UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

Commission file number: 000-28344

First Community Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

803-951-2265

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. Yes o No x

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

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 past 90 days. Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. o

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. o

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). o

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

As of June 28, 2024, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $126,159,566 based on the closing price of $17.25 on June 28, 2024, as reported on The NASDAQ Capital Market. 7,671,056 shares of the registrant’s common stock were issued and outstanding as of March 14, 2025.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2025 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10-14 of this Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report, including information included or incorporated by reference in this report, contains statements which constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements may relate to, among other matters, the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, and the business of our company. Forward-looking statements are based on many assumptions and estimates and are not guarantees of future performance. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, as they will depend on many factors about which we are unsure, including many factors which are beyond our control. The words “may,” “approximately,” “is likely,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “predict,” “project,” “potential,” “continue,” “assume,” “believe,” “intend,” “plan,” “forecast,” “goal,” and “estimate,” as well as similar expressions, are meant to identify such forward-looking statements. Potential risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in our forward-looking statements include, without limitation, those described under the heading “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the following:

Because of these and other risks and uncertainties, our actual future results may be materially different from the results indicated by any forward-looking statements. For additional information with respect to factors that could cause actual results to differ from the expectations stated in the forward-looking statements, see “Risk Factors” under Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, our past results of operations do not necessarily indicate our future results. Therefore, we caution you not to place undue reliance on our forward-looking information and statements.

All forward-looking statements in this report are based on information available to us as of the date of this report. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in our forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that these expectations will be achieved. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or otherwise revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

Summary of Material Risks

An investment in our securities involves risks, including those summarized below. For a more complete discussion of the material risks facing our business, see Item 1A—Risk Factors.

Economic and Geographic-Related Risks

Credit and Interest Rate Risks

Capital and Liquidity Risks

Risks Related to Our Industry

Risks Related to Our Strategy

Risks Related to Our Human Capital

Operational Risks

Legal, Accounting, Regulatory and Compliance Risks

Risks Related to an Investment In our Common Stock

General Risks

PART I

Item 1. Business.

General

First Community Corporation, a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, was incorporated under the laws of South Carolina in November 1994 primarily to own and control all of the capital stock of First Community Bank, which commenced operations in August 1995. The Bank’s primary federal regulator is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). The Bank is also regulated and examined by the South Carolina Board of Financial Institutions (the “S.C. Board”).

Unless otherwise mentioned or unless the context requires otherwise, references herein to “First Community,” the “Company” “we,” “us,” “our” or similar references mean First Community Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries. References to the “Bank” means First Community Bank.

We engage in a commercial banking business from our main office in Lexington, South Carolina and our 21 full-service offices located in: the Midlands of South Carolina, which includes Lexington County (6 offices), Richland County (4 offices), Newberry County (2 offices) and Kershaw County (1 office); the Upstate of South Carolina, which includes Greenville County (2 offices), Anderson County (1 office) and Pickens County (1 office); the Piedmont Region of South Carolina, which includes York County, South Carolina (1 office) and the Central Savannah River Area, which includes Aiken County, South Carolina (1 office); and in Augusta, Georgia, which includes Richmond County (1 office) and Columbia County (1 office).

At December 31, 2024, we had approximately $2.0 billion in assets, $1.2 billion in loans, $1.7 billion in deposits, and $144.5 million in shareholders’ equity.

We offer a wide range of traditional banking products and services for professionals and small-to medium-sized businesses, including consumer and commercial, mortgage, brokerage and investment, and insurance services. We also offer online banking to our customers. We have grown organically and through acquisitions.

Our stock trades on The NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “FCCO”.

Available Information

We provide our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on our website at www.firstcommunitysc.com/ under the About section, under the Investors link. These filings are made accessible as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been filed electronically with SEC. These filings are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. In addition, we make available under our Investor Relations section on our website the following, among other things: (i) Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which applies to our directors and all employees and (ii) the charters of the Audit and Compliance, Human Resources and Compensation, and Nominations and Corporate Governance Committees of our board of directors. These materials are available to the general public on our website free of charge. Printed copies of these materials are also available free of charge to shareholders who request them in writing. Please address your request to: Investor Relations, First Community Corporation, 5455 Sunset Boulevard, Lexington, South Carolina 29072. Statements of beneficial ownership of equity securities filed by directors, officers, and 10% or greater shareholders under Section 16 of the Exchange Act are also available through our website. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report. 

Location and Service Area

The Bank is engaged in a general commercial and retail banking business, emphasizing the needs of small-to-medium sized businesses, professionals and individuals. We have a total of 13 full-service offices located in Richland, Lexington, Kershaw and Newberry Counties of South Carolina and the surrounding areas. We refer to these counties as the “Midlands” region of South Carolina. Lexington County is home to six of our branch offices. Richland County, in which we currently have four branches, is the third largest county in South Carolina. Columbia is located within Richland County and is South Carolina’s capital city and is geographically positioned in the center of the state between the industrialized Upstate region of South Carolina and the coastal city of Charleston, South Carolina. Intersected by three major interstate highways (I-20, I-77, and I-26), Columbia’s strategic location has contributed greatly to its commercial appeal and growth. With the acquisition of Savannah River Banking Company in 2014, we added a branch in Aiken, South Carolina and a branch in Augusta, Georgia (Richmond County). In 2016, we opened a loan production office in Greenville County, which we converted into a full-service office in February 2019. With the acquisition of Cornerstone Bancorp in 2017, we added a branch in each of Greenville, Pickens, and Anderson Counties of South Carolina. Greenville County is the largest county in South Carolina. We refer to this three-county area as the “Upstate” region of South Carolina. In 2019, we opened a de novo branch in Evans, Georgia, a suburb of Augusta in Columbia County, Georgia. On June 27, 2024, we closed our downtown Augusta, Georgia banking office, which we opened as a de novo branch in 2018. We refer to the three-county area of Aiken County (South Carolina), Richmond County (Georgia) and Columbia County (Georgia) as the “CSRA” region. On March 14, 2022, we opened a loan production office in York County, South Carolina, which has the second highest county median household income in South Carolina. We converted this loan production office into a full-service banking office on October 20, 2022. We refer to York County, South Carolina and the surrounding area as the “Piedmont Region”.

The following table shows data as to deposits, market share and population for our four market areas (deposits in thousands):

We believe that we serve attractive banking markets with long-term growth potential and a well-educated employment base that helps to support our diverse and relatively stable local economy. According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, 2025 median household incomes for each of the counties in the regions noted above were as follows:

The county estimates noted above compare to 2025 statewide median household income estimates of $67,758 and $75,118 for South Carolina and Georgia, respectively. The principal components of the economy within our market areas are service industries, government and education, and wholesale and retail trade. The largest employers in the Midlands market area include the State of South Carolina, Prisma Health, BlueCross BlueShield of SC, the University of South Carolina, the United States Department of the Army (Fort Jackson Army Base), Richland County School District 1, Richland County School District 2, Lexington Medical Center, Lexington County School District One, Southeastern Freight Lines, and Michelin North America. The largest employers in our CSRA market area include the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence & Fort Gordon, Augusta University, NSA Augusta, Wellstar MCG Health, Columbia County Board of Education, Richmond County School System, Piedmont Hospital, Amazon, Carlisle Tire & Wheel, CB&I AREVA MOX Services, Aiken Regional Medical Center, and the Department of Energy, Savannah River Site. The Upstate region major employers include, among others, Prisma Health, Greenville County Schools, BMW Manufacturing Corp., Michelin North America, Milliken & Company, Bon Secours St. Francis Health System, AnMed Health Medical Center, Clemson University, Duke Energy Corp., GE Vernova, and the Greenville County Government. The Piedmont Region major employers include, among others, Ross Stores, Inc. – Distribution, LPL Financial, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Piedmont Medical Center, Comporium, Inc., and Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. We believe that this diversified economic base has reduced, and will likely continue to reduce, economic volatility in our market areas. Our markets have experienced economic and population growth over the past 10 years, and we expect that the area, as well as the service industry needed to support it, will continue to grow.

Banking Services 

We offer a full range of deposit services that are typically available in most banks and thrift institutions, including checking accounts, NOW accounts, savings accounts and other time deposits of various types, ranging from daily money market accounts to longer-term certificates of deposit. The transaction accounts and time certificates are tailored to our principal market area at rates competitive to those offered in the area. In addition, we offer certain retirement account services, such as individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”). All deposit accounts are insured by the FDIC up to the maximum amount allowed by law (currently, $250,000, subject to aggregation rules).

We also offer a full range of commercial and personal loans. Commercial loans include both secured and unsecured loans for working capital (including inventory and receivables), business expansion (including acquisition of real estate and improvements), and the purchase of equipment and machinery. Consumer loans include secured and unsecured loans for financing automobiles, home improvements, education, and personal investments. We also make real estate construction and acquisition loans. We originate fixed and variable rate mortgage loans, of which some are sold into the secondary market and some are placed in our loans held-for-investment portfolio. Our lending activities are subject to a variety of lending limits imposed by federal law. While differing limits apply in certain circumstances based on the type of loan or the nature of the borrower (including the borrower’s relationship to the bank), in general, we are subject to a loans-to-one-borrower limit of an amount equal to 15% of the Bank’s unimpaired capital and surplus, or 25% of the unimpaired capital and surplus if the excess over 15% is approved by the board of directors of the Bank and is fully secured by readily marketable collateral. As a result, our lending limit will increase or decrease in response to increases or decreases in the Bank’s level of capital. Based upon the capitalization of the Bank at December 31, 2024, the maximum amount we could lend to one borrower is $26.6 million. In addition, we may not make any loans to any director, officer, employee, or 10% shareholder of the Company or the Bank unless the loan is approved by our board of directors and is made on terms not more favorable to such person than would be available to a person not affiliated with the Bank. 

Other bank services include internet banking, cash management services, safe deposit boxes, direct deposit of payroll and social security checks, and automatic drafts for various accounts. We offer non-deposit investment products and other investment brokerage services through a registered representative with an affiliation through LPL Financial. We are associated with Nyce and Plus networks of automated teller machines and MasterCard debit cards that may be used by our customers throughout South Carolina, Georgia, and other regions. We also offer VISA and MasterCard credit card services through a correspondent bank as our agent. 

We currently do not exercise trust powers, but we can begin to do so with the prior approval of our primary banking regulators, the FDIC and the S.C. Board.

Competition

The banking business is highly competitive. We compete as a financial intermediary with other commercial banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions and money market mutual funds operating in our market areas. As of June 30, 2024, there were 27 financial institutions operating approximately 158 offices in the Midlands market, 21 financial institutions operating 90 branches in the CSRA market, 41 financial institutions operating 230 branches in the Upstate market, and 18 financial institutions operating 47 branches in the Piedmont market. The competition among the various financial institutions is based upon a variety of factors, including interest rates offered on deposit accounts, interest rates charged on loans, credit and service charges, the quality of services rendered, the convenience of banking facilities and, in the case of loans to large commercial borrowers, relative lending limits. Size gives larger banks certain advantages in competing for business from large corporations. These advantages include higher lending limits and the ability to offer services in other areas of South Carolina and Georgia. As a result, we do not generally attempt to compete for the banking relationships of large corporations; we instead concentrate our efforts on small-to-medium sized businesses and individuals. We believe we have competed effectively in this market by offering quality and personal service. In addition, many of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive federal regulations that govern bank holding companies and federally insured banks.

Human Capital

At December 31, 2024, we had 260 full-time, 10 part-time, and eight seasonal/on-call employees.

We believe that our relationships with our employees are good and our employees are not represented by any collective bargaining group or agreement. Our company’s “Why,” or purpose, is “Impacting Lives for Success and Significance,” which guides our approach to our relationships with employees. The foundations of these interactions are embedded in our cultural beliefs:

Everyone Matters - We value each of our employees for the unique contribution they make to our success. While there are a variety of different positions in our company, each is an important and integral part of the work that we do. Every employee brings their own unique and diverse talents and experiences that enhance the culture of our bank and our work.

Spirit of Service - The energy and enthusiasm that our employees bring to their work creates a supportive work environment in which employees are available as a resource to one another. In addition to serving our fellow co-workers, we encourage our employees to serve our local communities. We offer company sponsored volunteer activities, as well as provide Volunteer paid time off to allow employees to support causes that are close to their heart.

Honor and Integrity - Trust is at the foundation of all that we do. We have a Code of Conduct and Business Ethics that all employees and board members read and are directed to follow that sets clear expectations with regard to personal and professional behavior.

Strong Work Ethic - Our employees take pride in the quality of the work that they do. This commitment to excellence can be seen in the work that is completed and their interactions with their co-workers and customers. While we work hard, we also make time for fun employee events designed to offer the opportunity for relaxation and social interactions among co-workers.

Excellence with Humility - Our company is blessed with dedicated and talented employees, loyal customers, supportive communities and shareholders, each of whom invest in and believe in our vision. We are humbled by the success we have experienced and are grateful for all that we have accomplished. We approach our work with a sincere appreciation for the opportunity to serve all of our stakeholder groups and we recognize it is through our collective efforts that we have been successful.

Our ability to attract, develop and retain our strong employee base is integral to our ongoing success. We believe that a good “quality of life” at work is an important part of the overall employee experience and we are very intentional about nurturing a culture that allows employees to reach their potential and enjoy professional success while also enjoying the work that they do in a positive and supportive work environment grounded in our cultural beliefs.

While we believe that our corporate culture and work environment is a competitive advantage for our company, we also recognize that employees value and deserve competitive compensation packages. We offer competitive wages and benefits for our employees and we regularly benchmark our compensation to market. Our benefits package includes medical, dental, life, disability, vision and supplemental insurance options. We also offer retirement benefits with a 401(k) plan with matching and profit sharing. In addition, we offer a generous paid time off plan that includes paid holidays.

Our company encourages employees to continue on a lifelong trajectory of learning, as such, we offer ongoing training to all employees through internal and external resources and encourage employees to continue with career development specific to their role to ensure they stay current with the most up-to-date information and best practices. To develop our current and future leaders, we created the First Community Bank Leadership Institute, an 18-month program that provides academic and experiential learning to teach and nurture leadership skills across our organization to support the bank now and in the future. Furthermore, we have an internal CEO Conversation Group, which provides our current and emerging leaders with leadership conversations with our CEO. The Bank also supports the development of employees through external educational opportunities such as various bankers’ schools that offer multi-year development programs as well as short term training classes and industry conferences.

Information about the Executive Officers of First Community Corporation

Executive officers of First Community Corporation are elected by the board of directors annually and serve at the pleasure of the board of directors. The current executive officers, and persons chosen to become executive officers, and their ages, positions with us over the past five years, and terms of office as of March 14, 2025, are as follows:

On December 14, 2023, we announced promotions and additions to our Executive Leadership Team. Effective January 1, 2024, Joseph A. “Drew” Painter and Vaughan R. Dozier, Jr. became Executive Vice Presidents in the roles of Co-Chief Commercial and Retail Banking Officers. In their roles as Co-Chief Commercial and Retail Banking Officers, Mr. Painter and Mr. Dozier are responsible for leading the Bank’s network of banking offices.

Effective July 1, 2024, J. Ted Nissen became the CEO of the Bank while still retaining the role of President and joined the boards of directors of the Company and the Bank. Michael C. “Mike” Crapps continues in his role as President and CEO of the Company. In his role as CEO of the Bank, Mr. Nissen is responsible for the leadership of day-to-day operations of the Bank including its mortgage and financial planning lines of business. Mr. Crapps continues to focus on board governance, investor relations, strategy development and growth decisions, client retention and prospecting, and leadership development.

Effective January 1, 2025, Sarah T. Donley, former Senior Vice President and Controller of First Community Bank and a 27-year employee of the Bank, succeeded Ms. Tanya Butts (who retired effective December 31, 2024) as Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer/Chief Risk Officer.

None of the above officers are related and there are no arrangements or understandings between them and any other person pursuant to which any of them was elected as an officer, other than arrangements or understandings with the directors or officers of the Company acting solely in their capacities as such. 

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

Both the Company and the Bank are subject to extensive state and federal banking laws and regulations that impose specific requirements or restrictions on and provide for general regulatory oversight of virtually all aspects of our operations. These laws generally are intended primarily for the protection of customers, depositors and other consumers, the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”), and the banking system as a whole; not for the protection of our other creditors and shareholders.

The following discussion is not intended to be a complete list of all the activities regulated by the banking laws or of the impact of those laws and regulations on our operations. The following summary is qualified by reference to the statutory and regulatory provisions discussed. Changes in applicable laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and prospects. Our operations may be affected by legislative changes and the policies of various regulatory authorities. We cannot predict the effect that fiscal or monetary policies, economic control, or new federal or state legislation may have on our business and earnings in the future.

Legislative and Regulatory Developments

We experienced heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny following the 2008 global financial crisis, and as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and the Economic Growth, Regulatory Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Regulatory Relief Act”). In addition, newer regulatory developments implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the bank failures in 2023 will continue to have an impact on our operations.  

Capital and Related Requirements.

Regulatory capital rules known as the Basel III rules or Basel III, impose minimum capital requirements for bank holding companies and banks. Basel III was released in the form of enforceable regulations by each of the applicable federal bank regulatory agencies. Basel III is applicable to all banking organizations that are subject to minimum capital requirements, including federal and state banks and savings and loan associations, as well as to bank and savings and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies.” A small bank holding company is generally a qualifying bank holding company or savings and loan holding company with less than $3.0 billion in consolidated assets. More stringent requirements are imposed on “advanced approaches” banking organizations—generally those organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures.

Based on the foregoing, as a small bank holding company, we are generally not subject to the capital requirements at the holding company level unless otherwise advised by the Federal Reserve; however, our Bank remains subject to the capital requirements. Accordingly, the Bank is required to maintain the following capital levels:

Basel III also established a “capital conservation buffer” above the regulatory minimum capital requirements, which must consist entirely of Common Equity Tier 1 capital, which was phased in over several years. The fully phased-in capital conservation buffer of 2.5%, which became effective on January 1, 2019, resulted in the following effective minimum capital ratios for the Bank beginning in 2019: (i) a Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Under Basel III, institutions are subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if their capital levels fall below the buffer amount. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions.

Under Basel III, Tier 1 capital includes two components: Common Equity Tier 1 capital and additional Tier 1 capital. The highest form of capital, Common Equity Tier 1 capital, consists solely of common stock (plus related surplus), retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income, otherwise referred to as AOCI, and limited amounts of minority interests that are in the form of common stock. Additional Tier 1 capital is primarily comprised of noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, Tier 1 minority interests and grandfathered trust preferred securities. Tier 2 capital generally includes the allowance for credit losses up to 1.25% of risk-weighted assets, qualifying preferred stock, subordinated debt and qualifying Tier 2 minority interests, less any deductions in Tier 2 instruments of an unconsolidated financial institution. AOCI is presumptively included in Common Equity Tier 1 capital and often would operate to reduce this category of capital. When implemented, Basel III provided a one-time opportunity at the end of the first quarter of 2015 for covered banking organizations to opt out of a large part of this treatment of AOCI. We made this opt-out election and, as a result, retained our pre-existing treatment for AOCI.

Proposed new rules for U.S. implementation of capital requirements under Basel IV rules, more recently referred to as the “Basel III Endgame,” were issued by the U.S. federal banking agencies on July 27, 2023. These proposed rules include broad-based changes to the risk-weighting framework for various credit exposures and operational risk capital requirements. However, the proposed rules generally apply only to large banking organizations with total assets of $100 billion or more, and are expected to not be applicable to us. Recent regulatory developments have introduced uncertainty regarding the implementation of the Basel III Endgame rules. Changes in leadership and evolving policy priorities within regulatory agencies have led to speculation about potential delays or modifications to the final rulemaking process.

As part of its response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the first quarter of 2020, U.S. federal regulatory authorities issued an interim final rule that provided banking organizations that adopted the credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL, during the 2020 calendar year with the option to delay for two years the estimated impact of CECL on regulatory capital relative to regulatory capital determined under the prior incurred loss methodology, followed by a three-year transition period to phase out the aggregate amount of the capital benefit provided during the initial two-year delay (i.e., a five-year transition in total). In connection with our adoption of CECL on January 1, 2023, we did not elect to utilize the five-year CECL transition.

In November 2019, the federal banking regulators published final rules implementing a simplified measure of capital adequacy for certain banking organizations that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. Under the final rules, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, depository institutions and depository institution holding companies that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets and meet other qualifying criteria, including a leverage ratio of greater than 9%, off-balance-sheet exposures of 25% or less of total consolidated assets, and trading assets plus trading liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets, are deemed “qualifying community banking organizations” and are eligible to opt into the “community bank leverage ratio framework.” A qualifying community banking organization that elects to use the community bank leverage ratio framework and that maintains a leverage ratio of greater than 9% is considered to have satisfied the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital requirements under the Basel III rules and, if applicable, is considered to have met the “well capitalized” ratio requirements for purposes of its primary federal regulator’s prompt corrective action rules, discussed below. We do not have any immediate plans to elect to use the community bank leverage ratio framework but may make such an election in the future.

Acquisition Activities.

The primary purpose of a bank holding company is to control and manage banks. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company or any acquisition by a bank holding company of another bank or bank holding company. In addition, the prior approval of the FDIC is required for a bank to merge with another bank or purchase the assets or assume the deposits of another bank. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, federal bank regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the public benefits expected to be received from the acquisition, the projected capital ratios and levels on a post-acquisition basis, and the acquiring institution’s record of addressing the credit needs of the communities it serves, including the needs of low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the bank, under the CRA.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. Among other initiatives, the Executive Order encouraged the federal banking agencies to review their current merger oversight practices under the BHCA and the Bank Merger Act and adopt a plan for revitalization of such practices. In December 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (in consultation with the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), and FDIC announced that it was seeking additional public comments on whether and how the DOJ should revise the 1995 Bank Merger Competitive Review Guidelines. The comment period closed on February 15, 2022. In March 2022, the FDIC published a Request for Information seeking information and comments regarding the laws, practices, rules, regulations, guidance, and statements of policy that apply to merger transactions involving one or more insured depository institutions, including the merger between an insured depository institution and a noninsured institution. In a May 2022 speech, the acting head of the OCC announced that he had asked his staff to work with DOJ and other federal banking agencies to review the agency’s frameworks to analyze bank mergers. In May 2022, the CFPB announced the establishment of an Office of Competition and Innovation.

On September 17, 2024, the FDIC approved a final Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions, updating its approach to evaluating bank mergers under the Bank Merger Act. The new policy emphasizes a principles-based evaluation, focusing on factors such as the effect of the transaction on competition, financial stability, and the convenience and needs of the community to be served. The OCC concurrently approved a final rule updating its regulations for business combinations involving national banks and federal savings associations, including a policy statement summarizing the principles used during its review of Bank Merger Act applications. Importantly, the Federal Reserve did not join with the FDIC and the OCC in this updated guidance. Additionally, the DOJ announced its withdrawal from the 1995 Bank Merger Competitive Review Guidelines, indicating that it would apply its 2023 Merger Guidelines to the banking industry.

These developments reflect a heightened regulatory focus on bank mergers, with an emphasis on maintaining competition, ensuring financial stability, and addressing community needs. However, given the shift in administration under President Trump, regulatory priorities may change. Financial institutions considering mergers or acquisitions should monitor potential regulatory shifts under the new administration, as changes in policy priorities may impact the level of scrutiny and the application of existing regulatory frameworks.

Change in Control.

Two statutes, the Change in Bank Control Act and the Bank Holding Company Act, together with regulations promulgated under them, require some form of regulatory review before any company may acquire “control” of a bank or a bank holding company. Under the Change in Bank Control Act, a person or company is required to file a notice with the Federal Reserve if it will, as a result of the transaction, own or control 10% or more of any class of voting securities or direct the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company and either if the bank or bank holding company has registered securities or if the acquirer would be the largest holder of that class of voting securities after the acquisition. For a change in control at the holding company level, both the Federal Reserve and the subsidiary bank’s primary federal regulator must approve the change in control; at the bank level, only the bank’s primary federal regulator is involved.

In addition, the Bank Holding Company Act prohibits any entity from acquiring 25% (5% if the acquirer is a bank holding company) or more of a bank holding company’s voting securities, or otherwise obtaining control or a controlling influence over the management or policies of a bank or bank holding company without regulatory approval. The Federal Reserve’s standards for determining whether one company has control over another established four categories of tiered presumptions of noncontrol that are based on the percentage of voting shares held by the investor (less than 5%, 5-9.9%, 10-14.9% and 15-24.9%) and the presence of other indicia of control. As the percentage of ownership increases, fewer indicia of control are permitted without falling outside of the presumption of noncontrol. These indicia of control include nonvoting equity ownership, director representation, management interlocks, business relationship and restrictive contractual covenants. Under the standards, investors can hold up to 24.9% of the voting securities and up to 33% of the total equity of a company without necessarily having a controlling influence. In 2024, the Federal Reserve indicated it may revisit certain aspects of this framework to address evolving market structures and investor behavior, though no formal rulemaking has been issued.

In August 2024, the FDIC proposed amendments to its regulations implementing the Change in Bank Control Act. The proposed rule aims to remove certain existing exemptions and seeks public comment on the FDIC’s overall approach to changes in control affecting FDIC-supervised institutions. If adopted, these amendments could result in more transactions being subject to the Change in Bank Control Act notice requirements and FDIC review.

Transactions subject to the Bank Holding Company Act are exempt from Change in Control Act requirements. For state banks, state laws, including those of South Carolina, typically require approval by the state bank regulator as well.

Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders.

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

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

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

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

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

The federal banking agencies have extended the temporary relief from enforcement actions related to Regulation O multiple times, most recently on December 27, 2024. The relief, which applies to banks and asset managers that become principal stockholders of banks, will now expire on the earlier of January 1, 2026, or the effective date of a final Federal Reserve rule revising Regulation O. This extension allows additional time for regulators to address the treatment of bank credit extensions to complex-controlled portfolio companies that qualify as insiders. Financial institutions and asset managers should continue monitoring updates, as a final rule could impact the relief before its expiration.

First Community Corporation

We own 100% of the outstanding capital stock of the Bank, and, therefore, we are considered to be a bank holding company under the federal Bank Holding Company Act. As a result, we are primarily subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act and its regulations promulgated thereunder. Moreover, as a bank holding company of a bank located in South Carolina, we also are subject to the South Carolina Banking and Branching Efficiency Act.

Permitted Activities. Under the Bank Holding Company Act, a bank holding company is generally permitted to engage in, or acquire direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company engaged in, the following activities:

Activities that the Federal Reserve has found to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

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

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

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

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

First Community Bank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of December 31, 2024, the Bank was deemed to be “well capitalized.”

Standards for Safety and Soundness. The FDIA also requires the federal banking regulatory agencies to prescribe, by regulation or guideline, operational and managerial standards for all insured depository institutions relating to: (i) internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems; (ii) loan documentation; (iii) credit underwriting; (iv) interest rate risk exposure; and (v) asset growth. The agencies also must prescribe standards for asset quality, earnings, and stock valuation, as well as standards for compensation, fees, and benefits. The federal banking agencies have adopted regulations and Interagency Guidelines Prescribing Standards for Safety and Soundness to implement these required standards. These guidelines set forth the safety and soundness standards that the federal banking agencies use to identify and address problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. Under the regulations, if the FDIC determines that the Bank fails to meet any standards prescribed by the guidelines, the agency may require the Bank to submit to the agency an acceptable plan to achieve compliance with the standard, as required by the FDIC. The final regulations establish deadlines for the submission and review of such safety and soundness compliance plans. The FDIC requested comments on a proposal that would amend the regulations implementing Section 29 of the FDIC. Section 29 contains brokered deposits restrictions that apply to less than well capitalized depository institutions. The proposed changes include: (i) modifying the definition of “deposit broker;” (ii) eliminating the exclusive deposit placement arrangement exception; and (ii) revising the interpretation of the primary purpose exception to consider a third party’s intent in placing customer funds at a particular insured depository institution. The FDIC extended the comment-period, which concluded on November 21, 2024. The proposed changes aimed to enhance the safety and soundness of the banking system by ensuring consistent reporting of brokered deposits and reducing operational challenges for insured depository institutions. However, the regulatory landscape concerning brokered deposits is undergoing significant changes under the Trump Administration. In January 2025, Acting FDIC Chairman Travis Hill announced plans to withdraw the proposed amendments to Section 29 of the FDIC. The decision to withdraw these proposals aligns with the administration’s broader deregulatory agenda, which includes revisiting and potentially rescinding various financial regulations established during the previous administration.

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

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

Dividends. The Company’s principal source of cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to its shareholders, is dividends it receives from the Bank. Statutory and regulatory limitations apply to the Bank’s payment of dividends to the Company. As a South Carolina chartered bank, the Bank is subject to limitations on the amount of dividends that it is permitted to pay. Unless otherwise instructed by the S.C. Board, the Bank is generally permitted under South Carolina state banking regulations to pay cash dividends of up to 100% of net income in any calendar year without obtaining the prior approval of the S.C. Board. The FDIC also has the authority under federal law to enjoin a bank from engaging in what in its opinion constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting its business, including the payment of a dividend under certain circumstances. The Bank must also maintain the Common Equity Tier 1 capital conservation buffer of 2.5%, in excess of its minimum regulatory risk-based capital ratios, to avoid becoming subject to restrictions on capital distributions, including dividends, as described above.

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

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

Community Reinvestment Act. The Bank is subject to certain requirements and reporting obligations under the CRA, which requires federal banking regulators to evaluate the record of each financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local community, including low- and moderate- income neighborhoods. The CRA further requires these criteria to be considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions, and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria could result in the imposition of additional requirements and limitations on the Bank. Additionally, financial institutions must publicly disclose the terms of various CRA-related agreements. In its most recent CRA examination, the Bank received a “satisfactory” rating.

In December 2019, the FDIC and OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to (i) clarify which activities qualify for CRA credit; (ii) update where activities count for CRA credit; (iii) create a more transparent and objective method for measuring CRA performance; and (iv) provide for more transparent, consistent, and timely CRA-related data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting. However, the Federal Reserve did not join the proposed rulemaking. In January 2025, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve issued additional guidance clarifying that digital and fintech-driven activities may be eligible for CRA credit provided they meet established criteria. This guidance reflects efforts to modernize CRA evaluations in light of evolving banking practices.

In May 2020, the OCC issued its final CRA rule, which was later rescinded in December 2021, replacing it with a rule based on the rules adopted jointly by the federal banking agencies in 1995, as amended and superseded by an updated joint framework. On the same day that the OCC announced its plans to rescind the CRA final rule, the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve announced that they are working together to “strengthen and modernize the rules implementing the CRA.” On May 5, 2022, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve released a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the CRA and invited public comment on the proposed rules. The comment period closed on August 5, 2022. On October 24, 2023, the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve issued the final rule to strengthen and modernize regulations implementing the CRA. The final rule took effect on April 1, 2024; however, compliance with the majority of the final rule’s provisions will not be required until January 1, 2026, and the data reporting requirements of the final rule will not take effect until January 1, 2027. The final rules, among other things, include: (i) applying four new performance tests to evaluate the CRA performance of large banks (assets of $2 billion or more): the Retail Lending Test, Retail Services and Products Test, Community Development Financing Test, and Community Development Services Test; (ii) retaining a strategic plan option, with modifications to reflect the new performance tests and updates to the approval standards; (iii) clarifying community development activities by updating the definition of community development, providing a process by which banks may request confirmation that an activity is eligible for community development consideration, and providing for a publicly available interagency illustrative list of qualifying community development activities; (iv) updating delineation requirements for facility-based assessment areas and establishing new retail lending assessment areas for certain large banks; (v) updating data collection, maintenance, and reporting requirements for large banks, tailoring those requirements based on large bank asset size and leveraging existing data where possible, while not imposing new data collection and reporting requirements for small and intermediate banks; and (vi) continuing public file and public notice disclosure requirements and creating a new public comment process to facilitate public engagement. Several banking industry groups filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the CRA final rule, in which they argued that the federal banking agencies exceeded their statutory authority in adopting the CRA final rule. In March 2024, a federal judge granted an injunction to extend the CRA final rule’s effective date, originally set for April 1, 2024. The effective date will be extended each day the injunction remains in place, pending the resolution of the lawsuit. Management has and will continue to evaluate any changes to the CRA’s regulations and their impact to the Bank.

Fair Lending Requirements. We are subject to certain fair lending requirements and reporting obligations involving lending operations. A number of laws and regulations provide these fair lending requirements and reporting obligations, including, at the federal level, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, and Regulation B, as well as the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and regulations implementing FHA found at 24 C.F.R. Part 100. ECOA and Regulation B prohibit discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction based on a number of prohibited factors, including race or color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, the applicant’s receipt of income derived from public assistance programs, and the applicant’s exercise, in good faith, of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. ECOA and Regulation B include lending acts and practices that are specifically prohibited, permitted, or required, and these laws and regulations proscribe data collection requirements, legal action statute of limitations, and disclosure of the consumer’s ability to receive a copy of any appraisal(s) and valuation(s) prepared in connection with certain loans secured by dwellings. In January 2023, the OCC revised its “Fair Lending” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook to incorporate clarified details and risk factors for a variety of examination scenarios addressing fair lending and to update references to supervisory guidance, sound risk management practices, and applicable legal standards. While this OCC guidance does not apply to the Bank explicitly, it represents best practices guidance for the Bank. FHA prohibits discrimination in all aspects of residential real-estate related transactions based on prohibited factors, including race or color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and handicap.

In addition to prohibiting discrimination in credit transactions on the basis of prohibited factors, these laws and regulations can cause a lender to be liable for policies that result in a disparate treatment of or have a disparate impact on a protected class of persons. If a pattern or practice of lending discrimination is alleged by a regulator, then the matter may be referred by the agency to the DOJ for investigation. In December 2012, the DOJ and CFPB entered into a Memorandum of Understanding under which the agencies have agreed to share information, coordinate investigations, and have generally committed to strengthen their coordination efforts.

In addition to substantive penalties and corrective measures that may be required for a violation of certain fair lending laws, the federal banking agencies may take compliance with fair lending requirements into account when regulating and supervising other activities of the bank, including in acting on expansionary proposals.

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

Consumer Protection Regulations. Activities of the Bank are subject to a variety of statutes and regulations—both at the federal and state levels—designed to protect consumers. This includes Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits engaging in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (“UDAAP”). UDAAP claims involve detecting and assessing risks to consumers and to markets for consumer financial products and services. Interest and other charges collected or contracted for by the Bank are subject to state usury laws and federal laws concerning interest rates. The Bank’s loan operations are also subject to federal laws applicable to credit transactions, such as:

The deposit operations of the Bank also are subject to laws, such as the following federal laws:

In light of the growing concern by regulators about relationships between chartered financial institutions and their third-party service providers, the FDIC joined the other federal supervisory agencies in passing the Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships: Risk Management. This new guidance provided risk management oversight guidelines for financial institutions to incorporate in their ongoing relationships with third party vendors.

The CFPB has broad authority to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products and services. The CFPB has the authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets for compliance with federal consumer laws. The authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, such as the Bank, for compliance with federal consumer laws remains largely with those institutions’ primary regulators. However, the CFPB may participate in examinations of these smaller institutions on a “sampling basis” and may refer potential enforcement actions against such institutions to their primary regulators. As such, the CFPB may participate in examinations of the Bank. In addition, states are permitted to adopt consumer protection laws and regulations that are stricter than the regulations promulgated by the CFPB.

The CFPB has issued a number of significant rules that impact nearly every aspect of the lifecycle of consumer financial products and services, including rules regarding residential mortgage loans. These rules implement Dodd-Frank Act amendments to ECOA, TILA and RESPA. On July 18, 2024 regulators, including the CFPB, issued interagency guidance on reconsideration of value (ROVs) of residential real estate transactions. The CFPB continued its scrutiny of so called “pay-to-pay” and “junk fee” regimes, proposing rules related to credit card penalties. In March 2024, the CFPB finalized a rule that addresses late fees charged by card issuers that together with their affiliates have one million or more open credit card accounts. Further, the CFPB proposed rulemaking related to Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing, quality control standards for automated valuation models, and personal financial data rights (discussed in more detail above). The CFPB’s focus on fees was emphasized through its ongoing enforcement activity, including a notable enforcement action taken against Bank of America that required the payment of more than $100 million to customers, with similar size fines paid to both the CFPB and the OCC.

In February 2025, President Trump took significant actions affecting the CFPB. He dismissed Director Rohit Chopra and appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as Acting Director. Subsequently, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought was named Acting Director, during which time the CFPB’s operations were halted, its headquarters closed, and its employees instructed to cease work. These moves have been met with legal challenges and public debate regarding the future of the agency.

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

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

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT); the USA PATRIOT Act; the Office of Foreign Asset Control. Financial institutions must maintain AML/CFT programs, including internal policies, compliance officers, training, and independent audits, in accordance with the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and other federal laws. They must adhere to know your customer and enhanced due diligence requirements, particularly for high-risk customers and foreign institutions, to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. Institutions must also report suspicious activities to law enforcement and ensure compliance with risk-based customer due diligence procedures. The USA PATRIOT Act amended the BSA to enhance financial transparency and information-sharing between institutions, regulators, and law enforcement. It mandates customer identification programs, increased due diligence for non-U.S. persons, and stricter reporting of transactions over $10,000 to FinCEN. Financial institutions must also monitor and report transactions involving individuals or entities suspected of terrorist financing. Regulators actively enforce compliance, imposing penalties on institutions failing to meet AML/CFT obligations.

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

Under the USA PATRIOT Act, the regulators can provide lists of the names of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. The Bank can be requested to search its records for any relationships or transactions with persons on those lists. If the Bank finds any relationships or transactions, it must file a suspicious activity report and contact the applicable governmental authorities. 

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

In August 2023, the FFIEC updated its BSA/AML Examination Manual to clarify risk-based compliance expectations. The FDIC emphasizes oversight of third-party AML/CFT service providers, with enforcement actions against institutions that fail to monitor vendors effectively.

The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 led to FinCEN’s Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), requiring many corporate entities to disclose beneficial ownership information. Court rulings deeming the CTA unconstitutional, creating uncertainty regarding its future enforcement. However, on February 18, 2025, a federal judge lifted this previous nationwide injunction that had blocked the enforcement of the CTA. In response, FinCEN announced that reporting companies are now required to comply with the CTA’s beneficial ownership information reporting requirements. To provide entities additional time to meet these obligations, FinCEN has extended the filing deadline to March 21, 2025. FinCEN also indicated plans to assess options for further modifying deadlines and intends to initiate a process to revise the BOI reporting rule to reduce burdens for lower-risk entities, including many U.S. small businesses.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, OFAC imposed extensive sanctions under Executive Order 14024, including restrictions on Russian financial institutions, expanded sovereign debt prohibitions, and increased scrutiny of sanctions evasion. FinCEN issued an alert in March 2022, advising heightened vigilance. Sanctions enforcement continued through 2023 and 2024. Globally, the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) updates its high-risk jurisdiction lists, affecting due diligence requirements for international transactions. In October 2023, FATF removed Albania, Cayman Islands, Jordan, and Panama from its monitoring list and added Bulgaria.

Privacy and Data Security. There are a number of state and federal laws and regulations that govern financial privacy and cybersecurity. At the federal level, this includes the privacy protection provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) and related regulations, including Regulation P, which govern the treatment of nonpublic personal information. Under these privacy protection provisions, we are limited in our ability to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies and notices to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party.

Consumers must be notified in the event of a data breach under applicable state laws. Multiple states and Congress are considering laws or regulations which could create new individual privacy rights and impose increased obligations on companies handling personal data. For example, on November 18, 2021, the federal financial regulatory agencies published a final rule that will impose upon banking organizations and their service providers new notification requirements for significant cybersecurity incidents. Specifically, the final rule requires banking organizations to notify their primary federal regulator as soon as possible and no later than 36 hours after the discovery of a “computer-security incident” that rises to the level of a “notification incident” within the meaning attributed to those terms by the final rule. Banks’ service providers are required under the final rule to notify any affected bank to or on behalf of which the service provider provides services “as soon as possible” after determining that it has experienced an incident that materially disrupts or degrades, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to such bank for as much as four hours. The final rule took effect on April 1, 2022 and banks and their service providers must have complied with the requirements of the rule by May 1, 2022. Effective December 9, 2022, the FTC’s amendments to GLBA’s Safeguards Rule went into effect and financial institutions are continuing to implement this rule including its ongoing monitoring and risk assessment protocols.

States continue to take the lead in passing privacy focused legislation. Nine additional states passed some form of consumer privacy protection laws, only some of which include an exemption for entities regulated under GLBA. Congress has proposed significant privacy focused legislation largely targeting technology companies, however, to date, none of these laws have been passed.

The CFPB also took additional action related to consumer privacy. In October 2024, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing Section 1033 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, requiring banks to provide consumers with access to their financial transaction data upon request. This rule is expected to require updates to data access policies by 2026. 

Cybersecurity. The federal banking regulators regularly issue new guidance and standards, and update existing guidance and standards, regarding cybersecurity intended to enhance cyber risk management among financial institutions. Financial institutions are expected to comply with such guidance and standards and to accordingly develop appropriate security controls and risk management processes. If we fail to observe such regulatory guidance or standards, we could be subject to various regulatory sanctions, including financial penalties. In 2023, the SEC issued a final rule that requires disclosure of material cybersecurity incidents, as well as cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance. Under this rule, banking organizations that are SEC registrants must generally disclose information about a material cybersecurity incident within four business days of determining it is material with periodic updates as to the status of the incident in subsequent filings, as necessary.

Under a final rule adopted by federal banking agencies in 2021, banking organizations are required to notify their primary banking regulator within 36 hours of determining that a “computer-security incident” has materially disrupted or degraded, or is reasonably likely to materially disrupt or degrade, the banking organization’s ability to carry out banking operations or deliver banking products and services to a material portion of its customer base, its businesses and operations that would result in material loss, or its operations that would impact the stability of the United States.

State regulators have also been increasingly active in implementing privacy and cybersecurity standards and regulations. Recently, several states have adopted regulations requiring certain financial institutions to implement cybersecurity programs and many states have also recently implemented or modified their data breach notification, information security and data privacy requirements. We expect this trend of state-level activity in those areas to continue and are continually monitoring developments in the states in which our customers are located.

Risks and exposures related to cybersecurity attacks, including litigation and enforcement risks, are expected to be elevated for the foreseeable future due to the rapidly evolving nature and sophistication of these threats, as well as due to the expanding use of Internet banking, mobile banking and other technology-based products and services by us and our customers.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies. Our earnings are affected by domestic economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States government and its agencies. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policies have had, and are likely to continue to have, an important impact on the operating results of commercial banks through its power to implement national monetary policy in order, among other things, to curb inflation or combat a recession. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve have major effects upon the levels of bank loans, investments and deposits through its open market operations in United States government securities and through its regulation of the discount rate on borrowings of member banks and the reserve requirements against member bank deposits. It is not possible to predict the nature or impact of future changes in monetary and fiscal policies. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2020, the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) reduced the target federal funds rate range to between 0.0% and 0.25%; however, due in part to rising inflation, throughout 2022 the target federal funds rate range increased to between 4.25% and 4.50%. Throughout 2023, the target federal funds rate range increased to between 5.25% and 5.50%.

In early 2024, with signs of moderating inflation and a slowing growth outlook, the FOMC initiated a gradual easing of monetary policy, reducing the target range to approximately 4.0% to 4.25% by the end of 2024. In January 2025, amid mixed economic signals, the FOMC maintained this target range while emphasizing its readiness to adjust policy further as economic conditions evolve.

 Changes in market interest rates can have a significant impact on the level of income and expense recorded on a large portion of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, and on the market value of all interest-earning assets, other than those possessing a short term to maturity. Furthermore, changes in market interest rates can have a significant impact on the level of mortgage originations and related mortgage non-interest income.

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

As an FDIC-insured bank, the Bank must pay deposit insurance assessments to the FDIC based on its average total assets minus its average tangible equity. The Bank’s assessment rates are currently based on its risk classification (i.e., the level of risk it poses to the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund). Institutions classified as higher risk pay assessments at higher rates than institutions that pose a lower risk.

In addition to the ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances. For example, in November 2023, the FDIC implemented a special assessment to recover the approximately $16.3 billion loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund associated with protecting uninsured depositors following the closures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank earlier in the year. However, the assessment was limited to banks with an excess of $5 billion uninsured deposits as of December 31, 2022, so we did not receive any assessment.

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

Incentive Compensation. In addition to the potential restrictions on discretionary bonus compensation under the Basel III rules, the federal bank regulatory agencies have issued guidance on incentive compensation policies (the “Incentive Compensation Guidance”) intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of financial institutions do not undermine the safety and soundness of such institutions by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The Incentive Compensation Guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an institution, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a financial institution’s incentive compensation arrangements should comply with the following principles: (i) provide employees incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward; (ii) be compatible with effective 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 scope and content of federal bank regulatory agencies’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future. In 2016, federal agencies proposed regulations which could significantly change the regulation of incentive compensation programs at financial institutions. The proposal would create four tiers of institutions based on asset size. Institutions in the top two tiers would be subject to rules much more detailed and proscriptive than are currently in effect. If interpreted aggressively by the regulators, the proposed rules could be used to prevent, as a practical matter, larger institutions from engaging in certain lines of business where substantial commission and bonus pool arrangements are the norm. In the 2016 proposal, the top two tiers included institutions with more than $50 billion of assets, which would not currently apply to us. No final rule has been adopted as of this filing. We cannot predict what final rules may be adopted, nor how they may be implemented and, therefore, it cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect our ability to hire, retain and motivate our key employees.

In addition, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”), which was signed into law in December 2017, contains certain provisions affecting performance-based compensation. Specifically, the pre-existing exception to the $1.0 million deduction limitation applicable to performance-based compensation was repealed. The deduction limitation is now applied to all compensation exceeding $1.0 million, for our covered employees, regardless of how it is classified, which could have an adverse effect on our income tax expense and net income. 

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addressed many investor protection, corporate governance and executive compensation matters that affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd-Frank Act (i) grants stockholders of U.S. publicly traded companies an advisory vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, (ii) enhances independence requirements for compensation committee members, (iii) requires the SEC to adopt rules directing national securities exchanges to establish listing standards requiring all listed companies to adopt incentive-based compensation clawback policies for executive officers, and (iv) provides the SEC with authority to adopt proxy access rules that would allow stockholders of publicly traded companies to nominate candidates for election as a director and have those nominees included in a company’s proxy materials. The SEC has completed the bulk (although not all) of the rulemaking necessary to implement these provisions. However, on October 26, 2022, the SEC adopted final rules implementing the incentive-based compensation recovery (clawback) provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rules directed the stock exchanges to establish listing standards requiring listed companies to develop and implement a policy providing for the recovery of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation received by current or former executive officers and to satisfy related disclosure obligations. As of December 1, 2023, the final clawback rules from The NASDAQ Stock Market were effective. The Company’s updated clawback policies were effective September 19, 2023.

Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate. Concentration risk exists when FDIC-insured institutions deploy too many assets to any one industry or segment. A concentration in commercial real estate is one example of regulatory concern. The interagency Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices guidance (“CRE Guidance”) provides supervisory criteria, including the following numerical indicators, to assist bank examiners in identifying banks with potentially significant commercial real estate loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny: (i) total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans, including loans secured by apartment buildings, investor commercial real estate, and construction and land loans, exceeding 300% or more of an institution’s total risk-based capital and the outstanding balance of the commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more in the preceding three years or (ii) construction and land development loans exceeding 100% of total risk-based capital. The CRE Guidance does not limit banks’ levels of commercial real estate lending activities, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentrations. On December 18, 2015, the federal banking agencies issued a statement to reinforce prudent risk-management practices related to commercial real estate lending, having observed substantial growth in many commercial real estate asset and lending markets, increased competitive pressures, rising commercial real estate concentrations in banks, and an easing of commercial real estate underwriting standards. The federal bank agencies reminded FDIC-insured institutions to maintain underwriting discipline and exercise prudent risk-management practices to identify, measure, monitor and manage the risks arising from commercial real estate lending. In addition, FDIC-insured institutions must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentration risk. Based on the Bank’s loan portfolio as of December 31, 2024, its non-owner occupied commercial loans and its construction and land development loans were approximately 305% and 82% of total risk-based capital, respectively. Furthermore, our three-year growth in non-owner occupied commercial real estate loans was 46% from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2024. We have expertise and a long history in originating and managing commercial real estate loans. We have a strong credit underwriting process, which includes management and Board oversight. We perform rigorous monitoring, stress testing, and reporting of these portfolios at the management and Board levels, and we continue to monitor the level of the concentration in commercial real estate loans within the Bank’s loan portfolio monthly. Management will continue to monitor the level of the concentration in commercial real estate loans within the Bank’s loan portfolio.

Proposed Legislation and Regulatory Action. From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. We cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on our financial condition or results of operations. A change in statutes, regulations, or regulatory policies applicable to the Company or the Bank could have a material effect on our business.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

There are risks, many beyond our control, which could cause our results to differ significantly from management’s expectations. Some of these risk factors are described below. Any factor described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could, by itself or together with one or more other factors, adversely affect our business, results of operations and/or financial condition. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently consider to not be material also may materially and adversely affect us. In assessing these risks, you should also refer to other information disclosed in our SEC filings, including the financial statements and notes thereto. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ substantially from those discussed or implied in these forward-looking statements.

Economic and Geographic-Related Risks

Our business may be adversely affected by economic conditions generally.

Our financial performance generally, and in particular the ability of borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, as well as demand for loans and other products and services we offer and whose success we rely on to drive our growth, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the primary markets where we operate and in the U.S. as a whole. Unlike larger banks that are more geographically diversified, we are a regional bank that provides banking and financial services to customers primarily in South Carolina and Georgia. The economic conditions in these local markets may be different from, and in some instances worse than, the economic conditions in the U.S. as a whole. In 2024 and early 2025, continued regional economic uncertainty—exacerbated by persistent inflation, supply chain disruptions, and subdued consumer spending—has further increased the risks in our primary markets. 

Some elements of the business environment that affect our financial performance include short-term and long-term interest rates, the prevailing yield curve, inflation and price levels, monetary and trade policy, unemployment and the strength of the domestic economy and the local economy in the markets in which we operate. Unfavorable market conditions can result in a deterioration in the credit quality of our borrowers and the demand for our products and services, an increase in the number of loan delinquencies, defaults and charge-offs, foreclosures, additional provisions for credit losses, adverse asset values of the collateral securing our loans and an overall material adverse effect on the quality of our loan portfolio. The majority of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate. A decline in real estate values can negatively impact our ability to recover our investment should the borrower become delinquent. Loans secured by stock or other collateral may be adversely impacted by a downturn in the economy and other factors that could reduce the recoverability of our investment. Unsecured loans are dependent on the solvency of the borrower, which can deteriorate, leaving us with a risk of loss. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence, limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital, increases in inflation or interest rates, high unemployment, natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics, or a combination of these or other factors.

In addition, there are continuing concerns related to, among other things, the level of U.S. government debt and fiscal actions that may be taken to address that debt, a potential resurgence of economic and political tensions with China, the war in Ukraine, and the Middle East conflict, all of which may have a destabilizing effect on financial markets and economic activity. Economic pressure on consumers and overall economic uncertainty may result in changes in consumer and business spending, borrowing, and saving habits. These economic conditions and/or other negative developments in the domestic or international credit markets or economies may significantly affect the markets in which we do business, the value of our loans and investments, and our ongoing operations, costs, and profitability. Declines in real estate values and sales volumes and high unemployment or underemployment may also result in higher than expected loan delinquencies, increases in our levels of nonperforming and classified assets and a decline in demand for our products and services. These negative events may cause us to incur losses and may adversely affect our capital, liquidity, and financial condition.

In 2023 and 2024, concerns about the financial condition of certain U.S. banking institutions led to multiple bank failures, including Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic Bank, and most recently, Republic First Bank in April 2024. The FDIC intervened in each case, transferring assets to acquiring institutions. While our business and depositor profile differ from these banks, financial sector volatility, particularly in times of stress, may impact our stock price and operations. The long-term regulatory and market consequences of these failures remain uncertain but could include increased FDIC assessments and further bank closures. To date, these events have not materially affected our deposit balances.

Credit and Interest Rate Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our actual credit losses could exceed our allowance for credit losses. Our average loan size continues to increase and reliance on our historic allowance for credit losses may not be adequate. As of December 31, 2024, approximately 84.8% of our loan portfolio (excluding loans held for sale) is composed of construction (12.5%), commercial mortgage (65.2%) and commercial (7.1%) loans. Repayment of such loans is generally considered more subject to market risk than residential mortgage loans. Industry experience shows that a portion of loans will become delinquent, and a portion of loans will require partial or entire charge-off. Regardless of the underwriting criteria utilized, losses may be experienced as a result of various factors beyond our control, including, changes in market conditions affecting the value of loan collateral and problems affecting the credit of our borrowers. If we suffer credit losses that exceed our allowance for credit losses, our financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. 

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

As of December 31, 2024, we had approximately $921.0 million in loans outstanding to borrowers whereby the collateral securing the loan was commercial real estate, representing approximately 75.5% of our total loans outstanding as of that date. Approximately $283.7 million, or 23.2% of our total loans, and 30.8% of our commercial real estate loans are secured by owner-occupied properties. Commercial real estate loans are generally viewed as having more risk of default than residential real estate loans. They are also typically larger than residential real estate loans and consumer loans and depend on cash flows from the owner’s business or the property to service the debt. Cash flows may be affected significantly by general economic conditions, and a downturn in the local economy or in occupancy rates in the local economy where the property is located could increase the likelihood of default. Because our loan portfolio contains a number of commercial real estate loans with relatively large balances, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in our level of non-performing loans. An increase in non-performing loans could result in a loss of earnings from these loans, an increase in the related provision for credit losses and an increase in charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our commercial real estate loans have grown 3.5%, or $31.2 million, since December 31, 2023. The banking regulators give commercial real estate lending greater scrutiny, and they may require banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans to implement more stringent underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as possibly higher levels of allowances for credit losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures. We have expertise and a long history in originating and managing commercial real estate loans. We have a strong credit underwriting process, which includes management and board oversight. We perform rigorous monitoring, stress testing, and reporting of these portfolios at the management and board levels, and we continue to monitor the level of the concentration in commercial real estate loans within the Bank’s loan portfolio monthly.

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

The 2006 “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices” (the “CRE Guidance”) provides that a bank’s commercial real estate lending exposure could receive increased supervisory scrutiny where (i) total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans, including loans secured by apartment buildings, investor commercial real estate, and construction and land loans, represent 300% or more of an institution’s total risk-based capital, and the outstanding balance of the commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more during the preceding 36 months, or (ii) construction and land development loans exceed 100% of total risk-based capital. Our total non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans represented 305% of the Bank’s total risk-based capital at December 31, 2024, and our construction and land development loans represented 82% of the Bank’s total risk-based capital at December 31, 2024. Furthermore, our three-year growth in non-owner occupied commercial real estate loans was 46% from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2024. We have expertise and a long history in originating and managing commercial real estate loans. We have a strong credit underwriting process, which includes management and board oversight. We perform rigorous monitoring, stress testing, and reporting of these portfolios at the management and board levels, and we continue to monitor the level of the concentration in commercial real estate loans within our loan portfolio monthly.

In December 2015, the regulatory agencies released a statement on prudent risk management for commercial real estate lending that indicated, among other things, the intent to continue “to pay special attention” to commercial real estate lending activities and concentrations going forward. More recently, in 2024, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve reaffirmed their commitment to stringent oversight of CRE exposures in response to evolving market conditions. In early 2025, preliminary guidance from regulators suggested that any further acceleration in CRE loan growth or deterioration in loan performance could prompt the imposition of additional limits or remedial actions, which, if implemented, could curtail our growth and adversely affect our earnings.

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

At December 31, 2024, commercial business loans comprised 7.1% of our total loan portfolio. Our commercial business loans are originated primarily based on the identified cash flow and general liquidity of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower and/or repayment capacity of any guarantor. The borrower’s cash flow may be unpredictable, and collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial business loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use. In addition, business assets may depreciate over time, be difficult to appraise, and fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. Accordingly, the repayment of commercial business loans depends primarily on the cash flow and credit worthiness of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral value provided by the borrower and liquidity of the guarantor. If these borrowers do not have sufficient cash flows or resources to pay these loans as they come due or the value of the underlying collateral is insufficient to fully secure these loans, we may suffer losses on these loans that exceed our allowance for credit losses.

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

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

Our underwriting decisions may materially and adversely affect our business.

While we generally underwrite the loans in our portfolio in accordance with our own internal underwriting guidelines and regulatory supervisory guidelines, in certain circumstances we have made loans which exceed either our internal underwriting guidelines, supervisory guidelines, or both. As of December 31, 2024, approximately $16.6 million of our loans, or 9.3% of the Bank’s regulatory capital (Tier 1 Capital plus allowance for credit losses), had loan-to-value ratios that exceeded regulatory supervisory guidelines, of which three loans totaling approximately $606 thousand had loan-to-value ratios of 100% or more. In addition, supervisory limits on commercial loan-to-value exceptions are set at 30% of the Bank’s tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses. At December 31, 2024, $5.5 million of our commercial loans, or 3.1% of the Bank’s regulatory capital, exceeded the supervisory loan-to-value ratio. The number of loans in our portfolio with loan-to-value ratios in excess of supervisory guidelines, our internal guidelines, or both could increase the risk of delinquencies and defaults in our portfolio, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

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

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

Changes in prevailing interest rates may reduce our profitability.

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

Capital and Liquidity Risks

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

Our investment securities portfolio is a significant component of our total earning assets. Total investment securities averaged $491.0 million in 2024, as compared to $541.1 million in 2023. This represents 27.5% and 33.2% of the average earning assets for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. At December 31, 2024, the portfolio was 26.6% of earning assets compared to 29.6% of earning assets at December 31, 2023. Turmoil in the financial markets could impair the market value of our investment portfolio, which could adversely affect our net income and possibly our capital.

On June 1, 2022, we reclassified $224.5 million in investments to held-to-maturity (HTM) from available-for-sale (AFS). These securities were transferred at fair value at the time of the transfer, which became the new cost basis for the securities held to maturity. The pretax unrealized net holding loss on the available for sale securities on the date of transfer totaled approximately $16.7 million and continued to be reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive loss. This net unrealized loss is being amortized to interest income over the remaining life of the securities as a yield adjustment. There were no gains or losses recognized as a result of this transfer. The remaining pretax unrealized net holding loss on these investments was $12.3 million ($9.7 million net of tax) and $14.0 million ($11.1 million net of tax) at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively.

During the three months ended September 2023, we sold $39.9 million of book value U.S. Treasuries in our available-for-sale investment securities portfolio. While this sale created a one-time pre-tax loss of $1.2 million, it provided additional liquidity which was used to pay down borrowings and fund loan growth. The weighted average book yield of the securities sold was 1.75% and the projected earn back period was 1.6 years. Such measures transitioned the balance sheet to be more efficient, improved net interest margin, and positioned us for higher earnings in the future.

Our HTM investments totaled $209.4 million and represented approximately 42.6% of our total investments at December 31, 2024. Our AFS investments totaled $279.6 million, or approximately 56.9% of our total investments at December 31, 2024. Investments at cost totaled $2.7 million, or approximately 0.5% of our total investments at December 31, 2024. The effective duration on our total investment securities portfolio was 3.5 at December 31, 2024.

Securities which have unrealized losses were not considered to be credit loss impaired at December 31, 2024 or at December 31, 2023 and we believe it is more likely than not we will be able to hold these until they mature or recover our current book value. We currently maintain adequate liquidity which supports our ability to hold these investments until they mature, or until there is a market price recovery. However, if we were to cease to have the ability and intent to hold these investments until maturity or the market prices do not recover, and we were to sell these securities at a loss, it could adversely affect our net income and our capital.

The Bank is subject to strict capital requirements, which could be amended to be more stringent, in the future.

The Bank is subject to regulatory requirements specifying minimum amounts and types of capital that we must maintain and an additional capital conservation buffer. From time to time, the regulators change these regulatory capital adequacy guidelines. If we fail to meet these capital guidelines and other regulatory requirements, we or our subsidiaries may be restricted in the types of activities we may conduct and we may be prohibited from taking certain capital actions, such as paying dividends, repurchasing or redeeming capital securities, and paying certain bonuses. In particular, the capital requirements applicable under Basel III require the Bank to satisfy additional, more stringent, capital adequacy standards than it had in the past. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements could result in certain mandatory and possible additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have an adverse material effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, these requirements could have a negative impact on our ability to lend, grow deposit balances, make acquisitions, make capital distributions in the form of dividends or share repurchases, or pay certain bonuses needed to attract and retain key personnel. Higher capital levels could also lower our return on equity.  

Risks Related to Our Industry

Inflationary pressures and rising prices may affect our results of operations and financial condition.

In 2021 through 2022, inflation rose to levels not seen for over 40 years, reaching 7.0% and 6.5%, respectively. The annual inflation rate decreased to 3.4% in 2023 and to 2.9% in 2024; however, during the latter part of 2024 and into early 2025, the annual inflation rate averaged approximately 4.2%, although some moderation has been observed in early 2025. Nonetheless, persistently higher input costs, wage pressures, and ongoing supply chain disruptions may challenge our customers’ ability to service their debt, thereby potentially increasing our credit risk. Inflation could lead to increased costs to our customers, making it more difficult for them to repay their loans or other obligations increasing our credit risk. Sustained higher interest rates by the Federal Reserve may be needed to tame persistent inflationary price pressures, which could push down asset prices and weaken economic activity. A deterioration in economic conditions in the United States and our markets could result in an increase in loan delinquencies and non-performing assets, decreases in loan collateral values and a decrease in demand for our products and services, all of which, in turn, would adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Federal Reserve has implemented significant economic strategies that have affected interest rates, inflation, asset values, and the shape of the yield curve.

In recent years, the Federal Reserve has maintained a relatively tight monetary policy to address persistent inflationary pressures, resulting in elevated short-term interest rates. In mid-2024, as inflation began to moderate, the Federal Reserve signaled a gradual recalibration of its policy stance, though it remains cautious amid ongoing economic uncertainty.

Effects on the yield curve often are most pronounced at the short end of the curve, which is of particular importance to us and other banks. Among other things, easing strategies are intended to lower interest rates, expand the money supply, and stimulate economic activity, while tightening strategies are intended to increase interest rates, discourage borrowing, tighten the money supply, and restrain economic activity. Recent periods have demonstrated that when short-term rates rise more rapidly than long-term rates, the yield curve can invert—an occurrence that, while relatively uncommon, may signal potential economic slowdowns or increased recessionary risks.

It is unclear how long it will take for long-term rates to catch up. Many external factors may interfere with the effects of these plans or cause them to be changed, sometimes quickly. Such factors include significant economic trends or events as well as significant international monetary policies and events. Elevated interest rates, combined with an inverted or flattening yield curve, can increase borrowing costs, depress asset values, and reduce loan demand—factors that may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. Moreover, unexpected shifts in domestic or international economic policies, or abrupt changes in market conditions, could lead to rapid alterations in the yield curve and further impact the broader financial system.

Adverse developments affecting the financial services industry, such as the 2023 and 2024 bank failures or concerns involving liquidity, may have a material adverse effect on our operations.

The high-profile bank failures in 2023 and 2024 involving Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic Bank, and Republic First Bank caused general uncertainty and concern regarding the liquidity adequacy of the banking sector. Although we were not directly affected by these bank failures, the resulting speed and ease in which news, including social media commentary, led depositors to withdraw or attempt to withdraw their funds from these and other financial institutions, which then caused the stock prices of many financial institutions to become volatile. In 2024 and into 2025, continued concerns regarding the stability of certain regional banks and potential liquidity risks have further contributed to market volatility and investor caution. Additional bank failures could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, either directly or through an adverse impact on certain of our customers. Further, with the risk of any additional bank failures, we may face the potential for reputational risk, deposit outflows, increased costs and competition for liquidity, and increased credit risk which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.  

Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could adversely affect our financial condition.

Our deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain deposit insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, we are required to pay quarterly deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. Although we cannot predict what the insurance assessment rates will be in the future, either deterioration in our risk-based capital ratios or adjustments to the base assessment rates could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. In addition, we depend on internal and outsourced technology to support all aspects of our business operations. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological changes could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In 2024 and early 2025, the pace of technological change has accelerated, and the rapid evolution of cybersecurity threats, as well as the need to integrate new digital platforms, has increased the risks associated with failure to adapt.

The development and use of AI presents risks and challenges that may adversely impact our business.

The development and use of AI by us or our third-party vendors poses significant risks. The evolving legal and regulatory landscape—covering intellectual property, privacy, consumer protection, employment, and more—could force costly changes and heighten non-compliance risks. AI models, especially generative ones, might produce biased, inaccurate, or harmful outputs, disclose confidential information, or infringe on intellectual property rights. Moreover, their inherent complexity limits transparency, complicating oversight and error reduction. Reliance on third-party models further exposes us to risks associated with unauthorized training data and their risk management practices. Any of these issues could lead to legal liabilities, reputational harm, and adverse impacts on our business.

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

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

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

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

We use brokered deposits which may be an unstable and/or expensive deposit source to fund earning asset growth.

We use brokered deposits as a source of funding to support our asset growth, to augment deposits generated from our branch network and to assist in the management of our interest rate risk. We have established policies and procedures with respect to the use of brokered deposits, which require, among other things, that (i) we limit the amount of brokered deposits as a percentage of total deposits, and (ii) our Asset/Liability Committee of the board of directors and our board of directors monitor our use of brokered deposits on a regular basis, including interest rates and the total volume of such deposits in relation to our total deposits. In the event that our funding strategies call for the use of additional brokered deposits, there can be no assurance that such sources will be available, or will remain available, or that the cost of such funding sources will be reasonable. Additionally, if the Bank is no longer considered well capitalized, our ability to access new brokered deposits or retain existing brokered deposits could be affected by market conditions, regulatory requirements or a combination thereof, which could result in most, if not all, brokered deposit sources being unavailable. The inability to utilize brokered deposits as a source of funding could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

Further, if, as a result of competitive pressures, market interest rates, alternative investment opportunities that present more attractive returns to customers, general economic conditions or other events, the balance of our deposits decreases relative to our overall banking operations, we may need to rely more heavily on wholesale or other sources of external funding, or may have to increase deposit rates to maintain deposit levels in the future. Any such increased reliance on wholesale funding, or increases in funding rates in general, could have a negative impact on our net interest income and, consequently, on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our ability to obtain brokered deposits as an additional funding source could be limited.

As of December 31, 2024, brokered deposits comprised $10.4 million (0.6%) of our total deposits, down from $48.1 million (3.2%) at year-end 2023. We use brokered certificates of deposit to extend deposit maturities and manage interest rate risk. Unlike non-brokered CDs, these deposits cannot be withdrawn early except in limited circumstances, improving our maturity management. FDIC regulations restrict brokered deposits based on capital levels. While we currently qualify as “well capitalized” and face no such limits, a decline in our capital ratios could restrict our ability to replace maturing brokered deposits. Any future regulatory changes or capital constraints could increase our funding costs and impact liquidity. 

Risks Related to Our Strategy

We may be adversely affected by risks associated with future mergers and acquisitions, including execution risk, which could disrupt our business and dilute shareholder value.

From time to time, we may seek to acquire other financial institutions or parts of those institutions. We may also expand into new markets, like we did in York County, South Carolina, which we refer to as the Piedmont Region, in 2022, or lines of business or offer new products or services. These activities would involve a number of risks, including:

If we do not successfully manage these risks, our merger and acquisition activities could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations, including short-term and long-term liquidity, and our ability to successfully implement our strategic plan.

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

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

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

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

Risks Related to Our Human Capital

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

Michael C. Crapps, our president and chief executive officer, and Mr. Nissen, the Bank’s president and chief executive officer, each have extensive and long-standing ties within our primary market area and substantial experience with our operations, and each has contributed significantly to our business. If we lose the services of Mr. Crapps or Mr. Nissen, each would be difficult to replace, and our business and development could be materially and adversely affected. Our success also depends, in part, on our continued ability to attract and retain experienced loan originators, as well as other management personnel. Competition for personnel is intense, and we may not be successful in attracting or retaining qualified personnel. Our failure to compete for these personnel, or the loss of the services of several of such key personnel, could adversely affect our business strategy and materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Operational Risks

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

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

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

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

Our information systems may experience failure, interruption or breach in security.

In the ordinary course of business, we rely on electronic communications and information systems to conduct our operations and to store sensitive data. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems could result in significant disruption to our operations. Information security breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents include, but are not limited to, attempts to access information, including customer and company information, malicious code, computer viruses and denial of service attacks that could result in unauthorized access, theft, misuse, loss, release or destruction of data (including confidential customer information), account takeovers, unavailability of service or other events. These types of threats may derive from human error, fraud or malice on the part of external or internal parties or may result from accidental technological failure. Our technologies, systems, networks and software have been and continue to be subject to cybersecurity threats and attacks, which range from uncoordinated individual attempts to sophisticated and targeted measures directed at us. Any failures related to upgrades and maintenance of our technology and information systems could further increase our information and system security risk. Our increased use of cloud and other technologies also increases our risk of being subject to a cyber-attack. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attack or cyber-intrusion, has increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Our customers, employees and third parties that we do business with have been, and will continue to be, targeted by parties using fraudulent emails and other communications in attempts to misappropriate passwords, bank account information or other personal information or to introduce viruses or other malware programs to our information systems, the information systems of our merchants or third-party service providers and/or our customers’ personal devices, which are beyond our security control systems. Though we endeavor to mitigate these threats through product improvements, use of encryption and authentication technology and customer and employee education, such cyber-attacks against us, our merchants, our third-party service providers and our customers remain a serious issue.

Although we make significant efforts to maintain the security and integrity of our information systems and have implemented various measures to manage the risks of a security breach or disruption, there can be no assurance that our security efforts and measures will be effective or that attempted security breaches or disruptions would not be successful or damaging. Even well protected information, networks, systems and facilities remain potentially vulnerable to attempted security breaches or disruptions because the techniques used in such attempts are constantly evolving and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, and in some cases are designed not to be detected and, in fact, may not be detected. Accordingly, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement zero risk security barriers or other preventative measures, and thus it is virtually impossible for us to entirely mitigate this risk. Furthermore, in the event of a cyber-attack, we may be delayed in identifying or responding to the attack, which could increase the negative impact of the cyber-attack on our business, financial condition and results of operations. While we maintain specific “cyber” insurance coverage, which would apply in the event of various breach scenarios, the amount of coverage may not be adequate in any particular case. Furthermore, because cyber threat scenarios are inherently difficult to predict and can take many forms, some breaches may not be covered under our cyber insurance coverage. A security breach or other significant disruption of our information systems or those related to our customers, merchants or our third-party vendors, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could (i) disrupt the proper functioning of our networks and systems and therefore our operations and/or those of our customers; (ii) result in the unauthorized access to, and destruction, loss, theft, misappropriation or release of confidential, sensitive or otherwise valuable information of ours or our customers; (iii) result in a violation of applicable privacy, data breach and other laws, subjecting us to additional regulatory scrutiny and exposing us to civil litigation, enforcement actions, governmental fines and possible financial liability; (iv) require significant management attention and resources to remedy the damages that result; or (v) harm our reputation or cause a decrease in the number of customers that choose to do business with us. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Increased fraud risk could adversely impact our business

Fraud schemes are becoming more sophisticated, often involving criminal networks and techniques such as check fraud, ATM skimming, phishing, and identity theft. Fraudsters may also exploit online banking to establish accounts for fraudulent activities. While technologies like chip cards help mitigate some risks, criminals continue to target other sources of personal data.

We have increased investments in fraud prevention, but losses may still occur, potentially harming our customers, reputation, and financial condition. Fraud-related costs—including regulatory scrutiny, legal liability, and business disruption—could materially impact our operations.

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

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

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

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

Legal, Accounting, Regulatory and Compliance Risks

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

We operate in a highly regulated industry and are subject to examination, supervision, and comprehensive regulation by various regulatory agencies. We are subject to Federal Reserve regulation. The Bank is subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by our primary federal regulator, the FDIC, the regulating authority that insures customer deposits; and by our state regulator, the S.C. Board. Also, as a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”), the Bank must comply with applicable regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board and the FHLB. Regulation by these agencies is intended primarily for the protection of our depositors and the deposit insurance fund and not for the benefit of our shareholders. The Bank’s activities are also regulated under consumer protection laws applicable to our lending, deposit, and other activities. A sufficient claim against us under these laws could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Regulatory developments in 2023 and early 2024 have led to enhanced expectations in areas such as cybersecurity, data privacy, digital asset management, and anti-money laundering. These evolving requirements are increasing our compliance costs and the complexity of our regulatory obligations.

Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could also result in heightened regulatory scrutiny and in sanctions by regulatory agencies (such as a memorandum of understanding, a written supervisory agreement or a cease and desist order), civil money penalties and/or reputation damage. Any of these consequences could restrict our ability to expand our business or could require us to raise additional capital or sell assets on terms that are not advantageous to us or our shareholders and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, such violations may occur despite our best efforts.

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

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

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

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

Changes in accounting standards could materially affect our financial statements.

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. From time to time, FASB, the SEC and our regulators change the financial accounting and reporting standards, or the interpretation thereof, and guidance that govern the preparation and disclosure of external financial statements. Such changes are beyond our control, can be hard to predict and could materially impact how we report and disclose our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively, or apply an existing standard differently, also retrospectively, which could potentially result in a need to revise or restate prior period financial statements.

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

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

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

We face risks related to the adoption of future legislation and potential changes in federal regulatory agency leadership, policies, and priorities.

In 2025, the U.S. political landscape remains uncertain, with the Republicans holding the majority in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. A unified Republican Congress has created conditions for potential shifts in policy, though partisan division may still result in challenges to enacting sweeping reforms. Under the Biden Administration, Congressional committees with jurisdiction over the banking sector pursued oversight and legislative initiatives in a variety of areas, including addressing climate-related risks, promoting diversity and equality within the banking industry and addressing other Environmental, Social, and Governance matters, improving competition in the banking sector and enhancing oversight of bank mergers and acquisitions, establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets and markets, and oversight of pandemic responses and economic recovery. The Trump Administration, alongside a unified Republican Congress, may pursue policies or changes that (i) reverse or suspend key actions implemented under the Biden Administration, (ii) promote deregulation by easing regulatory burdens on financial institutions, (iii) adopt a technology-forward approach, and (iv) take a more favorable stance on bank mergers and acquisitions, potentially streamlining the approval process to encourage consolidation within the banking sector. The prospects for the enactment of major banking reform legislation remain unclear at this time.