UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

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

For fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

OR

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

For transition period from __________ to ___________

Commission File Number 0-33203

LANDMARK BANCORP, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware	43-1930755
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

701 Poyntz Avenue, Manhattan, Kansas	66502
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

(785) 565-2000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

Title of each class:	Name of exchange on which registered:
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share	Nasdaq Global Market

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 [  ] 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 Act.

Yes [  ] 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 the past 90 days.

Yes [X] No [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes [X] No [  ]

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

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.

Large accelerated filer [  ] Accelerated filer [  ] Non-accelerated filer [  ] (do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company [X] Emerging growth company [  ]

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. [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Yes [  ] No [X]

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the last sales price quoted on the Nasdaq Global Market on the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $81.2 million. On March 13, 2018, the total number of shares of common stock outstanding was 4,104,288.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 23, 2018, are incorporated by reference in Part III hereof, to the extent indicated herein.

LANDMARK BANCORP, INC.

2017 Form 10-K Annual Report

Table of Contents

ITEM 1.	BUSINESS	3
ITEM 1A.	RISK FACTORS	26
ITEM 1B.	UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS	37
ITEM 2.	PROPERTIES	37
ITEM 3.	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	37
ITEM 4.	MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES	37
ITEM 5.	MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES	38
ITEM 6.	SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA	39
ITEM 7.	MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS	40
ITEM 7A.	QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK	51
ITEM 8.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA	54
ITEM 9.	CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE	96
ITEM 9A.	CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES	96
ITEM 9B.	OTHER INFORMATION	96
ITEM 10.	DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	97
ITEM 11.	EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION	97
ITEM 12.	SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS	98
ITEM 13.	CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE	98
ITEM 14.	PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES	98
ITEM 15.	EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES	99
ITEM 16.	FORM 10-K SUMMARY	101
SIGNATURES		102

2

PART I.

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

The Company

Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) is a financial holding company which was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in 2001. Currently, the Company’s business consists of the ownership of Landmark National Bank (the “Bank”) and Landmark Risk Management, Inc., which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had $929.5 million in consolidated total assets.

The Company is headquartered in Manhattan, Kansas, and has expanded its geographic presence through past acquisitions. Effective November 1, 2013, the Company completed the acquisition of Citizens Bank, National Association (“Citizens Bank”). Effective April 1, 2012, the Company completed the acquisition of The Wellsville Bank. The Company completed several other mergers and acquisitions since 2002.

The Bank has continued to focus on increasing its originations of commercial, commercial real estate and agricultural loans, which management believes will be more profitable and provide more growth for the Bank than traditional one-to-four family residential real estate lending. While the Bank has grown these portfolios, generally weak loan demand over the past few years as the economy has recovered has made it difficult to have meaningful growth while maintaining high credit standards. Additionally, greater emphasis has been placed on diversification of the deposit mix through expansion of core deposit accounts such as checking, savings, and money market accounts. The Bank has also diversified its geographical markets as a result of its acquisitions. The Company’s main office is in Manhattan, Kansas. The Company has 29 branch offices in 23 communities across the state of Kansas. The Company continues to explore opportunities to expand its banking markets through mergers and acquisitions, as well as branching opportunities.

Landmark Risk Management, Inc., which was formed and began operations on May 31, 2017, is a Nevada-based captive insurance company which provides property and casualty insurance coverage to the Company and the Bank for which insurance may not be currently available or economically feasible in today’s insurance marketplace. Landmark Risk Management, Inc. pools resources with several other similar insurance company subsidiaries of financial institutions to spread a limited amount of risk among themselves. Landmark Risk Management, Inc. is subject to the regulations of the State of Nevada and undergoes periodic examinations by the Nevada Division of Insurance.

The results of operations of the Bank and the Company are dependent primarily upon net interest income and, to a lesser extent, upon other income derived from sales of one-to-four family residential mortgage loans, loan servicing fees and customer deposit services. Additional expenses of the Bank include general and administrative expenses such as salaries, employee benefits, federal deposit insurance premiums, data processing, occupancy and related expenses.

Deposits of the Bank are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) up to the maximum amount allowable under applicable federal law and regulation. The Bank is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), as the chartering authority for national banks, and the FDIC, as the administrator of the DIF. The Bank is also subject to regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) with respect to reserves required to be maintained against deposits and certain other matters. The Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”) of Topeka.

The Company’s executive office and the Bank’s main office are located at 701 Poyntz Avenue, Manhattan, Kansas 66502. The telephone number is (785) 565-2000.

3

Market Areas

The Bank’s primary deposit gathering and lending markets are geographically diversified throughout central, eastern, southeast, and southwest Kansas. The primary industries within these respective markets are also diverse and dependent upon a wide array of industry and governmental activity for their economic base. The Bank’s markets have been impacted by slow economic growth. To varying degrees, the Bank’s markets generally have experienced flat commercial and residential real estate values and slow growth in consumer spending. The Bank’s markets have also been impacted by an economic downturn in the agriculture sector in recent years. A brief description of the four geographic areas and the communities which the Bank serves is set forth below.

The central region of the Bank’s market area consists of the Bank’s locations in Auburn, Junction City, Manhattan, Osage City, Topeka and Wamego, Kansas and includes the counties of Riley, Geary, Osage, Pottawatomie and Shawnee. The economies are significantly impacted by employment at Fort Riley Military Base in Junction City and Kansas State University, the second largest university in Kansas, which is located in Manhattan. Topeka is the capital of Kansas and strongly influenced by the government of the State of Kansas. Topeka and Manhattan are regional destinations for retail shopping as well as home to regional hospitals. Manhattan was also selected as the site of the new National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, which is expected to have a significant impact on the regional economy as the facility is constructed and begins operations. Construction of the facility began in 2013 and is expected to be completed in August 2023. Additionally, manufacturing and service industries also play a key role within the central Kansas market.

The Bank’s eastern Kansas branches are located in the communities of Lawrence, Lenexa, Louisburg, Osawatomie, Overland Park, Paola and Wellsville. The Bank’s Lawrence locations are located in Douglas County and are significantly impacted by the University of Kansas, the largest university in Kansas. The eastern region is strongly influenced by the Kansas City metropolitan market, which is the highest growth area in the State of Kansas. The region is influenced by public and private industries and businesses of all sizes. In addition, housing growth and commercial real estate are major drivers of the region’s economy. The Citizens Bank acquisition in 2013 expanded the Bank’s presence in the eastern Kansas market with branches in the Kansas City metropolitan suburbs of Lenexa and Overland Park.

The southeast region of the Bank’s market area consists of the Bank’s locations in Fort Scott, Iola, Kincaid, Mound City and Pittsburg, Kansas. Agriculture, oil, and gas are the predominant industries in the southeast Kansas region. Both Fort Scott and Pittsburg are recognized as regional commercial centers within the southeast region of the state, which attracts small retail businesses to the region. Additionally, Pittsburg State University and Fort Scott Community College attract a number of individuals from the surrounding area to live within the communities to participate in educational programs and pursue a degree. Fort Scott is also home to a regional hospital. Additionally, manufacturing and service industries play a key role within the southeast Kansas market. This market area primarily consists of branches acquired in the Citizens Bank acquisition.

The Bank’s southwest Kansas branches are located in the communities of Dodge City, Garden City, Great Bend, Hoisington and LaCrosse. Agriculture, oil, and gas are the predominant industries in the southwest Kansas region. Predominant activities involve crop production, feed lot operations, and food processing. Dodge City is known as the “Cowboy Capital of the World” and maintains a significant tourism industry. Both Dodge City and Garden City are recognized as regional commercial centers within the state with small businesses, manufacturing, retail, and service industries having a significant influence upon the local economies. Additionally, the Dodge City, Garden City and Great Bend communities each have a community college which attracts individuals from the surrounding areas.

Competition

The Company faces strong competition both in attracting deposits and making real estate, commercial and other loans. Its most direct competition for deposits comes from commercial banks and other savings institutions located in its principal market areas, including many larger financial institutions which have greater financial and marketing resources available to them. The ability of the Company to attract and retain deposits generally depends on its ability to provide a rate of return, service levels, liquidity and risk comparable to or better than those offered by competing investment opportunities. The Company competes for loans principally through the interest rates and loan fees it charges and the efficiency and quality of services it provides borrowers.

4

Employees

At December 31, 2017, the Bank had a total of 286 employees (273 full time equivalent employees). The Company has no employees, although the Company is a party to several employment agreements with executives of the Bank. Employees are provided with a comprehensive benefits program, including basic and major medical insurance, life and disability insurance, sick leave, and a 401(k) profit sharing plan. Employees are not represented by any union or collective bargaining group, and the Bank considers its employee relations to be good.

Lending Activities

General. The Bank strives to provide a full range of financial products and services to small- and medium-sized businesses and to consumers in each market area it serves. The Bank targets owner-operated businesses and utilizes Small Business Administration lending as a part of its product mix. The Bank has a loan committee for each of its markets, which has authority to approve credits within established guidelines. Concentrations in excess of those guidelines must be approved by either a corporate loan committee comprised of the Bank’s Chief Executive Officer, the Credit Risk Manager, and other senior commercial lenders or the Bank’s board of directors. When lending to an entity, the Bank generally obtains a guaranty from the principals of the entity. The loan mix is subject to the discretion of the Bank’s board of directors and the demands of the local marketplace.

The following is a brief description of each major category of the Bank’s lending activity.

One-to-Four Family Residential Real Estate Lending. The Bank originates one-to-four family residential real estate loans with both fixed and variable rates. One-to-four family residential real estate loans are priced and originated following underwriting standards that are consistent with guidelines established by the major buyers in the secondary market. Generally, residential real estate loans retained in the Bank’s loan portfolio have fixed or variable rates with adjustment periods of five years or less and amortization periods of typically either 15 or 30 years. A significant portion of these loans prepay prior to maturity. The Bank has no potential negative amortization loans. While the origination of fixed-rate, one-to-four family residential loans continues to be a key component of our business, the majority of these loans are sold in the secondary market. One-to-four family residential real estate loans that exceed 80% of the appraised value of the real estate generally are required, by policy, to be supported by private mortgage insurance, although on occasion the Bank will retain non-conforming residential loans to known customers at premium pricing. While the Bank does not intend to increase its one-to-four family residential real estate loan portfolio, the Bank slowed the runoff of the portfolio by retaining some of the new loan originations to offset weak commercial loan demand in the past several years. However, most of the new loan originations continue to be sold.

Construction and Land Lending. Loans in this category include loans to facilitate the development of both residential and commercial real estate. Construction and land loans generally have terms of less than 18 months, and the Bank will retain a security interest in the borrower’s real estate. Construction loans are generally limited, by policy, to 80% of the appraised value of the property. Land loans are generally limited, by policy, to 65% of the appraised value of the property. The Bank has generally been reducing its exposure to construction and land loans over the past few years as a strategy to reduce risk.

Commercial Real Estate Lending. Commercial real estate loans, including multi-family loans, generally have amortization periods of 15 or 20 years. Commercial real estate and multi-family loans are generally limited, by policy, to 80% of the appraised value of the property. Commercial real estate loans are also supported by an analysis demonstrating the borrower’s ability to repay. The Bank continues to focus on generating additional commercial real estate loan relationships.

5

Commercial Lending. Commercial loans include loans to service, retail, wholesale and light manufacturing businesses. Commercial loans are made based on the financial strength and repayment ability of the borrower, as well as the collateral securing the loans. The Bank targets owner-operated businesses as its customers and makes lending decisions based upon a cash flow analysis of the borrower as well as a collateral analysis. Accounts receivable loans and loans for inventory purchases are generally on a one-year renewable term and loans for equipment generally have a term of seven years or less. The Bank generally takes a blanket security interest in all assets of the borrower. Equipment loans are generally limited to 75% of the cost or appraised value of the equipment. Inventory loans are generally limited to 50% of the value of the inventory, and accounts receivable loans are generally limited to 75% of a predetermined eligible base. The Bank continues to focus its organic growth on generating additional commercial loan relationships.

Municipal Lending. Loans to municipalities are generally related to equipment leasing or general fund loans. Terms are generally limited to 5 years. Equipment leases are generally made for the purchase of municipal assets and are secured by the leased asset. The Bank is generally not active in the origination of municipal loans and leases; however, the Bank may originate loans or leases for municipalities in its market area.

Agriculture Lending. Agricultural real estate loans generally have amortization periods of 20 years or less, during which time the Bank generally retains a security interest in the borrower’s real estate. The Bank also provides short-term credit for operating loans and intermediate-term loans for farm product, livestock and machinery purchases and other agricultural improvements. Farm product loans generally have a one-year term, and machinery, equipment and breeding livestock loans generally have five to seven year terms. Extension of credit is based upon the borrower’s ability to repay, as well as the existence of federal guarantees and crop insurance coverage. These loans are generally secured by a blanket lien on livestock, equipment, feed, hay, grain and growing crops. Equipment and breeding livestock loans are generally limited to 75% of appraised value. The Bank continues to focus on generating additional agriculture loan relationships in each of its market areas.

Consumer and Other Lending. Loans classified as consumer and other loans include automobile, boat, home improvement and home equity loans. With the exception of home improvement loans and home equity loans, the Bank generally takes a purchase money security interest in collateral for which it provides the original financing. Home improvement loans and home equity loans are principally secured through second mortgages. The terms of the loans typically range from one to five years, depending upon the use of the proceeds, and generally range from 75% to 90% of the value of the collateral. The majority of these loans are installment loans with fixed interest rates. Home improvement and home equity loans are generally secured by a second mortgage on the borrower’s personal residence and, when combined with the first mortgage, limited to 80% of the value of the property unless further protected by private mortgage insurance. Home improvement loans are generally made for terms of five to seven years with fixed interest rates. Home equity loans are generally made for terms of ten years on a revolving basis with adjustable monthly interest rates tied to the national prime interest rate. While the Bank primarily provides consumer loans to its existing customers, consumer lending is not a category the Bank targets for organic growth.

Loan Origination and Processing

Loan originations are derived from a number of sources. Residential loan originations result from real estate broker referrals, direct solicitation by the Bank’s loan officers, present depositors and borrowers, referrals from builders and attorneys, walk-in customers and, in some instances, other lenders. Consumer and commercial real estate loan originations generally emanate from many of the same sources.

Residential loan applications are underwritten and closed based upon standards which generally meet secondary market guidelines. The loan underwriting procedures followed by the Bank conform to regulatory specifications and are designed to assess both the borrower’s ability to make principal and interest payments and the value of any assets or property serving as collateral for the loan. Generally, as part of the process, a loan officer meets with each applicant to obtain the appropriate employment and financial information as well as any other required loan information. The Bank then obtains reports with respect to the borrower’s credit record, and on real estate loans, orders and reviews an appraisal of any collateral for the loan (prepared for the Bank by an independent appraiser).

Loan applicants are notified promptly of the decision of the Bank. Prior to closing any long-term loan, the borrower must provide proof of fire and casualty insurance on the property serving as collateral, and such insurance must be maintained during the full term of the loan. Title insurance is required on loans collateralized by real property.

6

The Bank is focusing on the generation of commercial, commercial real estate and agriculture loans to grow and diversify the loan portfolio. However, the slow economic growth has impacted loan origination as a result of decreased demand for loans that meet the Bank’s credit standards. In addition, low commodity prices have negatively impacted collateral values and cash flows for agriculture loans, which have caused the Bank to increase underwriting requirements.

Supervision and Regulation

General

FDIC-insured institutions, their holding companies and their affiliates, are extensively regulated under federal and state law. As a result, the Company’s growth and earnings performance may be affected not only by management decisions and general economic conditions, but also by the requirements of federal and state statutes and by the regulations and policies of various bank regulatory agencies, including the OCC, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”). Furthermore, taxation laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”), securities laws administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and state securities authorities, and anti-money laundering laws enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) have an impact on the Company’s business. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies and accounting rules are significant to the Company’s operations and results.

Federal and state banking laws impose a comprehensive system of supervision, regulation and enforcement on the operations of FDIC-insured institutions, their holding companies and affiliates that is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC-insured deposits and depositors of banks, rather than shareholders. These laws, and the regulations of the bank regulatory agencies issued under them, affect, among other things, the scope of the Company’s business, the kinds and amounts of investments the Company and the Bank may make, reserve requirements, required capital levels relative to assets, the nature and amount of collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, the Company’s ability to merge, consolidate and acquire, dealings with the Company’s and the Bank’s insiders and affiliates and the Company’s payment of dividends. In reaction to the global financial crisis and particularly following the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), we experience heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny. Although the reforms primarily targeted systemically significant financial service providers, their influence filtered down in varying degrees to community banks over time and caused the Company’s compliance and risk management processes, and the costs thereof, to increase. After the 2016 federal elections, momentum to decrease the regulatory burden on community banks gathered strength. Although these deregulatory trends continue to receive much discussion among the banking industry, lawmakers and bank regulatory agencies, little substantive progress has yet been made. The true impact these proposed reforms remains difficult to predict with any certainty.

The supervisory framework for U.S. banking organizations subjects banks and bank holding companies to regular examination by their respective regulatory agencies, which results in examination reports and ratings that are not publicly available and that can impact the conduct and growth of their business. These examinations consider not only compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but also capital levels, asset quality and risk, management ability and performance, earnings, liquidity, and various other factors. The regulatory agencies generally have broad discretion to impose restrictions and limitations on the operations of a regulated entity where the agencies determine, among other things, that such operations are unsafe or unsound, fail to comply with applicable law or are otherwise inconsistent with laws and regulations or with the supervisory policies of these agencies.

The following is a summary of the material elements of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to the Company and the Bank, beginning with a discussion of the continuing regulatory emphasis on the Company’s capital levels. It does not describe all of the statutes, regulations and regulatory policies that apply, nor does it restate all of the requirements of those that are described. The descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provision.

7

Regulatory Emphasis on Capital

Regulatory capital represents the net assets of a banking organization available to absorb losses. Because of the risks attendant to their business, FDIC-insured institutions are generally required to hold more capital than other businesses, which directly affects the Company’s earnings capabilities. While capital has historically been one of the key measures of the financial health of both bank holding companies and banks, its role became fundamentally more important in the wake of the global financial crisis, as the banking regulators recognized that the amount and quality of capital held by banks prior to the crisis was insufficient to absorb losses during periods of severe stress. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, discussed below, establish strengthened capital standards for banks and bank holding companies, require more capital to be held in the form of common stock and disallow certain funds from being included in capital determinations. These standards represent regulatory capital requirements that are meaningfully more stringent than those in place previously.

Minimum Required Capital Levels. Banks have been required to hold minimum levels of capital based on guidelines established by the bank regulatory agencies since 1983. The minimums have been expressed in terms of ratios of capital divided by total assets. As discussed below, bank capital measures have become more sophisticated over the years and have focused more on the quality of capital and the risk of assets. Bank holding companies have historically had to comply with less stringent capital standards than their bank subsidiaries and have been able to raise capital with hybrid instruments such as trust preferred securities. The Dodd-Frank Act mandated the Federal Reserve to establish minimum capital levels for holding companies on a consolidated basis as stringent as those required for FDIC-insured institutions. A result of this change is that the proceeds of hybrid instruments, such as trust preferred securities, are being excluded from capital over a phase-out period. However, if such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by bank holding companies with less than $15 billion of assets, they may be retained, subject to certain restrictions. Because the Company has assets of less than $15 billion, the Company is able to maintain its trust preferred proceeds as capital but the Company has to comply with new capital mandates in other respects and will not be able to raise capital in the future through the issuance of trust preferred securities.

The Basel International Capital Accords. The risk-based capital guidelines for U.S. banks since 1989 were based upon the 1988 capital accord known as “Basel I” adopted by the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors that acts as the primary global standard-setter for prudential regulation, as implemented by the U.S. bank regulatory agencies on an interagency basis. The accord recognized that bank assets for the purpose of the capital ratio calculations needed to be risk weighted (the theory being that riskier assets should require more capital) and that off-balance sheet exposures needed to be factored in the calculations. Basel I had a very simple formula for assigning risk weights to bank assets from 0% to 100% based on four categories. In 2008, the banking agencies collaboratively began to phase-in capital standards based on a second capital accord, referred to as “Basel II,” for large or “core” international banks (generally defined for U.S. purposes as having total assets of $250 billion or more, or consolidated foreign exposures of $10 billion or more) known as “advanced approaches” banks. The primary focus of Basel II was on the calculation of risk weights based on complex models developed by each advanced approaches bank. Because most banks were not subject to Basel II, the U.S. bank regulators worked to improve the risk sensitivity of Basel I standards without imposing the complexities of Basel II. This “standardized approach” increased the number of risk-weight categories and recognized risks well above the original 100% risk weighting. It is institutionalized by the Dodd-Frank Act for all banking organizations, even for the advanced approaches banks, as a floor.

On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced agreement on a strengthened set of capital requirements for banking organizations around the world, known as Basel III, to address deficiencies recognized in connection with the global financial crisis.

The Basel III Rule. In July 2013, the U.S. federal banking agencies approved the implementation of the Basel III regulatory capital reforms in pertinent part, and, at the same time, promulgated rules effecting certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Basel III Rule”). In contrast to capital requirements historically, which were in the form of guidelines, Basel III was released in the form of regulations by each of the regulatory agencies. The Basel III Rule 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” (generally holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $1 billion that do not have securities registered with the SEC).

The Basel III Rule required higher capital levels, increased the required quality of capital, and required more detailed categories of risk weighting of riskier, more opaque assets. For nearly every class of assets, the Basel III Rule requires a more complex, detailed and calibrated assessment of credit risk and calculation of risk weightings.

8

Not only did the Basel III Rule increase most of the required minimum capital ratios in effect prior to January 1, 2015, but it introduced the concept of Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, which consists primarily of common stock, related surplus (net of Treasury stock), retained earnings, and Common Equity Tier 1 minority interests subject to certain regulatory adjustments. The Basel III Rule also changed the definition of capital by establishing more stringent criteria that instruments must meet to be considered Additional Tier 1 Capital (primarily non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock that meets certain requirements) and Tier 2 Capital (primarily other types of preferred stock and subordinated debt, subject to limitations). A number of instruments that qualified as Tier 1 Capital under Basel I do not qualify, or their qualifications will change. For example, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, which qualified as simple Tier 1 Capital under Basel I, does not qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, but qualifies as Additional Tier 1 Capital. The Basel III Rule also constrained the inclusion of minority interests, mortgage-servicing assets, and deferred tax assets in capital and requires deductions from Common Equity Tier 1 Capital in the event that such assets exceed a certain percentage of a banking institution’s Common Equity Tier 1 Capital.

The Basel III Rule required minimum capital ratios as of January 1, 2015, as follows:

● A ratio of minimum Common Equity Tier 1 Capital equal to 4.5% of risk-weighted assets;

● An increase in the minimum required amount of Tier 1 Capital from 4% to 6% of risk-weighted assets;

● A continuation of the minimum required amount of Total Capital (Tier 1 plus Tier 2) at 8% of risk-weighted assets; and

● A minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total quarterly average assets equal to 4% in all circumstances.

In addition, institutions that seek the freedom to make capital distributions (including for dividends and repurchases of stock) and pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers without restriction must also maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to a capital conservation buffer being phased in over three years beginning in 2016 (as of January 1, 2018, it had phased in to 1.875%). The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banking institutions maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. Factoring in the fully phased-in conservation buffer increases the minimum ratios depicted above to 7% for Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, 8.5% for Tier 1 Capital and 10.5% for Total Capital.

Banking organizations (except for large, internationally active banking organizations) became subject to the new rules on January 1, 2015. However, there are separate phase-in/phase-out periods for: (i) the capital conservation buffer; (ii) regulatory capital adjustments and deductions; (iii) nonqualifying capital instruments; and (iv) changes to the prompt corrective action rules discussed below. The phase-in periods commenced on January 1, 2016 and extend until January 1, 2019.

Well-Capitalized Requirements. The ratios described above are minimum standards in order for banking organizations to be considered “adequately capitalized.” Bank regulatory agencies uniformly encourage banks to hold more capital and be “well-capitalized” and, to that end, federal law and regulations provide various incentives for banking organizations to maintain regulatory capital at levels in excess of minimum regulatory requirements. For example, a banking organization that is well-capitalized may: (i) qualify for exemptions from prior notice or application requirements otherwise applicable to certain types of activities; (ii) qualify for expedited processing of other required notices or applications; and (iii) accept, roll-over or renew brokered deposits. Higher capital levels could also be required if warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profiles of individual banking organizations. For example, the Federal Reserve’s capital guidelines contemplate that additional capital may be required to take adequate account of, among other things, interest rate risk, or the risks posed by concentrations of credit, nontraditional activities or securities trading activities. Further, any banking organization experiencing or anticipating significant growth would be expected to maintain capital ratios, including tangible capital positions (i.e., Tier 1 Capital less all intangible assets), well above the minimum levels.

9

Under the capital regulations of the OCC, in order to be well capitalized, a banking organization must maintain:

● A Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio to risk-weighted assets of 6.5% or more;

● A ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8% or more (6% under Basel I);

● A ratio of Total Capital to total risk-weighted assets of 10% or more (the same as Basel I); and

● A leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total adjusted average quarterly assets of 5% or greater.

It is possible under the Basel III Rule to be well-capitalized while remaining out of compliance with the capital conservation buffer discussed above.

As of December 31, 2017: (i) the Bank was not subject to a directive from the OCC to increase its capital and (ii) the Bank was well-capitalized, as defined by OCC regulations. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had regulatory capital in excess of the Federal Reserve’s requirements and met the Basel III Rule requirements to be well-capitalized.

Prompt Corrective Action. An FDIC-insured institution’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to sell itself; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Regulation and Supervision of the Company

General. The Company, as the sole shareholder of the Bank, is a bank holding company. As a bank holding company, the Company is registered with, and subject to regulation, supervision and enforcement by, the Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”). The Company is legally obligated to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances where the Company might not otherwise do so. Under the BHCA, the Company is subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve and is required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports of the Company’s operations and such additional information regarding the Company and the Bank as the Federal Reserve may require.

Acquisitions, Activities and Change in Control. 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. Subject to certain conditions (including deposit concentration limits established by the BHCA), the Federal Reserve may allow a bank holding company to acquire banks located in any state of the United States. In approving interstate acquisitions, the Federal Reserve is required to give effect to applicable state law limitations on the aggregate amount of deposits that may be held by the acquiring bank holding company and its FDIC-insured institution affiliates in the state in which the target bank is located (provided that those limits do not discriminate against out-of-state institutions or their holding companies) and state laws that require that the target bank have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) before being acquired by an out-of-state bank holding company. Furthermore, in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies must be well-capitalized and well-managed in order to effect interstate mergers or acquisitions. For a discussion of the capital requirements, see “Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

10

The BHCA generally prohibits the Company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to banks and their subsidiaries. This general prohibition is subject to a number of exceptions. The principal exception allows bank holding companies to engage in, and to own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the Federal Reserve prior to November 11, 1999 to be “so closely related to banking ... as to be a proper incident thereto.” This authority would permit the Company to engage in a variety of banking-related businesses, including the ownership and operation of a savings association, or any entity engaged in consumer finance, equipment leasing, the operation of a computer service bureau (including software development) and mortgage banking and brokerage services. The BHCA does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic activities of nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies.

Additionally, bank holding companies that meet certain eligibility requirements prescribed by the BHCA and elect to operate as financial holding companies may engage in, or own shares in companies engaged in, a wider range of nonbanking activities, including securities and insurance underwriting and sales, merchant banking and any other activity that the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines by regulation or order is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity or that the Federal Reserve determines by order to be complementary to any such financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of FDIC-insured institutions or the financial system generally. In order to maintain status as a financial holding company, both the bank holding company and each of its subsidiary banks must be well-capitalized, well-managed, and have at least a satisfactory Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) rating. If the Federal Reserve determines that either the holding company or any of its subsidiary banks are not well-capitalized or well-managed, the Federal Reserve will provide a period of time in which to achieve compliance, but during the period of noncompliance, the Federal Reserve may place any additional limitations on the holding company that it deems appropriate. Furthermore, if non-compliance is based on the failure of a subsidiary bank to achieve a satisfactory CRA rating, the holding company would not be able to commence any new financial activities or acquire a company that engages in such activities. The Company has not elected to operate as a financial holding company.

Federal law also prohibits any person or company from acquiring “control” of an FDIC-insured depository institution or its holding company without prior notice to the appropriate federal bank regulator. “Control” is conclusively presumed to exist upon the acquisition of 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of a bank or bank holding company, but may arise under certain circumstances between 10% and 24.99% ownership.

Capital Requirements. Bank holding companies are required to maintain capital in accordance with Federal Reserve capital adequacy requirements. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

Dividend Payments. The Company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders may be affected by both general corporate law considerations and policies of the Federal Reserve applicable to bank holding companies. As a Delaware corporation, the Company is subject to the limitations of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”). The DGCL allows the Company to pay dividends only out of its surplus (as defined and computed in accordance with the provisions of the DGCL) or if the Company has no such surplus, out of its net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year.

As a general matter, the Federal Reserve has indicated that the board of directors of a bank holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce dividends to shareholders if: (i) the company’s net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid during that period, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends; (ii) the prospective rate of earnings retention is inconsistent with the company’s capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition; or (iii) the company will not meet, or is in danger of not meeting, its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios. The Federal Reserve also possesses enforcement powers over bank holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries to prevent or remedy actions that represent unsafe or unsound practices or violations of applicable statutes and regulations. Among these powers is the ability to proscribe the payment of dividends by banks and bank holding companies. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, institutions that seek the freedom to pay dividends will have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer to be phased in over three years beginning in 2016. See “—Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

11

Incentive Compensation. There have been a number of developments in recent years focused on incentive compensation plans sponsored by bank holding companies and banks, reflecting recognition by the bank regulatory agencies and Congress that flawed incentive compensation practices in the financial industry were one of many factors contributing to the global financial crisis. Layered on top of that are the abuses in the headlines dealing with product cross-selling incentive plans. The result is interagency guidance on sound incentive compensation practices and proposed rulemaking by the agencies required under Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The interagency guidance recognized three core principles. Effective incentive plans should: (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. Much of the guidance addresses large banking organizations and, because of the size and complexity of their operations, the regulators expect those organizations to maintain systematic and formalized policies, procedures, and systems for ensuring that the incentive compensation arrangements for all executive and non-executive employees covered by this guidance are identified and reviewed, and appropriately balance risks and rewards. Smaller banking organizations like the Company that use incentive compensation arrangements are expected to be less extensive, formalized, and detailed than those of the larger banks.

Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required the banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, the SEC and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to jointly prescribe regulations that prohibit types of incentive-based compensation that encourages inappropriate risk taking and to disclose certain information regarding such plans. On June 10, 2016, the agencies released an updated proposed rule for comment. Section 956 will only apply to banking organizations with assets of greater than $1 billion. Although we currently have consolidated assets of less than $1 billion, we are close to surpassing that threshold. Once we exceed consolidated assets of $1 billion, but less than $50 billion, we will be considered a Level 3 banking organization under the proposed rules. The proposed rules contain mostly general principles and reporting requirements for Level 3 institutions so there are no specific prescriptions or limits, deferral requirements or claw-back mandates. Risk management and controls are required, as is board or committee level approval and oversight. Management expects to review its incentive plans in light of the proposed rulemaking and guidance and implement policies and procedures that mitigate unreasonable risk. As of December 31, 2017, these rules remain in proposed form.

Monetary Policy. The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has a significant effect on the operating results of financial or bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the tools available to the Federal Reserve to affect the money supply are open market transactions in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.

Federal Securities Regulation. The Company’s common stock is registered with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Consequently, the Company is subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading and other restrictions and requirements of the SEC under the Exchange Act.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addressed many investor protection, corporate governance and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. It increased stockholder influence over boards of directors by requiring companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, and authorizing the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate and solicit voters for their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. The legislation also directed the Federal Reserve to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of bank holding companies, regardless of whether such companies are publicly traded.

Regulation and Supervision of the Bank

General. The Bank is a national bank, chartered by the OCC under the National Bank Act. The deposit accounts of the Bank are insured by the DIF to the maximum extent provided under federal law and FDIC regulations, currently $250,000 per insured depositor category, and the Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System. As a national bank, the Bank is subject to the examination, supervision, reporting and enforcement requirements of the OCC, the chartering authority for national banks. The FDIC, as administrator of the DIF, also has regulatory authority over the Bank.

12

Deposit Insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, the Bank is required to pay deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system whereby FDIC-insured institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. For institutions like the Bank that are not considered large and highly complex banking organizations, assessments are now based on examination ratings and financial ratios. The total base assessment rates currently range from 1.5 basis points to 30 basis points. At least semi-annually, the FDIC updates its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, increases or decreases the assessment rates, following notice and comment on proposed rulemaking. The assessment base against which an FDIC-insured institution’s deposit insurance premiums paid to the DIF are calculated is based on its average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity. This method shifts the burden of deposit insurance premiums toward those large depository institutions that rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits.

The reserve ratio is the DIF balance divided by estimated insured deposits. The Dodd-Frank Act altered the minimum reserve ratio of the DIF, increasing the minimum from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminating the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to FDIC-insured institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The reserve ratio reached 1.28% on September 30, 2017. If the reserve ratio does not reach 1.35% by December 31, 2018 (provided it is at least 1.15%), the FDIC will impose a shortfall assessment on March 31, 2019 on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. The FDIC will provide assessment credits to insured depository institutions, like the Bank, with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion for the portion of their regular assessments that contribute to growth in the reserve ratio between 1.15% and 1.35%. The FDIC will apply the credits each quarter that the reserve ratio is at least 1.38% to offset the regular deposit insurance assessments of institutions with credits.

FICO Assessments. In addition to paying basic deposit insurance assessments, FDIC-insured institutions must pay Financing Corporation (“FICO”) assessments. FICO is a mixed-ownership governmental corporation chartered by the former Federal Home Loan Bank Board pursuant to the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 to function as a financing vehicle for the recapitalization of the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. FICO issued 30-year noncallable bonds of approximately $8.1 billion that mature in 2017 through 2019. FICO’s authority to issue bonds ended on December 12, 1991. Since 1996, federal legislation has required that all FDIC-insured institutions pay assessments to cover interest payments on FICO’s outstanding obligations. The FICO assessment rate is adjusted quarterly and for the fourth quarter of 2017 was 54 cents per $100 dollars of assessable deposits.

Supervisory Assessments. National banks are required to pay supervisory assessments to the OCC to fund the operations of the OCC. The amount of the assessment is calculated using a formula that takes into account the bank’s size and its supervisory condition. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Bank paid supervisory assessments to the OCC totaling $229,000.

Capital Requirements. Banks are generally required to maintain capital levels in excess of other businesses. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

Liquidity Requirements. Liquidity is a measure of the ability and ease with which bank assets may be converted to cash. Liquid assets are those that can be converted to cash quickly if needed to meet financial obligations. To remain viable, FDIC-insured institutions must have enough liquid assets to meet their near-term obligations, such as withdrawals by depositors. Because the global financial crisis was in part a liquidity crisis, Basel III also includes a liquidity framework that requires FDIC-insured institutions to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests. One test, referred to as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”), is designed to ensure that the banking entity has an adequate stock of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets that can be converted easily and immediately in private markets into cash to meet liquidity needs for a 30-calendar day liquidity stress scenario. The other test, known as the Net Stable Funding Ratio (“NSFR”), is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of FDIC-insured institutions over a one-year horizon. These tests provide an incentive for banks and holding companies to increase their holdings in Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets, increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source and rely on stable funding like core deposits (in lieu of brokered deposits).

In addition to liquidity guidelines already in place, the federal bank regulatory agencies implemented the Basel III LCR in 2014 and have proposed the NSFR. While the LCR only applies to the largest banking organizations in the country, as will the NSFR, certain elements are expected to filter down to all FDIC-insured institutions. The Company continues to review the Company’s liquidity risk management policies in light of the LCR and NSFR.

13

Stress Testing. A stress test is an analysis or simulation designed to determine the ability of a given FDIC-insured institution to deal with an economic crisis. In October 2012, U.S. bank regulators unveiled new rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act that require the largest U.S. banks to undergo stress tests twice per year, once internally and once conducted by the regulators. Stress tests are not required for banks with less than $10 billion in assets; however, the FDIC now recommends stress testing as means to identify and quantify loan portfolio risk and the Bank is engaged in the process.

Dividend Payments. The primary source of funds for the Company is dividends from the Bank. Under the National Bank Act, a national bank may pay dividends out of its undivided profits in such amounts and at such times as the bank’s board of directors deems prudent. Without prior OCC approval, however, a national bank may not pay dividends in any calendar year that, in the aggregate, exceed the bank’s year-to-date net income plus the bank’s retained net income for the two preceding years. The payment of dividends by any FDIC-insured institution is affected by the requirement to maintain adequate capital pursuant to applicable capital adequacy guidelines and regulations, and an FDIC-insured institution generally is prohibited from paying any dividends if, following payment thereof, the institution would be undercapitalized. As described above, the Bank exceeded its capital requirements under applicable guidelines as of December 31, 2017. Notwithstanding the availability of funds for dividends, however, the OCC may prohibit the payment of dividends by the Bank if it determines such payment would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, institutions that seek the freedom to pay dividends will have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer to be phased in over three years beginning in 2016. See “Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

Insider Transactions. The Bank is subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal law on “covered transactions” between the Bank and its “affiliates.” The Company is an affiliate of the Bank for purposes of these restrictions, and covered transactions subject to the restrictions include extensions of credit to the Company, investments in the stock or other securities of the Company and the acceptance of the stock or other securities of the Company as collateral for loans made by the Bank. The Dodd-Frank Act enhanced the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be maintained.

Certain limitations and reporting requirements are also placed on extensions of credit by the Bank to its directors and officers, to directors and officers of the Company and its subsidiaries, to principal shareholders of the Company and to “related interests” of such directors, officers and principal shareholders. In addition, federal law and regulations may affect the terms upon which any person who is a director or officer of the Company or the Bank, or a principal shareholder of the Company, may obtain credit from banks with which the Bank maintains a correspondent relationship.

Safety and Soundness Standards/Risk Management. The federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines that establish operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of FDIC-insured institutions. The guidelines set forth standards for internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, asset quality and earnings.

In general, the safety and soundness guidelines prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals. If an institution fails to comply with any of the standards set forth in the guidelines, the FDIC-insured institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If an FDIC-insured institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan, or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan that has been accepted by its primary federal regulator, the regulator is required to issue an order directing the institution to cure the deficiency. Until the deficiency cited in the regulator’s order is cured, the regulator may restrict the FDIC-insured institution’s rate of growth, require the FDIC-insured institution to increase its capital, restrict the rates the institution pays on deposits or require the institution to take any action the regulator deems appropriate under the circumstances. Noncompliance with the standards established by the safety and soundness guidelines may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal bank regulatory agencies, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.

14

During the past decade, the bank regulatory agencies have increasingly emphasized the importance of sound risk management processes and strong internal controls when evaluating the activities of the FDIC-insured institutions they supervise. Properly managing risks has been identified as critical to the conduct of safe and sound banking activities and has become even more important as new technologies, product innovation, and the size and speed of financial transactions have changed the nature of banking markets. The agencies have identified a spectrum of risks facing a banking institution including, but not limited to, credit, market, liquidity, operational, legal, and reputational risk. In particular, recent regulatory pronouncements have focused on operational risk, which arises from the potential that inadequate information systems, operational problems, breaches in internal controls, fraud, or unforeseen catastrophes will result in unexpected losses. New products and services, third-party risk and cybersecurity are critical sources of operational risk that FDIC-insured institutions must address in the current environment. The Bank is expected to have active board and senior management oversight; adequate policies, procedures, and limits; adequate risk measurement, monitoring, and management information systems; and comprehensive internal controls.

Branching Authority. National banks headquartered in Kansas, such as the Bank, have the same branching rights in Kansas as banks chartered under Kansas law, subject to OCC approval. Kansas law grants Kansas-chartered banks the authority to establish branches anywhere in the State of Kansas, subject to receipt of all required regulatory approvals.

Federal law permits state and national banks to merge with banks in other states subject to: (i) regulatory approval; (ii) federal and state deposit concentration limits; and (iii) state law limitations requiring the merging bank to have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) prior to the merger. However, the Dodd-Frank Act permits well-capitalized and well-managed banks to establish new branches across state lines without these impediments.

Financial Subsidiaries. Under federal law and OCC regulations, national banks are authorized to engage, through “financial subsidiaries,” in any activity that is permissible for a financial holding company and any activity that the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Federal Reserve, determines is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity, except (i) insurance underwriting, (ii) real estate development or real estate investment activities (unless otherwise permitted by law), (iii) insurance company portfolio investments and (iv) merchant banking. The authority of a national bank to invest in a financial subsidiary is subject to a number of conditions, including, among other things, requirements that the bank must be well-managed and well-capitalized (after deducting from capital the bank’s outstanding investments in financial subsidiaries). The Bank has not applied for approval to establish any financial subsidiaries.

Federal Home Loan Bank System. The Bank is a member of the FHLB of Topeka, which serves as a central credit facility for its members. The FHLB is funded primarily from proceeds from the sale of obligations of the FHLB system. It makes loans to member banks in the form of FHLB advances. All advances from the FHLB are required to be fully collateralized as determined by the FHLB.

Transaction Account Reserves. Federal Reserve regulations require FDIC-insured institutions to maintain reserves against their transaction accounts (primarily NOW and regular checking accounts). For 2018: the first $16 million of otherwise reservable balances are exempt from reserves and have a zero percent reserve requirement; for transaction accounts aggregating more than $16 million to $122.3 million, the reserve requirement is 3% of total transaction accounts; and for net transaction accounts in excess of $122.3 million, the reserve requirement is 3% up to $122.3 million plus 10% of the aggregate amount of total transaction accounts in excess of $122.3 million. These reserve requirements are subject to annual adjustment by the Federal Reserve.

Community Reinvestment Act Requirements. The Community Reinvestment Act requires the Bank to have a continuing and affirmative obligation in a safe and sound manner to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Federal regulators regularly assess the Bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its communities. Applications for additional acquisitions would be affected by the evaluation of the Bank’s effectiveness in meeting its Community Reinvestment Act requirements.

Anti-Money Laundering. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”) is designed to deny terrorists and criminals the ability to obtain access to the U.S. financial system and has significant implications for FDIC-insured institutions, brokers, dealers and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The USA Patriot Act mandates financial services companies to have policies and procedures with respect to measures designed to address any or all of the following matters: (i) customer identification programs; (ii) money laundering; (iii) terrorist financing; (iv) identifying and reporting suspicious activities and currency transactions; (v) currency crimes; and (vi) cooperation between FDIC-insured institutions and law enforcement authorities.

15

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) commercial real estate loans exceeding 300% of capital and increasing 50% or more in the preceding three years; or (ii) construction and land development loans exceeding 100% of 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 CRE lending, having observed substantial growth in many CRE asset and lending markets, increased competitive pressures, rising CRE concentrations in banks, and an easing of CRE 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 CRE lending. In addition, FDIC-insured institutions must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of their CRE concentration risk.

Based on the Bank’s loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017, it did not exceed the 300% guideline for commercial real estate loans.

Consumer Financial Services. The historical structure of federal consumer protection regulation applicable to all providers of consumer financial products and services changed significantly on July 21, 2011, when the CFPB commenced operations to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all providers of consumer products and services, including the Bank, as well as the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over providers with more than $10 billion in assets. FDIC-insured institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, like the Bank, continue to be examined by their applicable bank regulators. The Company does not currently expect the CFPB’s rules to have a significant impact on the Bank’s operations, except for higher compliance costs.

Company Web site

The Company maintains a corporate Web site at www.landmarkbancorpinc.com. In addition, the Company has an investor relations link at the Bank’s corporate Web site at www.banklandmark.com. Many of the Company’s policies, including its code of business conduct and ethics, committee charters and other investor information, are available on its website. The Company makes available free of charge on or through its website its 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 Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. Copies of the Company’s filings with the SEC are also available from the SEC’s website (http://www.sec.gov) free of charge. The Company will also provide copies of its filings free of charge upon written request to our Corporate Secretary at Landmark Bancorp, Inc., 701 Poyntz Avenue, Manhattan, Kansas 66502.

16

Statistical Data

The Company has a fiscal year ending on December 31. Unless otherwise noted, the information presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K presents information on behalf of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017.

The statistical data required by Guide 3 of the Securities Act of 1933 Industry Guides is set forth in the following pages. This data should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements, related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

I. Distribution of Assets, Liabilities, and Stockholders’ Equity; Interest Rates and Interest Differential

The following table describes the extent to which changes in tax equivalent interest income and interest expense for major components of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities affected the Company’s interest income and expense during the periods indicated. The table distinguishes between (i) changes attributable to rate (changes in rate multiplied by prior volume), (ii) changes attributable to volume (changes in volume multiplied by prior rate), and (iii) net change (the sum of the previous columns). The net changes attributable to the combined effect of volume and rate which cannot be segregated have been allocated proportionately to the change due to volume and the change due to rate.

	Years ended December 31,
	2017 vs 2016									2016 vs 2015
	Increase/(decrease) attributable to									Increase/(decrease) attributable to
	Volume			Rate			Net			Volume			Rate			Net
	(Dollars in thousands)
Interest income:
Interest-bearing deposits at banks	$	5		$	17		$	22		$	1		$	9		$	10
Investment securities
Taxable		-			112			112			(263	)		221			(42	)
Tax-exempt (1)		767			(18	)		749			832			(302	)		530
Loans (2)		(184	)		(39	)		(223	)		264			(367	)		(103	)
Total		588			72			660			834			(439	)		395
Interest expense:
Deposits		48			387			435			6			57			63
Borrowings		(117	)		76			(41	)		39			8			47
Total		(69	)		463			394			45			65			110
Net interest income	$	657		$	(391	)	$	266		$	789		$	(504	)	$	285

(1)	The change in tax-exempt income on investment securities is presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis, using a 34% federal tax rate.
(2)	The change in tax-exempt loan income is presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis, using a 34% federal tax rate.

17

The following table sets forth information relating to average balances of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. Average balances are derived from daily average balances. Non-accrual loans were included in the computation of average balances but have been reflected in the table as loans carrying a zero yield. The yields set forth in the table below include the effect of deferred fees, discounts and premiums that are amortized or accreted to interest income or interest expense. This table reflects the average yields on assets and average costs of liabilities for the periods indicated (derived by dividing income or expense by the monthly average balance of assets or liabilities, respectively) as well as the “net interest margin” (which reflects the effect of the net earnings balance) for the periods shown.

	Year ended December 31, 2017								Year ended December 31, 2016								Year ended December 31, 2015
	Average balance		Income/ expense			Yield/ cost			Average balance		Income/ expense			Yield/ cost			Average balance		Income/ expense			Yield/ cost
(Dollars in thousands)
Assets
Interest-earning assets:
Interest bearing deposits at banks	$	3,834	$	39			1.02	%	$	3,075	$	17			0.55	%	$	2,817	$	7			0.25	%
Investment securities
Taxable		219,100		4,647			2.12	%		219,091		4,535			2.07	%		227,161		4,577			2.01	%
Tax-exempt (1)		175,668		5,881			3.35	%		152,737		5,132			3.36	%		126,796		4,602			3.63	%
Loans receivable, net (2)		429,540		21,154			4.92	%		433,707		21,377			4.93	%		428,780		21,480			5.01	%
Total interest-earning assets		828,142		31,721			3.83	%		808,610		31,061			3.84	%		785,554		30,666			3.90	%
Non-interest-earning assets		92,230								85,759								84,831
Total	$	920,372							$	894,369							$	870,385
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity
Interest-bearing liabilities:
Money market and checking	$	359,661	$	948			0.26	%	$	330,252	$	458			0.14	%	$	321,184	$	311			0.10	%
Savings accounts		93,443		28			0.03	%		86,538		26			0.03	%		78,791		24			0.03	%
Time deposit		132,816		593			0.45	%		144,678		650			0.45	%		158,172		736			0.47	%
Total deposits		585,920		1,569			0.27	%		561,468		1,134			0.20	%		558,147		1,071			0.19	%
FHLB advances and other borrowings		75,347		2,016			2.68	%		79,090		2,057			2.60	%		77,683		2,010			2.59	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities		661,267		3,585			0.54	%		640,558		3,191			0.50	%		635,830		3,081			0.48	%
Non-interest-bearing liabilities		171,409								167,144								158,470
Stockholders' equity		87,696								86,667								76,085
Total	$	920,372							$	894,369							$	870,385
Interest rate spread (3)							3.29	%							3.34	%							3.42	%
Net interest margin (4)			$	28,136			3.40	%			$	27,870			3.45	%			$	27,585			3.51	%
Tax equivalent interest - imputed (1) (2)				2,021								1,831								1,669
Net interest income			$	26,115							$	26,039							$	25,916
Ratio of average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities				125.2	%							126.2	%							123.5	%

(1)	Income on tax-exempt investment securities is presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis, using a 34% federal tax rate.
(2)	Income on tax-exempt loans is presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis, using a 34% federal tax rate.
(3)	Interest rate spread represents the difference between the average yield on interest-earning assets and the average cost of interest-bearing liabilities.
(4)	Net interest margin represents net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets.

18

II. Investment Portfolio

Investment Securities. The following table sets forth the carrying value of the Company’s investment securities at the dates indicated. None of the investment securities issued by an individual issuer held as of December 31, 2017 were in excess of 10% of the Company’s stockholders’ equity, excluding U.S. federal agency obligations. The Company’s federal agency obligations consist of obligations of U.S. government-sponsored enterprises, primarily the FHLB. The Company’s agency mortgage-backed securities portfolio consists of securities predominantly underwritten to the standards of and guaranteed by the government-sponsored agencies of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal National Mortgage Association and Government National Mortgage Association. The Company’s investments in certificates of deposits consist of FDIC-insured certificates of deposits with other financial institutions.

	As of December 31,
	2017		2016		2015
	(Dollars in thousands)
Investment securities:
U.S. treasury securities	$	1,990	$	6,015	$	6,517
U.S. federal agency obligations		16,492		27,139		29,920
Municipal obligations, tax-exempt		184,738		161,662		137,941
Municipal obligations, taxable		57,976		71,563		81,890
Agency mortgage-backed securities		117,555		108,376		85,985
Certificates of deposits		9,224		9,700		9,699
Common stocks		8		1,108		1,486
Total investment securities available-for-sale, at fair value	$	387,983	$	385,563	$	353,438
FHLB stock		3,404		3,276		2,483
Federal Reserve Bank stock		1,908		1,912		1,903
Correspondent bank common stock		111		111		111
Bank stocks, at cost	$	5,423	$	5,299	$	4,497

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the carrying values, weighted average yields, and maturities of the Company’s investment securities portfolio, excluding common stocks, as of December 31, 2017. Yields on tax-exempt obligations have been computed on a tax equivalent basis, using a 34% federal tax rate. Mortgage-backed investment securities include scheduled principal payments and estimated prepayments based on observable market inputs. Actual prepayments will differ from contractual maturities because borrowers have the right to prepay obligations with or without prepayment penalties.

	As of December 31, 2017
	One year or less					One to five years					Five to ten years					More than ten years					Total
	Carrying		Average			Carrying		Average			Carrying		Average			Carrying		Average			Carrying		Average
	value		yield			value		yield			value		yield			value		yield			value		yield
	(Dollars in thousands)
Investment securities:
U.S. treasury securities	$	-		0.00	%	$	1,990		2.01	%	$	-		0.00	%	$	-		0.00	%	$	1,990		2.01	%
U.S. federal agency obligations		8,071		1.13	%		8,019		1.50	%		231		3.30	%		171		3.77	%		16,492		1.37	%
Municipal obligations, tax-exempt		7,600		2.77	%		35,706		2.71	%		61,662		3.12	%		79,770		4.03	%		184,738		3.42	%
Municipal obligations, taxable		8,617		1.74	%		20,888		2.16	%		20,559		2.92	%		7,912		3.48	%		57,976		2.55	%
Agency mortgage-backed securities		325		2.97	%		105,019		2.10	%		12,211		2.58	%		-		0.00	%		117,555		2.15	%
Certificates of deposits		2,407		1.25	%		6,817		1.70	%		-		0.00	%		-		0.00	%		9,224		1.58	%
Total	$	27,020		1.82	%	$	178,439		2.19	%	$	94,663		3.01	%	$	87,853		3.98	%	$	387,975		2.77	%

19

III. Loan Portfolio

Loan Portfolio Composition. The following table sets forth the composition of the loan portfolio by type of loan at the dates indicated.

	As of December 31,
	2017			2016			2015			2014			2013
Balance	(Dollars in thousands)
One-to-four family residential real estate loans	$	136,215		$	136,846		$	131,930		$	127,555		$	125,087
Construction and land loans		19,356			13,738			15,043			21,950			23,776
Commercial real estate loans		120,624			118,200			118,983			118,411			119,390
Commercial loans		54,591			54,506			61,300			59,971			61,383
Agriculture loans		83,008			78,324			71,030			64,316			62,287
Municipal loans		3,396			3,884			7,635			8,982			8,846
Consumer loans		22,046			20,271			19,895			20,044			18,600
Total gross loans		439,236			425,769			425,816			421,229			419,369
Net deferred loan costs and loans in process		(34	)		36			29			281			187
Allowance for loan losses		(5,459	)		(5,344	)		(5,922	)		(5,320	)		(5,540	)
Loans, net	$	433,743		$	420,461		$	419,923		$	416,190		$	414,016
Percent of total
One-to-four family residential real estate loans		31.0	%		32.1	%		31.0	%		30.3	%		29.8	%
Construction and land loans		4.4	%		3.2	%		3.5	%		5.2	%		5.7	%
Commercial real estate loans		27.5	%		27.8	%		27.9	%		28.1	%		28.5	%
Commercial loans		12.4	%		12.8	%		14.4	%		14.2	%		14.6	%
Agriculture loans		18.9	%		18.4	%		16.7	%		15.3	%		14.9	%
Municipal loans		0.8	%		0.9	%		1.8	%		2.1	%		2.1	%
Consumer loans		5.0	%		4.8	%		4.7	%		4.8	%		4.4	%
Total gross loans		100.0	%		100.0	%		100.0	%		100.0	%		100.0	%

The following table sets forth the contractual maturities of loans as of December 31, 2017. The table does not include unscheduled prepayments.

	As of December 31, 2017
	1 year or less		1-5 years		After 5 years		Total
	(Dollars in thousands)
One-to-four family residential real estate loans	$	18,405	$	57,665	$	60,145	$	136,215
Construction and land loans		16,410		2,166		780		19,356
Commercial real estate loans		17,403		47,488		55,733		120,624
Commercial loans		38,611		11,760		4,220		54,591
Agriculture loans		42,511		19,098		21,399		83,008
Municipal loans		299		1,132		1,965		3,396
Consumer loans		3,437		5,723		12,886		22,046
Total gross loans	$	137,076	$	145,032	$	157,128	$	439,236

20

The following table sets forth the dollar amount of all loans that mature after one year and whether such loans had fixed interest rates or adjustable interest rates:

	As of December 31, 2017
	Fixed		Adjustable		Total
	(Dollars in thousands)
One-to-four family residential real estate loans	$	71,011	$	46,799	$	117,810
Construction and land loans		1,013		1,933		2,946
Commercial real estate loans		18,394		84,827		103,221
Commercial loans		8,942		7,038		15,980
Agriculture loans		18,887		21,610		40,497
Municipal loans		3,097		-		3,097
Consumer loans		2,463		16,146		18,609
Total gross loans	$	123,807	$	178,353	$	302,160

Non-performing Assets. The following table sets forth information with respect to non-performing assets, including non-accrual loans and real estate acquired through foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure (“real estate owned”). The accrual of interest on non-performing loans is discontinued at the time the loan is ninety days delinquent, unless the credit is well secured and in process of collection. Loans are placed on non-accrual or are charged off at an earlier date if collection of principal or interest is considered doubtful. Under the original terms of the Company’s non-accrual loans as of December 31, 2017, interest earned on such loans for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 would have increased interest income by $185,000, $75,000 and $99,000, respectively, if included in the Company’s interest income for those years. No interest income related to non-accrual loans was included in interest income for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015.

	As of December 31,
	2017			2016			2015			2014			2013
	(Dollars in thousands)
Non-accrual loans	$	6,041		$	2,746		$	2,168		$	6,046		$	9,836
Accruing loans over 90 days past due		-			-			-			-			-
Non-performing investments		-			-			-			-			-
Real estate owned, net		436			1,279			1,000			255			400
Non-performing assets	$	6,477		$	4,025		$	3,168		$	6,301		$	10,236
Performing TDRs	$	3,719		$	3,983		$	4,669		$	4,657		$	6,920
Non-performing loans to total gross loans		1.38	%		0.64	%		0.51	%		1.44	%		2.35	%
Non-performing assets to total assets		0.70	%		0.44	%		0.36	%		0.73	%		1.24	%
Allowance for loan losses to non-performing loans		90.37	%		194.61	%		273.15	%		87.99	%		56.32	%

The increase in non-accrual loans as of December 31, 2017 compared to December 31, 2016 was primarily related to a $3.6 million loan relationship consisting of $1.8 million in commercial loans and a $1.8 million commercial real estate loan. The increase in non-accrual loans as of December 31, 2016 compared to December 31, 2015 was primarily driven by higher levels of non-performing agriculture loans. The decrease in non-accrual loans as of December 31, 2015 compared to December 31, 2014 was primarily the result of a $2.0 million commercial real estate loan that returned to accrual status, the payoff of a $1.6 million land loan relationship and transfers to real estate owned. The decrease in non-accrual loans as of December 31, 2014 compared to December 31, 2013 was principally associated with a $4.0 million commercial loan relationship which was placed on non-accrual status in 2013 as the performance of the business deteriorated and the borrower agreed to sell the business. The business was liquidated in 2014 and resulted in a charge-off of $755,000, and the Bank received $3.2 million as a payoff for the credit.

21

At December 31, 2017, the $436,000 of real estate owned primarily consisted of several residential real estate properties and one commercial real estate property. The decrease in real estate owned as of December 31, 2017 compared to December 31, 2016 was principally associated with the sale of residential real estate properties. The increase in real estate owned as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 compared to December 31, 2014 was principally associated with obtaining the collateral securing a non-performing loan relationship. The decline in real estate owned as of December 31, 2014 compared to December 31, 2013 was principally associated with the sale of residential real estate properties.

As part of the Company’s credit risk management, the Company continues to aggressively manage the loan portfolio to identify problem loans and has placed additional emphasis on its commercial real estate relationships. As discussed in more detail in the “Asset Quality and Distribution” section of Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” as of December 31, 2017, the Company concluded its allowance for loan losses was adequate based on the evaluation of the loan portfolio’s probable incurred losses.

IV. Summary of Loan Loss Experience

The following table sets forth information with respect to the Company’s allowance for loan losses at the dates and for the periods indicated:

	As of and for the years ended December 31,
	2017			2016			2015			2014			2013
	(Dollars in thousands)
Balances at beginning of year	$	5,344		$	5,922		$	5,320		$	5,540		$	4,581
Provision for loan losses		450			500			(700	)		600			800
Charge-offs:
One-to-four family residential real estate loans		(37	)		(14	)		(57	)		(29	)		(93	)
Construction and land loans		-			-			-			-			(53	)
Commercial real estate loans		(71	)		-			(13	)		-			(11	)
Commercial loans		-			(306	)		(78	)		(783	)		(200	)
Agriculture loans		(45	)		(375	)		-			-			-
Municipal loans		-			-			(88	)		-			(65	)
Consumer loans		(335	)		(471	)		(318	)		(237	)		(194	)
Total charge-offs		(488	)		(1,166	)		(554	)		(1,049	)		(616	)
Recoveries:
One-to-four family residential real estate loans		11			9			10			12			202
Construction and land loans		-			-			1,722			166			523
Commercial real estate loans		-			-			2			4			-
Commercial loans		20			34			15			2			20
Agriculture loans		1			-			73			-			-
Municipal loans		37			6			-			-			-
Consumer loans		84			39			34			45			30
Total recoveries		153			88			1,856			229			775
Net (charge-offs) recoveries		(335	)		(1,078	)		1,302			(820	)		159
Balances at end of year	$	5,459		$	5,344		$	5,922		$	5,320		$	5,540
Allowance for loan losses to total gross loans		1.24	%		1.26	%		1.39	%		1.26	%		1.32	%
Net loans charged off (recovered) to average net loans		0.08	%		0.25	%		(0.31	%)		0.20	%		(0.05	%)

The Company recorded net loan charge-offs of $335,000 during 2017 compared to $1.1 million during 2016. There were no significant loan charge-offs recorded during 2017. The Company recorded net loan charge-offs of $1.1 million during 2016, which were primarily related to an agriculture loan relationship which was subject to trouble debt restructuring (“TDR”) and the liquidation of the assets securing an impaired commercial loan relationship. We recorded net loan recoveries of $1.3 million during 2015, which were primarily associated with the recovery of $1.7 million on a $4.3 million construction loan which was fully charged-off during 2010 and 2011. As of December 31, 2017, we have recovered approximately $2.4 million of the loan, and the Company continues to pursue collection of the remaining amount. During 2014, we had net loan charge-offs of $820,000. The charge-offs were primarily associated with a previously identified and impaired $4.0 million commercial loan relationship. During 2013, we had net loan recoveries of $159,000, which were primarily associated with the $4.3 million construction loan noted above and recoveries on the payoff of a one-to-four family residential real estate loan which had been partially charged-off as part of a TDR in 2010.

22

The distribution of the Company’s allowance for losses on loans at the dates indicated and the percent of loans in each category to total loans is summarized in the following table. This allocation reflects management’s judgment as to risks inherent in the types of loans indicated, but in general the Company’s total allowance for loan losses included in the table is not restricted and is available to absorb all loan losses. The amount allocated in the following table to any category should not be interpreted as an indication of expected actual charge-offs in that category.

	As of December 31,
	2017					2016					2015					2014					2013
	Amount		% Loan type to total loans			Amount		% Loan type to total loans			Amount		% Loan type to total loans			Amount		% Loan type to total loans			Amount		% Loan type to total loans
	(Dollars in thousands)
One-to-four family residential real estate loans	$	542		31.0	%	$	504		32.1	%	$	925		31.0	%	$	755		30.3	%	$	732		29.8	%
Construction and land loans		181		4.4	%		53		3.2	%		77		3.5	%		762		5.2	%		1,343		5.7	%
Commercial real estate loans		1,540		27.5	%		1,777		27.8	%		1,740		27.9	%		1,832		28.1	%		1,970		28.5	%
Commercial loans		1,226		12.4	%		1,119		12.8	%		1,530		14.4	%		836		14.2	%		769		14.6	%
Agriculture loans		1,812		18.9	%		1,684		18.4	%		1,428		16.7	%		915		15.3	%		545		14.9	%
Municipal loans		8		0.8	%		12		0.9	%		23		1.8	%		51		2.1	%		47		2.1	%
Consumer loans		150		5.0	%		195		4.8	%		199		4.7	%		169		4.8	%		134		4.4	%
Total	$	5,459		100.0	%	$	5,344		100.0	%	$	5,922		100.0	%	$	5,320		100.0	%	$	5,540		100.0	%

In 2015, the Company adjusted the historical loss analysis within the evaluation of the allowance for loan losses. The Company previously used a twelve quarter historical loss rate calculated by loan class. The updated historical loss analysis uses a migration analysis to track historical losses by loan class and risk categories over a longer period of time. In the opinion of management, the adjusted historical loss analysis more accurately allocates estimated losses. The adjustments resulted in reclassifications of the allocated allowance among various loan classes. The adjustments to the historical loss analysis did not have a significant impact on the total allowance for loan losses.

The increase in the allocation of the allowance for loan losses on our one-to-four family residential real estate loans as of December 31, 2017 compared to December 31, 2016 was primarily related to the increase in specific allowances related to impaired loans. The decrease in the allocation of the allowance for loan losses on our one-to-four family residential real estate loans as of December 31, 2016 compared to December 31,2015 was primarily related to continued improvements in the housing market which contributed to lower qualitative adjustments in our analysis. The increase in the allocation for loan losses on our one-to-four family residential real estate loans as of December 31, 2015 compared to December 31, 2014 was primarily related to an increase in outstanding loan balances while the increase as of December 31, 2014 compared to December 31, 2013 was primarily related to the increase in specific allowances related to impaired loans.

The allocation of the allowance for loan losses on construction and land increased as of December 31, 2017 compared to December 31, 2016 due to higher outstanding loan balances. The allocation of the allowance for loan losses on construction and land decreased as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 compared to previous year due to lower outstanding loan balances. The allocation of the allowance for loan losses on construction and land loans decreased as of December 31, 2014 compared to December 31, 2013 primarily due to a decrease in the specific allowance related to an impaired land loan and a decrease in outstanding loan balances.

The allocation of the allowance for loan losses on commercial real estate loans decreased as of December 31, 2017 compared to December 31, 2016 due to continued improvements in the commercial real estate market which contributed to lower qualitative adjustments in our analysis. The allocation of the allowance for loan losses on commercial real estate loans increased as of December 31, 2016 compared to December 31, 2015 primarily as a result of the increase in specific allowances related to impaired loans. The allocation of the allowance for loan losses on commercial real estate loans decreased as of December 31, 2015 compared to December 31, 2014 and as of December 31, 2014 compared to December 31, 2013 primarily as a result of the decrease in specific allowances related to impaired loans.

23

The increase in the allocation of the allowance for loan losses on our commercial loans as of December 31, 2017 compared to December 31, 2016 was primarily related to the increase in specific allowances related to impaired loans. The allocation of the allowance for loan losses on commercial loans decreased as of December 31, 2016 compared to December 31, 2015 primarily due to a decrease in outstanding loan balances. The increase in the allocation of the allowance for loan losses on commercial loans as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, compared to previous years was related primarily to increased historical charge-offs, specific allowances on impaired loans and management’s judgment to increase the risk factors.

The increase in the allocation of the allowance for loan losses on agriculture loans as of December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014 compared to prior years was primarily due to higher loan balances and management’s judgment to increase the risk factors. The allowance for loan losses is discussed in more detail in the “Asset Quality and Distribution” section of Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” As of December 31, 2017, we believed the Company’s allowance for loan losses continued to be adequate based on the Company’s evaluation of the loan portfolio’s probable incurred losses.

V. Deposits

The following table presents the average deposit balances and the average rate paid on those balances for the years indicated:

(Dollars in thousands)	Years ended December 31,
	2017					2016					2015
	Average Balance		Average Rate			Average Balance		Average Rate			Average Balance		Average Rate
Non-interest bearing demand	$	162,485		-		$	154,487		-		$	145,715		-
Money market and checking		359,661		0.26	%		330,252		0.14	%		321,184		0.10	%
Savings accounts		93,443		0.03	%		86,538		0.03	%		78,791		0.03	%
Time		132,816		0.45	%		144,678		0.45	%		158,172		0.47	%
Total	$	748,405				$	715,955				$	703,862

The following table presents the maturities of jumbo time deposits (amounts of $100,000 or more).

(Dollars in thousands)	As of December 31,
	2017		2016
Three months or less	$	15,068	$	20,800
Over three months through six months		10,631		11,149
Over six months through 12 months		9,660		10,191
Over 12 months		11,433		9,672
Total	$	46,792	$	51,812

24

VI. Return on Equity and Assets

The following table presents information on return on average equity, return on average assets, equity to total assets and our dividend payout ratio.

	As of or for the years ended December 31,
	2017			2016			2015
Return on average assets		0.47	%		1.00	%		1.21	%
Return on average equity		4.98	%		10.34	%		13.81	%
Equity to total assets		9.43	%		9.32	%		9.17	%
Dividend payout ratio		71.89	%		32.90	%		24.87	%

VII. Short-term Borrowings

Information on short-term borrowings is excluded as the average balances of each category of short-term borrowings was less than 30 percent of stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015.

25

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

An investment in our securities is subject to certain risks inherent in our business. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information included in this report. In addition to the risks and uncertainties described below, other risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The value or market price of our securities could decline due to any of these identified or other risks, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

We must effectively manage our credit risk.

There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers, risks of nonpayment, risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral and risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions. We attempt to minimize our credit risk through prudent loan application approval procedures, careful monitoring of the concentration of our loans within specific industries and periodic independent reviews of outstanding loans by our credit review department. However, we cannot assure you that such approval and monitoring procedures will reduce these credit risks.

Most of our loans are commercial, real estate, or agriculture loans, each of which is subject to distinct types of risk. To reduce the lending risks we face, we generally take a security interest in borrowers’ property for all three types of loans. In addition, we sell certain residential real estate loans to third parties. Nevertheless, the risk of non-payment is inherent in all three types of loans and if we are unable to collect amounts owed, it may materially affect our operations and financial performance. For a more complete discussion of our lending activities see Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our business is subject to domestic and, to a lesser extent, international economic conditions and other factors, many of which are beyond our control and could materially and adversely affect us.

Our financial performance generally, and in particular the ability of customers 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, is highly dependent upon the business environment not only in the markets where we operate, but also in the state of Kansas generally and in the United States as a whole. A favorable business environment is generally characterized by, among other factors: economic growth; efficient capital markets; low inflation; low unemployment; high business and investor confidence; and strong business earnings. 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; or a combination of these or other factors.

Economic conditions in the state of Kanas have recently been impacted by a decline in commodity prices. This decline has adversely impacted the Kansas economy, specifically the agriculture sector. A continuation of these conditions could materially and adversely affect us.

Our allowance for loan losses may prove to be insufficient to absorb losses in our loan portfolio.

We maintain our allowance for loan losses at a level considered appropriate by management to absorb probable incurred loan losses in the portfolio. Additionally, our Board of Directors regularly monitors the appropriateness of our allowance for loan losses. The allowance is also subject to regulatory examinations and a determination by the regulatory agencies as to the appropriate level of the allowance. The amount of future loan losses is susceptible to changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates and the value of the underlying collateral, which may be beyond our control, and such losses may exceed current estimates. At December 31, 2017 and 2016 our allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans was 1.24% and 1.26%, respectively, and as a percentage of total non-performing loans was 90.37% and 194.61%, respectively. Although management believes that the allowance for loan losses is appropriate to absorb probable incurred losses on any existing loans that may become uncollectible, we cannot predict loan losses with certainty nor can we assure you that our allowance for loan losses will prove sufficient to cover actual loan losses in the future. Loan losses in excess of our reserves will adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

26

Our concentration of one-to-four family residential mortgage loans may result in lower yields and profitability.

One-to-four family residential mortgage loans comprised $136.2 million and $136.8 million, or 31.0% and 32.1%, of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. These loans are secured primarily by properties located in the state of Kansas. Our concentration of these loans results in lower yields relative to other loan categories within our loan portfolio. While these loans generally possess higher yields than investment securities, their repayment characteristics are not as well defined and they generally possess a higher degree of interest rate risk versus other loans and investment securities within our portfolio. This increased interest rate risk is due to the repayment and prepayment options inherent in residential mortgage loans which are exercised by borrowers based upon the overall level of interest rates. These residential mortgage loans are generally made on the basis of the borrower’s ability to make repayments from his or her employment and the value of the property securing the loan. Thus, as a result, repayment of these loans is also subject to general economic and employment conditions within the communities and surrounding areas where the property is located.

A decline in residential real estate market prices or home sales has the potential to adversely affect our one-to-four family residential mortgage portfolio in several ways, each of which could adversely affect our operating results and/or financial condition.

Our loan portfolio has a large concentration of real estate loans, which involve risks specific to real estate value.

Real estate lending (including commercial real estate, construction and land and residential real estate) is a large portion of our loan portfolio. These categories were $276.2 million, or approximately 62.9% of our total loan portfolio, as of December 31, 2017, as compared to $268.8 million, or approximately 63.1% of our total loan portfolio, as of December 31, 2016. The market value of real estate can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time as a result of market conditions in the geographic area in which the real estate is located. Although a significant portion of such loans are secured by a secondary form of collateral, adverse developments affecting real estate values in one or more of our markets could increase the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio. Additionally, real estate lending typically involves higher loan principal amounts and the repayment of the loans generally is dependent, in large part, on sufficient income from the properties securing the loans to cover operating expenses and debt service. Economic events or governmental regulations outside of the control of the borrower or lender could negatively impact the future cash flow and market values of the affected properties.

If the loans that are collateralized by real estate become troubled during a time when market conditions are declining or have declined, then we may not be able to realize the amount of security that we anticipated at the time of originating the loan, which could cause us to increase our provision for loan losses and adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. In light of the uncertainty that exists in the economy and credit markets nationally, there can be no guarantee that we will not experience additional deterioration in credit performance by our real estate loan customers.

The Bank may be required to repurchase mortgage loans in some circumstances, which could harm our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition.

When the Bank sells mortgage loans, we are required to make certain representations and warranties to the purchaser about the loans and the manner in which they were originated. Our sales agreements require us to repurchase mortgage loans in the event of a breach of any of these representations or warranties. In addition, we may be required to repurchase mortgage loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default of the borrower on a mortgage loan. We were not required to repurchase any loans in 2017. In 2016, we were obligated to repurchase two loans. If repurchase and indemnity demands increase, our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition will be adversely affected.

27

Commercial loans make up a significant portion of our loan portfolio.

Commercial loans comprised $54.6 million and $54.5 million, or 12.4% and 12.8%, of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Our commercial loans are made based primarily on the identified cash flow of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower. Most often, this collateral is accounts receivable, inventory, or machinery. Credit support provided by the borrower for most of these loans and the probability of repayment is based on the liquidation of the pledged collateral and enforcement of a personal guarantee, if any exists. As a result, in the case of loans secured by accounts receivable, the availability of funds for the repayment of these loans may be substantially dependent on the ability of the borrower to collect amounts due from its customers. The collateral securing other loans may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. Due to the larger average size of each commercial loan as compared with other loans such as residential loans, as well as collateral that is generally less readily marketable, losses incurred on a small number of commercial loans could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our agriculture loans involve a greater degree of risk than other loans, and the ability of the borrower to repay may be affected by many factors outside of the borrower’s control.

Agriculture operating loans comprised $46.3 million and $45.4 million, or 10.5% and 10.7%, of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The repayment of agriculture operating loans is dependent on the successful operation or management of the farm property. Likewise, agricultural operating loans involve a greater degree of risk than lending on residential properties, particularly in the case of loans that are unsecured or secured by rapidly depreciating assets such as farm equipment, livestock or crops. We generally secure agricultural operating loans with a blanket lien on livestock, equipment, food, hay, grain and crops. Nevertheless, any repossessed collateral for a defaulted loan may not provide an adequate source of repayment of the outstanding loan balance as a result of the greater likelihood of damage, loss or depreciation.

We also originate agriculture real estate loans. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, agricultural real estate loans totaled $36.7 million and $32.9 million, or 8.4% and 7.7% of our total loan portfolio, respectively. Agricultural real estate lending involves a greater degree of risk and typically involves larger loans to single borrowers than lending on single-family residences. As with agriculture operating loans, payments on agricultural real estate loans are dependent on the profitable operation or management of the farm property securing the loan. The success of the farm may be affected by many factors outside the control of the farm borrower, including adverse weather conditions that prevent the planting of a crop or limit crop yields (such as hail, drought and floods), loss of livestock due to disease or other factors, declines in market prices for agricultural products (both domestically and internationally) and the impact of government regulations (including changes in price supports, subsidies and environmental regulations). In addition, many farms are dependent on a limited number of key individuals whose injury or death may significantly affect the successful operation of the farm. If the cash flow from a farming operation is diminished, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. The primary crops in our market areas are wheat, corn and soybean. Accordingly, adverse circumstances affecting wheat, corn and soybean crops could have an adverse effect on our agricultural real estate loan portfolio.

Our business is concentrated in and dependent upon the continued growth and welfare of the markets in which we operate, including eastern, central, southeast and southwest Kansas.

We operate primarily in eastern, central, southeast and southwest Kansas, and as a result, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows are subject to changes in the economic conditions in those areas. Although each market we operate in is geographically and economically diverse, our success depends upon the business activity, population, income levels, deposits and real estate activity in each of these markets. Although our customers’ business and financial interests may extend well beyond our market area, adverse economic conditions that affect our specific market area could reduce our growth rate, affect the ability of our customers to repay their loans to us and generally affect our financial condition and results of operations. Because of our geographic concentration, we are less able than other regional or national financial institutions to diversify our credit risks across multiple markets.

28

Monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition to being affected by general economic conditions, our earnings and growth are affected by the policies of the Federal Reserve. An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the money supply and credit conditions. Among the instruments used by the Federal Reserve to implement these objectives are open market operations in U.S. government securities, adjustments of the discount rate and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall economic growth and the distribution of credit, bank loans, investments and deposits. Their use also affects interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.

The monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The effects of such policies upon our business, financial condition and results of operations cannot be predicted.

Legislative and regulatory reforms applicable to the financial services industry may have a significant impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The laws, regulations, rules, policies and regulatory interpretations governing us are constantly evolving and may change significantly over time as Congress and various regulatory agencies react to adverse economic conditions or other matters. The global financial crisis of 2008–09 served as a catalyst for a number of significant changes in the financial services industry, including the Dodd-Frank Act, which reformed the regulation of financial institutions in a comprehensive manner, and the Basel III Rule, which increased both the amount and quality of capital that financial institutions must hold.

The implementation of these provisions, as well as any other aspects of current, proposed or future regulatory or legislative changes to laws applicable to the financial industry, may impact the profitability of our business activities and may change certain of our business practices, including the ability to offer new products, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans, and achieve satisfactory interest spreads, and could expose us to additional costs, including increased compliance costs.

The financial services industry, as well as the broader economy, may be subject to new legislation, regulation, and government policy.

At this time, it is difficult to predict the legislative and regulatory changes that will occur in the future, especially as lawmakers have advocated for significant reduction of financial services regulation, including amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act and structural changes to the CFPB. The current presidential administration and Congress also may cause broader economic changes due to changes in governing ideology and governing style. New appointments to the Federal Reserve could affect monetary policy and interest rates, and changes in fiscal policy could affect broader patterns of trade and economic growth. Future legislation, regulation, and government policy could affect the banking industry as a whole, including our business and results of operations, in ways that are difficult to predict. In addition, our results of operations also could be adversely affected by changes in the way in which existing statutes and regulations are interpreted or applied by courts and government agencies.

We may experience difficulties in managing our growth, and our growth strategy involves risks that may negatively impact our net income.

As part of our general strategy, we may acquire banks, branches and related businesses that we believe provide a strategic fit with our business. In the past, we have acquired a number of local banks and branches, and, to the extent that we grow through future acquisitions, we cannot assure you that we will be able to adequately and profitably manage this growth. Acquiring other banks and businesses will involve risks commonly associated with acquisitions, including:

● potential exposure to unknown or contingent liabilities of banks and businesses we acquire;

● exposure to potential asset quality issues of the acquired bank or related business;

● difficulty and expense of integrating the operations and personnel of banks and businesses we acquire;

● potential disruption to our business;

● potential diversion of our management’s time and attention; and

● the possible loss of key employees and customers of the banks and businesses we acquire.

29

In addition to acquisitions, we may expand into additional communities or attempt to strengthen our position in our current markets by undertaking additional branch openings. We believe that it generally takes several years for new banking facilities to first achieve operational profitability, due to the impact of organization and overhead expenses and the start-up phase of generating loans and deposits. To the extent that we undertake additional branch openings, we are likely to experience the effects of higher operating expenses relative to operating income from the new operations, which may have an adverse effect on our levels of reported net income, return on average equity and return on average assets.

We face intense competition in all phases of our business from other banks and financial institutions.

The banking and financial services business in our market is highly competitive. Our competitors include large regional banks, local community banks, savings and loan associations, securities and brokerage companies, mortgage companies, insurance companies, finance companies, money market mutual funds, credit unions and other non-bank financial service providers, many of which have greater financial, marketing and technological resources than us. Many of these competitors are not subject to the same regulatory restrictions that we are and may be able to compete more effectively as a result. Increased competition in our market may result in a decrease in the amounts of our loans and deposits, reduced spreads between loan rates and deposit rates or loan terms that are more favorable to the borrower. Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our ability to grow and remain profitable. If increased competition causes us to significantly discount the interest rates we offer on loans or increase the amount we pay on deposits, our net interest income could be adversely impacted. If increased competition causes us to relax our underwriting standards, we could be exposed to higher losses from lending activities. Additionally, many of our competitors are much larger in total assets and capitalization, have greater access to capital markets and offer a broader range of financial services than we can offer.

Consumers and businesses are increasingly using non-banks to complete their financial transactions, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Technology and other changes are allowing consumers and businesses to complete financial transactions that historically have involved banks through alternative methods. For example, the wide acceptance of internet-based commerce has resulted in a number of alternative payment processing systems and lending platforms in which banks play only minor roles. Customers can now maintain funds in prepaid debit cards or digital currencies, and pay bills and transfer funds directly without the direct assistance of banks. The diminishing role of banks as financial intermediaries has resulted and could continue to 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 potential loss of lower cost deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Interest rates and other conditions impact our results of operations.

Our profitability is in part a function of the spread between the interest rates earned on investments and loans and the interest rates paid on deposits and other interest-bearing liabilities. Like most banking institutions, our net interest spread and margin will be affected by general economic conditions and other factors, including fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government that influence market interest rates and our ability to respond to changes in such rates. At any given time, our assets and liabilities will be such that they are affected differently by a given change in interest rates. As a result, an increase or decrease in rates, the length of loan terms or the mix of adjustable and fixed rate loans in our portfolio could have a positive or negative effect on our net income, capital and liquidity. We measure interest rate risk under various rate scenarios and using specific criteria and assumptions. A summary of this process, along with the results of our net interest income simulations is presented in the section entitled Item 7A. “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.” Although we believe our current level of interest rate sensitivity is reasonable and effectively managed, significant fluctuations in interest rates may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. An increase in interest rates that adversely affects the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans may lead to an increase in non-performing assets and a reduction of income recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. Further, when we place a loan on nonaccrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. Subsequently, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense. Thus, an increase in the amount of non-performing assets would have an adverse impact on net interest income.

30

Rising interest rates will result in a decline in value of our fixed-rate debt securities. The unrealized losses resulting from holding these securities would be recognized in other comprehensive income and reduce total stockholders’ equity. Unrealized losses do not negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios; however, tangible common equity and the associated ratios would be reduced. If debt securities in an unrealized loss position are sold, such losses become realized and will reduce our regulatory capital ratios.

Declines in value may adversely impact the carrying amount of our investment portfolio and result in other-than-temporary impairment charges.

We may be required to record impairment charges on our investment securities if they suffer declines in value that are considered other-than-temporary. If the credit quality of the securities in our investment portfolio deteriorates, we may also experience a loss in interest income from the suspension of either interest or dividend payments. Numerous factors, including lack of liquidity for resales of certain investment securities, absence of reliable pricing information for investment securities, adverse changes in business climate or adverse actions by regulators could have a negative effect on our investment portfolio in future periods.

Downgrades in the credit rating of one or more insurers that provide credit enhancement for our state and municipal securities portfolio may have an adverse impact on the market for and valuation of these types of securities.

We invest in tax-exempt state and local municipal investment securities, some of which are insured by monoline insurers. As of December 31, 2017, we had $242.7 million of municipal securities, which represented 62.6% of our total securities portfolio. With the economic crisis that began to unfold in 2008, several of these insurers came under scrutiny by rating agencies. Even though management generally purchases municipal securities on the overall credit strength of the issuer, the reduction in the credit rating of an insurer may negatively impact the market for and valuation of our investment securities. Such downgrade could adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Non-performing assets take significant time to resolve and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, and could result in further losses in the future.

As of December 31, 2017, our non-performing loans (which consist of non-accrual loans and loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing interest) totaled $6.0 million, or 1.38% of our loan portfolio, and our non-performing assets (which include non-performing loans plus real estate owned) totaled $6.5 million, or 0.70% of total assets. In addition, we had $1.2 million in accruing loans that were 30-89 days delinquent as of December 31, 2017.

Our non-performing assets adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on non-accrual loans or other real estate owned, thereby adversely affecting our net income and returns on assets and equity, increasing our loan administration costs and adversely affecting our efficiency ratio. When we take collateral in foreclosure and similar proceedings, we are required to mark the collateral to its then-fair market value, which may result in a loss. These non-performing loans and other real estate owned also increase our risk profile and the capital our regulators believe is appropriate in light of such risks. The resolution of non-performing assets requires significant time commitments from management and can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities. If we experience increases in non-performing loans and non-performing assets, our net interest income may be negatively impacted and our loan administration costs could increase, each of which could have an adverse effect on our net income and related ratios, such as return on assets and equity.

31

Our growth or future losses may require us to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed.

We are required by federal and state regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations, and those requirements became more onerous with the implementation of the Basel III Rule. We anticipate that our existing capital resources will satisfy our capital requirements for the foreseeable future. However, we may at some point need to raise additional capital to support continuing growth. Our ability to raise additional capital is particularly important to our strategy of continual growth through acquisitions. Our ability to raise additional capital depends on conditions in the capital markets, economic conditions and a number of other factors, including investor perceptions regarding the banking industry, market conditions and governmental activities, and on our financial condition and performance. Accordingly, we cannot assure you of our ability to raise additional capital if needed on terms acceptable to us. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be materially impaired.

Attractive acquisition opportunities may not be available to us in the future.

We expect that other banking and financial service companies, many of which have significantly greater resources than us, will compete with us in acquiring other financial institutions if we pursue such acquisitions. This competition could increase prices for potential acquisitions that we believe are attractive. Also, acquisitions are subject to various regulatory approvals. If we fail to receive the appropriate regulatory approvals, we will not be able to consummate an acquisition that we believe is in our best interests. Among other things, our regulators consider our capital, liquidity, profitability, regulatory compliance and levels of goodwill and intangibles when considering acquisition and expansion proposals. Any acquisition could be dilutive to our earnings and stockholders’ equity per share of our common stock.

Our community banking strategy relies heavily on our management team, and the unexpected loss of key managers may adversely affect our operations.

Much of our success to date has been influenced strongly by our ability to attract and to retain senior management experienced in banking and financial services and familiar with the communities in our market area. Our ability to retain executive officers, the current management teams, branch managers and loan officers of our operating subsidiaries will continue to be important to the successful implementation of our strategy. It is also critical, as we grow, to be able to attract and retain qualified additional management and loan officers with the appropriate level of experience and knowledge about our market area to implement our community-based operating strategy. The unexpected loss of services of any key management personnel, or the inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel in the future, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have a continuing need for technological change and we may not have the resources to effectively implement new technology.

The financial services industry continues to undergo rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to better serving customers, the effective use of technology increases efficiency as well as enables financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend 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 for convenience as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations as we continue to grow and expand our market area. Many of our larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. As a result, they may be able to offer additional or superior products to those that we will be able to offer, which would put us at a competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, we cannot provide you with assurance that we will be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing such products and services to our customers.

32

The occurrence of fraudulent activity, breaches or failures of our information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

As a bank, we are susceptible to fraudulent activity, information security breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents that may be committed against us or our clients, which may result in financial losses or increased costs to us or our clients, disclosure or misuse of our information or our client information, misappropriation of assets, privacy breaches against our clients, litigation or damage to our reputation. Such fraudulent activity may take many forms, including check fraud, electronic fraud, wire fraud, phishing, social engineering and other dishonest acts. Information security breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents may include fraudulent or unauthorized access to systems used by us or our clients, denial or degradation of service attacks and malware or other cyber-attacks.

In recent periods, there continues to be a rise in electronic fraudulent activity, security breaches and cyber-attacks within the financial services industry, especially in the commercial banking sector due to cyber criminals targeting commercial bank accounts. Moreover, in recent periods, several large corporations, including financial institutions and retail companies, have suffered major data breaches, in some cases exposing not only confidential and proprietary corporate information, but also sensitive financial and other personal information of their customers and employees and subjecting them to potential fraudulent activity. Some of our clients may have been affected by these breaches, which could increase their risks of identity theft and other fraudulent activity that could involve their accounts with us.

Information pertaining to us and our clients is maintained, and transactions are executed, on networks and systems maintained by us and certain third party partners, such as our online banking, mobile banking or accounting systems. The secure maintenance and transmission of confidential information, as well as execution of transactions over these systems, are essential to protect us and our clients against fraud and security breaches and to maintain the confidence of our clients. Breaches of information security also may occur through intentional or unintentional acts by those having access to our systems or the confidential information of our clients, including employees. In addition, increases in criminal activity levels and sophistication, advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries, vulnerabilities in third party technologies (including browsers and operating systems) or other developments could result in a compromise or breach of the technology, processes and controls that we use to prevent fraudulent transactions and to protect data about us, our clients and underlying transactions, as well as the technology used by our clients to access our systems. Our third party partners’ inability to anticipate, or failure to adequately mitigate, breaches of security could result in a number of negative events, including losses to us or our clients, loss of business or clients, damage to our reputation, the incurrence of additional expenses, disruption to our business, additional regulatory scrutiny or penalties or our exposure to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We depend on information technology and telecommunications systems of third parties, and any systems failures, interruptions or data breaches involving these systems could adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

Our business is highly dependent on the successful and uninterrupted functioning of our information technology and telecommunications systems, third party servicers, accounting systems, mobile and online banking platforms and financial intermediaries. We outsource to third parties many of our major systems, such as data processing and mobile and online banking. The failure of these systems, or the termination of a third party software license or service agreement on which any of these systems is based, could interrupt our operations. Because our information technology and telecommunications systems interface with and depend on third party systems, we could experience service denials if demand for such services exceeds capacity or such third party systems fail or experience interruptions. A system failure or service denial could result in a deterioration of our ability to process loans or gather deposits and provide customer service, compromise our ability to operate effectively, result in potential noncompliance with applicable laws or regulations, damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business or subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. In addition, failures of third parties to comply with applicable laws and regulations, or fraud or misconduct on the part of employees of any of these third parties, could disrupt our operations or adversely affect our reputation.

It may be difficult for us to replace some of our third party vendors, particularly vendors providing our core banking and information services, in a timely manner if they are unwilling or unable to provide us with these services in the future for any reason and even if we are able to replace them, it may be at higher cost or result in the loss of customers. Any such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

33

Our operations rely heavily on the secure processing, storage and transmission of information and the monitoring of a large number of transactions on a minute-by-minute basis, and even a short interruption in service could have significant consequences. We also interact with and rely on retailers, for whom we process transactions, as well as financial counterparties and regulators. Each of these third parties may be targets of the same types of fraudulent activity, computer break-ins and other cyber security breaches described above, and the cyber security measures that they maintain to mitigate the risk of such activity may be different than our own and may be inadequate.

As a result of financial entities and technology systems becoming more interdependent and complex, a cyber incident, information breach or loss, or technology failure that compromises the systems or data of one or more financial entities could have a material impact on counterparties or other market participants, including ourselves. As a result of the foregoing, our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by any significant disruptions to us or to third parties with whom we interact.

We are subject to certain operational risks, including, but not limited to, customer or employee fraud, losses related to our depositors and data processing system failures and errors.

Employee errors and misconduct could subject us to financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Misconduct by our employees could include hiding unauthorized activities from us, improper or unauthorized activities on behalf of our customers or improper use of confidential information. It is not always possible to prevent employee errors and misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Employee errors could also subject us to financial claims for negligence. We are also subject to losses related to our depositors, whether due to simple errors or mistakes, circumvention of controls, or unauthorized override of controls by our employees, other financial institutions or other third parties.

We maintain a system of internal controls and insurance coverage to mitigate against operational risks, including data processing system failures and errors and customer or employee fraud. Should our internal controls fail to prevent or detect an occurrence, or if any resulting loss is not insured or exceeds applicable insurance limits, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to changes in accounting principles, policies or guidelines.

Our financial performance is impacted by accounting principles, policies and guidelines. Some of these policies require the use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of our assets or liabilities and financial results. Some of our accounting policies are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because it is likely that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. If such estimates or assumptions underlying our financial statements are incorrect, we may experience material losses.

From time to time, the FASB and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards or the interpretation of those standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes are beyond our control, can be difficult to predict and could materially impact how we report our financial condition and results of operations. Changes in these standards are continuously occurring, and more drastic changes may occur in the future. The implementation of such changes could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

A new accounting standard may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The FASB has adopted a new accounting standard that will be effective for the Company and the Bank for our first fiscal year after December 15, 2019. This standard, referred to as Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL, will require financial institutions to determine periodic estimates of lifetime expected credit losses on loans, and recognize the expected credit losses as allowances for loan losses. This will change the current method of providing allowances for loan losses that are probable, which may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses, and to greatly increase the types of data we will need to collect and review to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses. Any increase in our allowance for loan losses or expenses incurred to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

34

Our framework for managing risks may not be effective in mitigating risk and loss to us.

Our risk management framework seeks to mitigate risk and loss to us. We have established processes and procedures intended to identify, measure, monitor, report and analyze the types of risk to which we are subject, including liquidity risk, credit risk, market risk, interest rate risk, operational risk, compensation risk, legal and compliance risk, and reputational risk, among others. However, as with any risk management framework, there are inherent limitations to our risk management strategies as there may exist, or develop in the future, risks that we have not appropriately anticipated or identified. Our ability to successfully identify and manage risks facing us is an important factor that can significantly impact our results. If our risk management framework proves ineffective, we could suffer unexpected losses and could be materially adversely affected.

We are subject to environmental liability risk associated with lending activities.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, we may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit our ability to use or sell the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase our exposure to environmental liability. Environmental reviews of real property before initiating foreclosure actions may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is affected from time to time by federal and state laws and regulations relating to hazardous substances.

Under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), owners and operators of properties containing hazardous substances may be liable for the costs of cleaning up the substances. CERCLA and similar state laws can affect us both as an owner of branches and other properties used in our business and as a lender holding a security interest in property which is found to contain hazardous substances. In particular, our leased branch office located in Iola is located on property that has been designated as a “Superfund” site under CERCLA, and we may hold mortgages on properties located in Iola that are also designated as “Superfund” sites. While CERCLA contains an exemption for holders of security interests, the