractive industries, such as coal, timber and natural gas, which become more active and lucrative when oil prices rise. The local economies in the central portion of North Carolina have suffered in recent years due to foreign competition in both furniture and textiles, as well as consolidation in the financial services industry. Despite these detractions, the economies in this region continue to benefit from national companies operating in the Triad, Central Piedmont, and central South Carolina areas. The Eastern Virginia local economies have, in recent years, benefited from key corporate and government activities and relocations. The economy in eastern Tennessee continues to benefit from the stability of higher education and tourism.

 

Despite the stable and positive aspects of our regional economies, the Company’s markets have experienced significant declines in residential development and construction, not inconsistent with national trends. These

declines have led to contraction in residential land development and construction, which have historically been important components of the Company’s lending activities. The economies of the Company’s southwest Virginia and West Virginia markets have remained stable compared to the national economy and unemployment levels are generally lower than the national average at December 31, 2009.

 

Competition

 

As the Company competes for increased market share and growth in both loans and deposits, it continues to encounter strong competition from many sources. Many of the markets targeted by the Company are also being entered by other banks in nearby and distant markets. The expansion of banks, credit unions, and other non-depository financial companies over recent years has intensified competitive pressures on core deposit generation and retention. Competitive forces impact the Company through pressure on interest yields, product fees, and loan structure and terms; however, the Company has countered these pressures with its relationship style of banking, competitive pricing and a disciplined approach to loan underwriting.

 

Application of Critical Accounting Policies

 

The Company’s consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and conform to general practices within the banking industry. The Company’s financial position and results of operations are affected by management’s application of accounting policies, including judgments made to arrive at the carrying value of assets and liabilities and amounts reported for revenues, expenses and related disclosures. Different assumptions in the application of these policies could result in material changes in the Company’s consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations.

 

Estimates, assumptions, and judgments are necessary principally when assets and liabilities are required to be recorded at estimated fair value, when a decline in the value of an asset carried on the financial statements at fair value warrants an impairment writedown or valuation reserve to be established, or when an asset or liability needs to be recorded based upon the probability of occurrence of a future event. Carrying assets and liabilities at fair value inherently results in more financial statement volatility. The fair values and the information used to record valuation adjustments for certain assets and liabilities are based either on quoted market prices or are provided by third party sources, when available. When third party information is not available, valuation adjustments are estimated by management primarily through the use of financial modeling techniques and appraisal estimates.

 

The Company’s accounting policies are fundamental to understanding Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation. The following is a summary of the Company’s more subjective and complex “critical accounting policies.” In addition, the disclosures presented in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements and in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations provide information on how significant assets and liabilities are valued in the financial statements and how those values are determined. Based on the valuation techniques used and the sensitivity of financial statement amounts to the methods, assumptions, and estimates underlying those amounts, management has identified investment valuation, determination of the allowance for loan losses, accounting for acquisitions and intangible assets, and accounting for income taxes as the accounting areas that require the most subjective or complex judgments.

 

Investment securities

 

Management performs an extensive review of the investment securities portfolio quarterly to determine the cause of declines in the fair value of each security within each segment of the portfolio. The Company uses inputs provided by an independent third party to determine the fair values of its investment securities portfolio. Inputs provided by the third party are reviewed and corroborated by management. Evaluations of the causes of the unrealized losses are performed to determine whether the impairment is temporary or other-than-temporary in nature. Considerations such as the Company’s intent and ability to hold the securities, recoverability of the invested amounts over the Company’s intended holding period, severity in pricing decline, credit rating, and receipt of amounts contractually due, among other factors, are applied in determining whether a security is

other-than-temporarily impaired. If a decline in value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the value of the security is reduced and a corresponding charge to earnings is recognized.

 

Allowance for Loan Losses

 

The allowance for loan losses is maintained at a level management deems sufficient to absorb probable losses inherent in the portfolio, and is based on management’s evaluation of the risks in the loan portfolio and changes in the nature and volume of loan activity. The Company consistently applies a review process to periodically evaluate loans for changes in credit risk. This process serves as the primary means by which the Company evaluates the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses.

 

The Company determines the allowance for loan losses by making specific allocations to impaired loans that exhibit inherent weaknesses and various credit risk factors, and general allocations to commercial, residential real estate, and consumer loans are developed giving weight to risk ratings, historical loss trends and management’s judgment concerning those trends and other relevant factors. These factors may include, but are not limited to, actual versus estimated losses, regional and national economic conditions, business segment and portfolio concentrations, industry competition and consolidation, and the impact of government regulations. The foregoing analysis is performed by management to evaluate the portfolio and calculate an estimated valuation allowance through a quantitative and qualitative analysis that applies risk factors to those identified risk areas.

 

This risk management evaluation is applied at both the portfolio level and the individual loan level for commercial loans and credit relationships while the level of consumer and residential mortgage loan allowance is determined primarily on a total portfolio level based on a review of historical loss percentages and other qualitative factors including concentrations, industry specific factors and economic conditions. The commercial portfolio requires more specific analysis of individually significant loans and the borrower’s underlying cash flow, business conditions, capacity for debt repayment and the valuation of secondary sources of payment, such as collateral. This analysis may result in specifically identified weaknesses and corresponding specific impairment allowances. While allocations are made to specific loans and classifications within the various categories of loans, the allowance for loan losses is available for all loan losses.

 

The use of various estimates and judgments in the Company’s ongoing evaluation of the required level of allowance can significantly impact the Company’s results of operations and financial condition and may result in either greater provisions against earnings to increase the allowance or reduced provisions based upon management’s current view of the portfolio and economic conditions and the application of revised estimates and assumptions. Differences between actual loan loss experience and estimates are reflected through adjustments, either increasing or decreasing the loan loss provision based upon current measurement criteria.

 

Acquisitions and Intangible Assets

 

The Company may, from time to time, engage in business combinations with other companies. Purchase accounting requires the recording of underlying assets and liabilities of the entity acquired at their fair market value. Any excess of the purchase price of the business over the net assets acquired and any identified intangibles is recorded as goodwill. In instances where the price of the acquired business is less than the net assets acquired, a gain on purchase is recorded. Fair values are assigned based on quoted prices for similar assets, if readily available, or appraisal by qualified independent parties for relevant asset and liability categories. Financial assets and liabilities are typically valued using discount models which apply current discount rates to streams of cash flow. All of these valuation methods require the use of assumptions which can result in alternate valuations and varying levels of goodwill and amounts of bargain purchase gain and, in some cases, amortization expense or accretion income.

 

Management must also make estimates of useful or economic lives of certain acquired assets and liabilities. These lives are used in establishing amortization and accretion of some intangible assets and liabilities, such as the intangible associated with core deposits acquired in the acquisition of a commercial bank.

 

Goodwill is recorded as the excess of the purchase price, if any, over the fair value of the revalued net assets. Goodwill is tested annually in the month of October for possible impairment by comparing the fair value of each segment to its book value, including goodwill (step 1). If the fair value of the segment is greater than its book value,

no goodwill impairment exists. However, if the book value of the segment is greater than its determined fair value, goodwill impairment may exist and further testing is required to determine the amount, if any, of the actual impairment loss (step 2). The step 1 test utilizes a combination of two methods to determine the fair value of the reporting units. For both segments, a discounted cash flow model is created projecting cash flows from operations of the business segment, the results of which are weighted 70%. For the banking segment, a market multiple model utilizes price to net income and price to tangible book value inputs for closed transactions and for certain common sized institutions and the results are weighted 30%. For the insurance segment the market multiple model primarily utilizes price to sales for closed transactions and certain similar industry public companies and the results are weighted 30%. The end results for both segments are then compared to the respective book values to consider if impairment is evident. To determine the overall reasonableness of the segment computations, the combined computed fair value is then compared to the overall market capitalization of the consolidated Company to determine the level of implied control premium.

 

The discounted cash flow analysis uses estimates in the form of growth and attrition rates, anticipated rates of return, and discount rates. These estimates have a direct bearing on the results of the impairment testing and serve as the basis for management’s conclusions as to potential impairment.

 

The results of the step 1 analysis performed at October 31, 2009, determined that no impairment was evident and a step 2 test was not necessary. An adjustment to the weighting of the results, deterioration in the market multiples used, further decline in the banking and retail insurance industry valuations, or further decline in our common stock price could provide evidence in the future of potential impairment.

 

Income Taxes

 

The establishment of provisions for federal and state income taxes is a complex area of accounting which also involves the use of judgments and estimates in applying relevant tax statutes. The Company operates in multiple state tax jurisdictions and this requires the appropriate allocation of income and expense to each state based on a variety of apportionment or allocation bases. The Company is also subject to audit by federal and state tax authorities. Results of these audits may produce indicated liabilities which differ from Company estimates and provisions. The Company continually evaluates its exposure to possible tax assessments arising from audits and records its estimate of possible exposure based on current facts and circumstances.

 

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the tax effects of differing carrying values of assets and liabilities for tax and financial statement purposes that will reverse in future periods. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are reflected at currently enacted income tax rates applicable to the period in which the deferred tax assets or liabilities are expected to be realized or settled. As changes in tax laws or rates are enacted, deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted through the provision for income taxes. When uncertainty exists concerning the recoverability of a deferred tax asset, the carrying value of the asset may be reduced by a valuation allowance. The amount of any valuation allowance established is based upon an estimate of the deferred tax asset that is more likely than not to be recovered. Increases or decreases in the valuation allowance result in increases or decreases to the provision for income taxes.

 

Recent Acquisitions and Branching Activity

 

In July 2009, the Company acquired TriStone Community Bank (“TriStone”), based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. TriStone had two full service locations in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. At acquisition, TriStone had total assets of $166.82 million, total loans of $132.23 million and total deposits of $142.27 million. Each outstanding common share of TriStone was exchanged for .5262 shares of the Company’s Common Stock and the overall acquisition cost was approximately $10.78 million. The acquisition of TriStone significantly augmented the Company’s market presence and human resources in the Winston-Salem, North Carolina market.

 

In November 2008, the Company acquired Coddle Creek Financial Corp. (“Coddle Creek”), headquartered in Mooresville, North Carolina. Coddle Creek had three full service branch offices located in Mooresville, Cornelius, and Huntersville, North Carolina. At acquisition, Coddle Creek had total assets of $158.66 million, total loans of $136.99 million and total deposits of $137.06 million. Under the terms of the merger agreement, shares of Coddle Creek common stock were exchanged for .9046 shares of the Company’s common stock and $19.60 in cash. The

total deal value, including the cash-out of outstanding stock options, was approximately $32.29 million. Concurrent with the Coddle Creek acquisition, Mooresville Savings Bank, Inc., SSB, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Coddle Creek, was merged into the Bank. As a result of the acquisition and preliminary purchase price allocation, approximately $14.41 million in goodwill was recorded which represents the excess of the purchase price over the fair market value of the net assets acquired and identified intangibles.

 

In September 2007, the Company acquired GreenPoint Insurance Group (“GreenPoint”), an insurance agency located in High Point, North Carolina. As of September 30, 2007, GreenPoint had annualized commission revenues of approximately $4.60 million. In connection with the acquisition, the Company has issued an aggregate of 78,824 shares of common stock to the former shareholders of GreenPoint. Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement, former shareholders of GreenPoint are entitled to additional consideration aggregating up to $906 thousand in the form of cash or the Company’s Common Stock, valued at the time of issuance, if certain future operating performance targets are met. If those operating targets are met, the value of the consideration ultimately paid will be added to the cost of the acquisition, which will increase the amount of goodwill related to the acquisition. The acquisition of GreenPoint has added $11.01 million of goodwill and intangibles to the Company’s balance sheet, net of amortization totaling $10.57 million.

 

GreenPoint has acquired six insurance agencies and sold one since its acquisition by the Company. GreenPoint has issued aggregate cash consideration of approximately $803 thousand and $2.04 million in 2009 and 2008, respectively, in connection with those acquisitions. Acquisition terms in all instances call for issuing further aggregate cash consideration of $3.5 million if certain operating performance targets are met. If those targets are met, the value of the consideration ultimately paid will be added to the cost of the acquisitions. GreenPoint’s 2009 and 2008 acquisitions added approximately $803 thousand and $2.04 million, respectively, of goodwill and intangibles to the Company’s balance sheet.

 

The Company opened one branch during 2009 and one during 2008. The new branch in 2009 is located in Grafton, West Virginia.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

 

2009 COMPARED TO 2008

 

The net loss available to common shareholders for 2009 was $40.86 million, a decrease of $42.56 million from net income available to common shareholders of $1.70 million in 2008. Basic and diluted loss per common share for 2009 was $2.75, compared with basic and diluted earnings per common share of $0.15 in 2008. The significant decline in earnings in 2009 reflects pre-tax impairment charges and losses on the sale of securities amounting to $90.54 million. The Company’s returns on average assets was a negative 1.83% in 2009 and 0.08% in 2008. Return on equity was a negative 16.73% in 2009 and 0.86% in 2008.

 

The Company acquired TriStone Community Bank, a $166.82 million bank holding company, in July 2009. As a result of the acquisition, a gain of approximately $4.49 million was recorded, which represents the excess fair market value of the net assets acquired and indentified intangibles over the purchase price. The net operations of TriStone were not significant to the Company’s 2009 results of operations.

 

Net Interest Income

 

The primary source of the Company’s earnings is net interest income, the difference between income on earning assets and the cost of funds supporting those assets. Significant categories of earning assets are loans and securities while deposits and borrowings represent the major portion of interest bearing liabilities. Net interest income was $69.25 million for 2009, compared with $65.84 million for 2008. Tax equivalent net interest income totaled $72.55 million for 2009, an increase of $2.58 million from the $69.97 million reported for 2008.

 

For purposes of the following discussion, comparison of net interest income is performed on a tax equivalent basis, which provides a common basis for comparing yields on earning assets exempt from federal income taxes to those assets which are fully taxable (see the table titled Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest Income Analysis).

During 2009, average earning assets increased $138.73 million while average interest bearing liabilities increased $147.22 million, in each case over the comparable period. The increases primarily reflect the acquisitions of TriStone and Coddle Creek. The yield on average earning assets decreased 65 basis points to 5.73% for 2009 from 6.38% for 2008. Short-term market interest rates remained low throughout 2009, as the Federal Reserve Board held the “range” of zero to 25 basis points as its target for federal funds. The prevailing low interest rate environment was the largest driver in the overall decrease in the Company’s yield on average earning assets.

 

Total cost of average interest bearing liabilities decreased 59 basis points to 2.20% during 2009. The Company’s time deposit portfolio experienced downward repricing during 2009, as many of the higher-rate certificates were renewed at lower rates, or not renewed. The net result was a decrease of 6 basis points in the net interest rate spread, or the difference between interest income on earning assets and expense on interest bearing liabilities, for 2009 compared to 2008. The net interest rate spread for 2009 was 3.53% compared with 3.59% for 2008. The Company’s net interest margin, or net interest income to average earning assets, of 3.74% for 2009 represents a decrease of 14 basis points from 3.88% in 2008.

 

Loan interest income increased $2.48 million during 2009 as compared with 2008 as volume increased, while the yield on loans decreased 49 basis points during the same period. During 2009, the yield on available-for-sale securities decreased 66 basis points to 5.14% while the average balance decreased by $39.59 million as compared with 2008.

 

Average interest bearing balances with banks increased $46.75 million during 2009 to $62.24 million, while the yield decreased 171 basis points to 0.27% during the same period. These balances consist primarily of overnight investments, and the yield as compared with 2008 on these balances is primarily affected by changes in the target federal funds rate. The Company determined that it was prudent to maintain a high level of liquidity as a measure of safety during the recessionary economic conditions experienced in 2009, particularly through the first two quarters of 2009, as a result of market volatility.

 

The average total cost of interest bearing deposits decreased 59 basis points in 2009 compared with 2008. The average rate paid on interest bearing demand deposits increased 5 basis points, while the average rate paid on savings, which includes money market and savings accounts, decreased 73 basis points in 2009 compared with 2008. In 2009, average time deposits increased $191.63 million while the average rate paid decreased 82 basis points to 2.87% as compared with 2008. The increase in time deposits reflects the full year impact of the acquisition of Coddle Creek and the partial year impact of the acquisition of TriStone. The level of average non-interest bearing demand deposits decreased $11.87 million to $199.92 million in 2009 compared with the prior year, but was offset by a $31.19 million increase in interest bearing demand deposits.

 

Average federal funds purchased decreased $15.94 million in 2009 compared with 2008 to a zero balance, as the Company experienced historically high levels of liquidity. Average retail repurchase agreements decreased $41.38 million in 2009, while the average rate paid on those funds decreased, as they are closely tied to the target federal funds rate and 3-month LIBOR. Average Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances and other borrowings decreased $40.12 million while the rate paid on those borrowings decreased 42 basis points in 2009 compared with 2008. The Company prepaid a $25.00 million FHLB advance in June 2009. Other borrowings include the Company’s trust preferred issuance of $15.46 million, which is indexed to 3-month LIBOR.

Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest Income Analysis

 

 

 

 

Rate and Volume Analysis of Interest

 

The following table summarizes the changes in tax equivalent interest earned and paid detailing the amounts attributable to (i) changes in volume (change in the average volume times the prior year’s average rate), (ii) changes in rate (changes in the average rate times the prior year’s average volume), and (iii) changes in rate/volume (change in the average column times the change in average rate).

 

 

 

 

Provision for Loan Losses

 

The provision for loan losses for 2009 was $15.80 million, an increase of $6.58 million compared with 2008. The increase in loan loss provision is primarily attributable to rising loss factors as net charge-offs escalated during 2009. Qualitative risk factors were also higher, reflective of the higher risk of inherent loan losses due to rising unemployment, recessionary pressures, and devaluations of various categories of collateral, including real estate and marketable securities. Net charge-offs for 2009 and 2008 were $9.31 million and $5.45 million, respectively. Expressed as a percentage of average loans, net charge-offs increased to 0.70% for 2009 from 0.45% in 2008.

 

Noninterest Income

 

Noninterest income consists of all revenues which are not included in interest and fee income related to earning assets. Noninterest income for 2009, exclusive of the $78.86 million other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) charges, $11.67 million loss on the sale of securities, and $4.49 million in gain resulting from the TriStone acquisition, was $32.37 million, compared with $30.40 million in 2008. See “Financial Position — Available-for-Sale Securities” in Item 7 hereof for information on the changes and losses relating to the Company’s securities.

Wealth management income, which includes fees for trust services and commission and fee income generated by IPC, increased $47 thousand in 2009 compared with 2008, a result of the increases in revenues at IPC. Service charges on deposit accounts decreased $175 thousand as a result of lower overall consumer spending leading to lower levels of certain activity charges. Other service charges, commissions and fees reflected an increase of $467 thousand in 2009 compared with 2008, due mainly to increased debit card interchange income and ATM service fees, as the Company’s customers increasingly chose card-based payment delivery systems.

 

Insurance commissions earned in 2009 were $6.99 million, compared with $4.99 million in 2008. Income for the insurance subsidiary is derived primarily from commissions earned on the sale of policies. The increase is due largely to a sizeable acquisition of an insurance agency by GreenPoint located in Warrenton, Virginia, that was completed in December 2008.

 

Other operating income for 2009 was $2.62 million, a decrease of $371 thousand from 2008. The largest components of that difference are decreases in revenue from FHLB stock dividends and secondary market mortgage operations of $432 thousand and $207 thousand, respectively, net of a $340 thousand gain on the disposition of a GreenPoint office.

 

During 2009, the Company recognized net securities losses of $11.67 million, a decrease of $13.57 million from gains recognized in 2008. In December 2009, the Company sold four pooled trust preferred securities that resulted in a loss of $14.82 million.

 

Noninterest Expense

 

Total noninterest expense was $66.62 million for 2009, an increase of $6.11 million over 2008. Salaries and benefits increased approximately $1.51 million. At December 31, 2009, the Company had total full-time equivalent employees of 646 compared to 638 at December 31, 2008. Full-time equivalent employees are calculated using the number of hours worked. GreenPoint accounted for approximately 57 full-time equivalent employees at year-end 2009 compared with 50 at year-end 2008. Total full-time equivalent employees at the Bank and IPC remained relatively stable increasing by 19 full-time equivalent employees from the acquisition of TriStone. Health insurance costs decreased $732 thousand, or 31.59%, and 401(k) employer matching costs increased $139 thousand, or 11.36%. The Company also deferred $231 thousand less in direct loan origination costs than in 2008.

 

Occupancy expenses increased $787 thousand in 2009 compared with 2008, due to the full year effect of new branches, the full year impact of the acquisition of Coddle Creek, and the partial year effect of the acquisition of TriStone.

 

During 2009, the Company prepaid a $25.00 million FHLB advance. The expense associated with that prepayment was $88 thousand.

 

FDIC premiums and assessments totaled $4.26 million, an increase of $4.06 million from 2008. Included in the 2009 amount is a special assessment levied that approximated $988 thousand. The Company also incurred expenses related to the TriStone merger of $1.73 million.

 

Other operating expenses decreased $760 thousand in 2009 compared with 2008. Contributing to the change were decreases in advertising expenses, consulting fees, and legal fees of $689 thousand, $350 thousand, and $238 thousand, respectively, offset by increases in service fees of $433 thousand.

 

The Company uses an efficiency ratio that is a non-GAAP financial measure of operating expense control and efficiency of operations. Management believes this ratio better focuses attention on the core operating performance of the Company over time than does a GAAP-based ratio, and is highly useful in comparing period-to-period operating performance of the Company’s core business operations. It is used by management as part of its assessment of its performance in managing noninterest expenses. However, this measure is supplemental and is not a substitute for an analysis of performance based on GAAP measures. The reader is cautioned that the efficiency ratio used by the Company may not be comparable to efficiency ratios reported by other financial institutions.

 

In general, the efficiency ratio used by the Company is noninterest expenses as a percentage of net interest income plus noninterest income. Noninterest expenses used in the calculation exclude amortization of intangibles and non-recurring expenses. Income for the ratio is increased for the favorable effect of tax-exempt income (see

Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest Income Analysis), and excludes securities gains and losses, which vary widely from period to period without appreciably affecting operating expenses, non-recurring gains and losses, and OTTI charges. The measure is different from the GAAP-based efficiency ratio, which also is presented in this report, which is calculated using noninterest expense and income amounts as shown on the face of the Consolidated Statements of Income. Both types of efficiency ratio calculations are set forth and are reconciled in the table below.

 

The (non-GAAP) efficiency ratios for continuing operations for 2009, 2008, and 2007 were 59.10%, 57.54%, and 51.20%, respectively. The following table details the components used in calculation of the efficiency ratios.

 

 

Income Tax Expense

 

Income tax expense is comprised of federal and state current and deferred income taxes on pre-tax earnings of the Company. Income taxes as a percentage of pre-tax income may vary significantly from statutory rates due to items of income and expense which are excluded, by law, from the calculation of taxable income. These items are commonly referred to as permanent differences. The most significant permanent differences for the Company include income on state and municipal securities which are exempt from federal income tax, certain dividend payments which are deductible by the Company, and the increases in the cash surrender values of life insurance policies.

 

Consolidated income taxes for 2009 were a benefit of $28.15 million compared with a benefit of $3.49 million in 2008. The effective tax rate for 2009 was 42.12%. The effective tax rate for 2008 was not meaningful due to the levels of pre-tax income. The level of tax benefit increased in 2009 due to higher pre-tax loss levels over 2008.

2008 COMPARED TO 2007

 

Net income available to common shareholders for 2008 was $1.70 million, a decrease of $27.93 million from $29.63 million in 2007. Basic and diluted earnings per common share for 2008 were $0.15 compared with basic and diluted earnings per common share of $2.64 and $2.62, respectively, in 2007. The significant decline in earnings in 2008 reflects a fourth quarter non-cash pre-tax impairment charge of $29.92 million on certain investment securities. The Company’s key profitability ratios are return on average assets and return on average equity. Returns on average assets for 2008 and 2007 were 0.08% and 1.39%, respectively.

 

The Company acquired Coddle Creek, a $158.66 million bank holding company, in November 2008. Accordingly, the operations of Coddle Creek were not significant to the 2008 results of operations.

 

Net Interest Income

 

The primary source of the Company’s earnings is net interest income, the difference between income on earning assets and the cost of funds supporting those assets. Significant categories of earning assets are loans and securities while deposits and borrowings represent the major portion of interest bearing liabilities. For purposes of the following discussion, comparison of net interest income is performed on a tax equivalent basis, which provides a common basis for comparing yields on earning assets exempt from federal income taxes to those assets which are fully taxable (see the table titled Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest Income Analysis). Net interest income was $65.84 million for 2008, compared with $68.32 million for 2007. Tax equivalent net interest income totaled $69.97 million for 2008, a decrease of $2.82 million from the $72.79 million reported for 2007.

 

During 2008, average earning assets decreased $114.59 million while average interest bearing liabilities decreased $45.79 million, in each case over the comparable period. The yield on average earning assets decreased 51 basis points to 6.38% for 2008 from 6.89% for 2007. Short-term market interest rates decreased precipitously throughout 2008, culminating in a move by the Federal Reserve to create a “range” of zero to 25 basis points as its target for federal funds. During 2008, the target federal funds rate decreased 400 basis points, and the average bank prime loan rate decreased in concert. Those decreases were the largest driver in the overall decrease in the Company’s yield on average earning assets.

 

Total cost of average interest bearing liabilities decreased 78 basis points to 2.79% during 2008. The Company’s time deposit portfolio experienced significant downward repricing during 2008, as many of the higher-rate certificates were not renewed. The net result was an increase of 27 basis points to net interest rate spread, or the difference between interest income on earning assets and expense on interest bearing liabilities. Spread for 2008 was 3.59% compared with 3.32% for 2007. The Company’s tax equivalent net interest margin of 3.88% for 2008 represents an increase of eight basis points from 3.80% in 2007.

 

Loan interest income decreased $13.26 million during 2008 as compared with 2007 as volume declined, while the yield on loans decreased 78 basis points. During 2008, the tax equivalent yield on available-for-sale securities increased three basis points to 5.80% while the average balance decreased by $48.55 million as compared with 2007.

 

Average interest bearing balances with banks declined $9.17 million during 2008 to $15.49 million, while the yield decreased 278 basis points to 1.98%. These balances consist primarily of overnight liquidity, and the yield on these balances is largely affected by changes in the target federal funds rate.

 

The average total cost of interest bearing deposits decreased 72 basis points in 2008 compared with 2007. The average rate paid on interest bearing demand deposits decreased 14 basis points, while the average rate paid on savings, which includes money market and savings accounts, decreased 71 basis points. The Company was successful in keeping rates paid on interest bearing checking accounts relatively stable and increased money market account rates to remain competitive and retain deposit funding. In 2008, average time deposits decreased $26.27 million while the average rate paid decreased 75 basis points to 3.69% as compared with 2007. The level of average non-interest bearing demand deposits decreased $16.79 million to $211.79 million in 2008 compared with the prior year.

Average federal funds purchased increased $10.17 million in 2008, while the average rate paid on those funds also decreased, as they are closely tied to the target federal funds rate. Average retail repurchase agreements decreased $24.20 million in 2008, while the average rate paid on those funds decreased, as they are closely tied to the target federal funds rate and 3-month LIBOR. Average FHLB advances and other borrowings decreased $13.84 million while the rate paid on those borrowings decreased 59 basis points in 2008. The Company reduced end-of-period FHLB advances by $75.00 million during 2008. Other borrowings include the Company’s trust preferred issuance of $15.46 million, which is indexed to 3-month LIBOR.

 

Provision for Loan Losses

 

The provision for loan losses for 2008 was $9.23 million, an increase of $8.51 million when compared with 2007. The increase in loan loss provision between the periods is primarily attributable to rising loss factors as net charge-offs escalated during 2008. Qualitative risk factors were also higher, reflective of the higher risk of inherent loan losses due to rising unemployment, recessionary pressures, and devaluations of various categories of collateral, including real estate and marketable securities. Net charge-offs for 2008 and 2007 were $5.45 million and $2.43 million, respectively. Expressed as a percentage of average loans, net charge-offs increased to 0.45% for 2008 from 0.19% in 2007.

 

Noninterest Income

 

Noninterest income consists of all revenues which are not included in interest and fee income related to earning assets. Noninterest income for 2008, exclusive of the $29.92 million OTTI charge, was $32.30 million compared with $24.83 million in 2007. Non-interest income for 2008 was bolstered by the addition of insurance revenues from 2008 acquisitions, as well as significantly higher deposit service charges, a result of new retail marketing strategies.

 

Wealth management income, which includes fees for trust services and commission and fee income generated by IPC, increased $220 thousand in 2008 compared with 2007, largely a result of the increases in revenues at IPC. Service charges on deposit accounts increased $2.68 million as a result of increased transaction fees and a larger number of fee-based deposit accounts. Other service charges, commissions and fees reflected an increase of $648 thousand in 2008 compared with 2007, due mainly to increased debit card interchange income and ATM service fees.

 

Insurance commissions earned were $4.99 million in 2008, compared with $1.14 million in 2007. The Company acquired its insurance subsidiary, GreenPoint Insurance Group, Inc., in September 2007. Income for the insurance subsidiary is derived primarily from commissions earned on the sale of policies.

 

Other operating income for 2008 was $3.00 million, a decrease of $1.42 million from 2007. The largest components of that difference are decreases in revenue from bank-owned life insurance and FHLB stock dividends of $470 thousand and $332 thousand, respectively, as well as a one-time gain of $298 thousand resulting from the Company’s exit from a state banking association insurance partnership in 2007.

 

During 2008, the Company also recognized securities gains of $1.90 million, an increase of $1.49 million over gains recognized in 2007.

 

Noninterest Expense

 

Total noninterest expense was $60.52 million for 2008, an increase of $10.05 million over 2007. Salaries and benefits increased approximately $4.03 million. During 2008, total full-time equivalent employees increased to 638 from 615 at December 31, 2007. Full-time equivalent employees are calculated using the number of hours worked. GreenPoint accounted for approximately 50 full-time equivalent employees at year-end 2008 compared with 51 at year-end 2007. Total full-time equivalent employees at the Bank and IPC remained relatively stable increasing by only the 22 full-time equivalent employees in the acquisition of Coddle Creek. Health insurance costs increased $660 thousand, or 39.77%, and 401(k) employer matching costs increased $288 thousand, or 30.54%, both due mostly to the addition of GreenPoint. The Company also deferred $1.10 million less in loan origination costs than in 2007.

Occupancy expenses increased $922 thousand compared with 2007, due to the full year effect of new branches, the full year impact of GreenPoint and its acquisitions, and the partial year effect of Coddle Creek. Furniture and equipment expenses increased $370 thousand, due mainly to an increase of $609 thousand in depreciation and amortization expense from 2007 to 2008.

 

During 2008, the Company prepaid a $25.00 million FHLB advance. The expense associated with that prepayment was $1.65 million. The Company also repaid $50.00 million without a prepayment penalty.

 

All other operating expense accounts increased $3.09 million in 2008 compared with 2007. Contributing to the increase in operating expenses were increased advertising and new account promotions of $550 thousand and consulting expense of $821 thousand. Legal fees also increased $267 thousand in 2008 compared with 2007 as the Company realized increased expenses relating to its acquisition transactions and the issuance of new preferred stock. Professional fees also increased $241 thousand as the Company outsourced its internal audit function near mid-year 2007.

 

Income Tax Expense

 

Income tax expense is comprised of federal and state current and deferred income taxes on pre-tax earnings of the Company. Income taxes as a percentage of pre-tax income may vary significantly from statutory rates due to items of income and expense which are excluded, by law, from the calculation of taxable income. These items are commonly referred to as permanent differences. The most significant permanent differences for the Company include income on state and municipal securities which are exempt from federal income tax, certain dividend payments which are deductible by the Company, and tax credits generated by investments in low income housing and historical building rehabilitation.

 

Consolidated income taxes for 2008 were a benefit of $3.49 million compared with an expense of $12.33 million in 2007. The effective tax rate for 2008 is not meaningful due to the level of pre-tax income and the effective tax rate for 2007 was 29.39%.

 

FINANCIAL POSITION

 

Available-for-Sale Securities

 

Available-for-sale securities were $486.06 million at December 31, 2009, compared with $520.72 million at December 31, 2008, a decrease of $34.67 million. The decrease is largely the result of the Company’s sale and writedown of certain pooled trust preferred securities. At December 31, 2009, the average life and duration of the portfolio were 6.0 years and 4.9, respectively. Average life and duration at December 31, 2008 were 5.0 years and 3.6, respectively.

 

Available-for-sale and held-to-maturity securities are reviewed quarterly for possible OTTI. This review includes an analysis of the facts and circumstances of each individual investment such as the length of time the fair value has been below cost, timing and amount of contractual cash flows, the expectation for that security’s performance, the creditworthiness of the issuer and the Company’s intent to hold the security to recovery or maturity. If a decline in value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the value of the security is reduced and a corresponding charge to earnings is recognized. In the instance of a debt security which is determined to be other-than-temporarily impaired, the Company determines the amount of the impairment due to credit and the amount due to others factors. The amount of impairment related to credit is recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Income and the remainder is recognized in other comprehensive income.

 

Late in 2009, the Company sold four of the nine issues from its portfolio of pooled trust preferred securities. The sale resulted in the recognition of $14.82 million in losses in addition to $19.40 million of impairment previously recognized on those securities throughout 2009. As of December 31, 2009, the Company wrote down all remaining securities in that portfolio sector. The Company cannot assert its intent to hold the remaining five issues to recovery or maturity. The Company may need to engage in future sales of those securities to covert deferred tax assets to current tax receivables. Accordingly, the Company wrote the securities down to fair value.

In addition to the pooled trust preferred securities portfolio, the Company maintains a small portfolio of equity securities. During 2009, the Company recognized total impairment charges $1.27 million on 11 individual holdings.

 

The Company does not believe any unrealized loss remaining in the investment portfolio, individually or in the aggregate, as of December 31, 2009, represents OTTI. The Company has the intent and ability to hold these equity securities until such time as the value recovers or the securities mature. Based on currently available information, the Company believes the recorded declines in the value of these securities at December 31, 2009, are largely attributable to changes in market interest rates.

 

Included in available-for-sale securities is a portfolio of trust preferred securities with a total market value of approximately $42.76 million as of December 31, 2009. That portfolio is comprised of single-issue and pooled trust preferred securities. The single-issue securities are trust preferred issuances from large banking institutions and had a total market value of approximately $41.11 million as of December 31, 2009, compared with their adjusted cost basis of approximately $55.62 million.

 

The following table presents in more detail the Company’s single-issue and pooled trust preferred security holdings as of December 31, 2009.

 

The following table provides details regarding the type and credit ratings within the securities portfolios as of December 31, 2009.