10-K 1 d78071_mer10k.htm BODY OF FORM 10-K Accounting Policies

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 10-K


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


For the fiscal year ended

December 31, 2011


Commission file number

0-11595

 

Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Delaware

 

03-0287342

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

 

275 Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont

 

05403

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(Zip Code)

 

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

 

(802) 658 – 3400

 

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

 

Title of each class

Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share

 

The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC

 

 

 

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

None


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
[   ] Yes     [X] No


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     [X] No


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. [X] Yes     [   ] 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 (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
[X] Yes     [   ] No


Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) 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 nonaccelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.


Large Accelerated Filer [   ]

Accelerated Filer [X]

Nonaccelerated Filer [   ]

Smaller Reporting Company [   ]


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


The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates was $121,522,858 as computed using the per share price, as reported on the NASDAQ, as of market close on June 30, 2011.


As of February 29, 2012, there were 6,240,525 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share, outstanding.


DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE


Portions of the Proxy Statement to Shareholders for the Registrant’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 1, 2012 are incorporated herein by reference in Part III.





MERCHANTS BANCSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Part I

 

 

Page Reference

 

Item 1—

Business

4—13

 

Item 1A—

Risk Factors

13—18

 

Item 1B—

Unresolved Staff Comments

18

 

Item 2—

Properties

18

 

Item 3—

Legal Proceedings

18

 

Item 4—

Mine Safety Disclosure

18

 

 

 

 

Part II

 

 

 

 

Item 5—

Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

19—21

 

Item 6—

Selected Financial Data

21—23

 

Item 7—

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations

24—43

 

Item 7A—

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

43—46

 

Item 8—

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

46—87

 

Item 9—

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure

88

 

Item 9A—

Controls and Procedure

88

 

Item 9B—

Other Information

88

 

 

 

 

Part III *

 

 

 

 

Item 10—

Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

88

 

Item 11—

Executive Compensation

88

 

Item 12—

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
and Related Stockholder Matters

88

 

Item 13—

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

88

 

Item 14—

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

88

 

 

 

 

Part IV

 

 

 

 

Item 15—

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

89—90

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signatures

91


* The information required by Part III is incorporated herein by reference from Merchants’ Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 1, 2012.







FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS


Certain statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are not historical facts may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. These statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe our future plans, strategies and expectations, can generally be identified by the use of the words “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “plan,” “potential,” “estimate,” “project,” “believe,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “target” and similar expressions. These statements include, among others, statements regarding our intent, belief or expectations with respect to economic conditions, trends affecting our financial condition or results of operations, and our exposure to market, interest rate and credit risk.


Forward-looking statements are based on the current assumptions and beliefs of Management and are only expectations of future results. Our actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of, among other factors, adverse conditions in the capital and debt markets; changes in interest rates; competitive pressures from other financial institutions; the effects of continuing deterioration in general economic conditions on a national basis or in the local markets in which we operate, including changes which adversely affect borrowers’ ability to service and repay our loans; changes in the value of securities and other assets; changes in loan default and charge-off rates; the adequacy of loan loss reserves; reductions in deposit levels necessitating increased borrowing to fund loans and investments; changes in government regulation; and changes in assumptions used in making such forward-looking statements, as well as the other risks and uncertainties detailed in Item 1A. “Risk Factors,” beginning on page 13 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made. We do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements are made.


USE OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES


Certain information in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contains financial information determined by methods other than in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). We use these “non-GAAP” measures in our analysis of our performance and believe that these non-GAAP financial measures provide a greater understanding of ongoing operations and enhance comparability of results with prior periods as well as demonstrating the effects of significant gains and charges in the current period. We believe that a meaningful analysis of our financial performance requires an understanding of the factors underlying that performance. We believe that investors may use these non-GAAP financial measures to analyze financial performance without the impact of unusual items that may obscure trends in our underlying performance. These disclosures should not be viewed as a substitute for operating results determined in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other companies.


In several places net interest income is presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis. Specifically included in interest income is tax-exempt interest income from certain tax-exempt loans. An amount equal to the tax benefit derived from this tax exempt income is added back to the interest income total, to produce net interest income on a fully taxable equivalent basis. We believe the disclosure of taxable equivalent net interest income information improves the clarity of financial analysis, and is particularly useful to investors in understanding and evaluating the changes and trends in our results of operations. Other financial institutions commonly present net interest income on a taxable equivalent basis. This adjustment is considered helpful in the comparison of one financial institution’s net interest income to that of another, as each will have a different proportion of taxable equivalent interest from its earning assets. Moreover, net interest income is a component of a second financial measure commonly used by financial institutions, net interest margin, which is the ratio of net interest income to average earning assets. For purposes of this measure as well, other financial institutions generally use taxable equivalent net interest income to provide a better basis of comparison from institution to institution. We follow these practices. A reconciliation of taxable equivalent financial information to our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP appears at the bottom of the table entitled “Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity; Interest Rates and Net Interest Margin.” A 35.0% tax rate was used in both 2011 and 2010.




3



PART I


ITEM 1—BUSINESS


OVERVIEW


Merchants Bancshares, Inc. (“Merchants”) is a bank holding company originally organized under Vermont law in 1983 (and subsequently reincorporated in Delaware in 1987) for the purposes of owning all of the outstanding capital stock of Merchants Bank. Merchants Bank, which is Merchants’ primary subsidiary, is a Vermont commercial bank with 34 full-service banking offices located throughout the state of Vermont.


Merchants Bank was organized in 1849 and as of December 31, 2011, is the sole remaining statewide commercial banking operation in Vermont, with deposits totaling $1.18 billion, gross loans of $1.03 billion, and total assets of $1.61 billion. As used herein, “Merchants,” “we,” “us,” “our” shall mean Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and our subsidiaries unless otherwise noted or the context otherwise requires.


Our Trust division offers investment management, financial planning and trustee services. As of December 31, 2011, this division had fiduciary responsibility for assets having a market value in excess of $475 million, of which more than $419 million constituted managed assets.


MBVT Statutory Trust I was formed on December 15, 2004 as part of our private placement of an aggregate of $20 million of trust preferred securities through a pooled trust preferred program. The Trust was formed for the sole purpose of issuing non-voting capital securities. The proceeds from the sale of the capital securities were loaned to us under junior subordinated debentures issued to the Trust. The debentures are the only asset of the Trust and payments under the debentures are the sole revenue of the Trust.


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES


As of December 31, 2011, we employed 298 full-time and 33 part-time employees, representing a combined full-time equivalent complement of 316 employees.


We maintain comprehensive employee benefits programs for employees, which provide major medical insurance, hospitalization, dental insurance, long-term and short-term disability insurance, life insurance and a 401(k) Plan. We believe that relations with our employees are good.


COMPETITION


Presently, there are 14 independent financial institutions headquartered in the State of Vermont. In addition, there are nine regional or national banks that have operations in Vermont. Merchants Bank remains the only independent statewide bank headquartered in the State of Vermont. Of the companies headquartered outside Vermont, seven are located in either Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio or Pennsylvania. Two other banking companies are owned by a parent headquartered outside of the United States (one in Canada and one in the United Kingdom).


We compete in Vermont for deposit and loan business not only with other commercial and savings banks, and savings and loan associations, but also with credit unions, and other non-bank financial providers. As of December 31, 2010, the most recently available information, there were more than 27 state- or federally-chartered credit unions operating in Vermont. As a bank holding company and state chartered commercial bank, we are subject to extensive regulation and supervision, including, in many cases, regulation that limits the type and scope of our activities. The non-bank financial service providers that compete with us may be subject to less restrictive regulation and supervision. Competition from nationally-chartered banks, local institutions, and credit unions continues to be active.


Prior to 2010, there were a number of new banking offices opened in Vermont by existing banks or new market entrants. There was one new full service banking office opened in Vermont during 2011. In a state with one of the nation’s highest branch-to-population ratios, it is necessary to have competitive products and exceptional service levels in order to compete effectively.




4


Prior to 2006, there was a significant increase in new lenders licensed to do business in Vermont. These companies offered business, home mortgage and consumer finance loans. From December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2011 the number of licensed lenders declined from 626 to 353. The decline in licensed lenders benefitted us positively in the commercial loan and home mortgage business.


The fact that we are a locally-managed, independent bank has, we believe, contributed significantly to the growth in average loans and deposits between 2006 and 2011. Customers have cited the local management and decision-making as important considerations when choosing a bank, and the sale of several independent Vermont-based financial institutions since 2007 has narrowed the base of independent Vermont-based financial institutions that such customers may favor.


During late 2008, we started a dedicated group focused solely on municipal and government banking. This group contributed significantly to the growth of loans and deposits during 2011. It is expected that this trend will continue.


From a retail product standpoint, we have seen a significant change in the competitive landscape in the past few years. Federal legislation enacted during 2010, coupled with the extended period of low absolute interest rates, has prompted many banks to evaluate their transaction account structures and make changes to their product offerings. We changed our retail product offering in 2011 and will review alternative commercial account structures during 2012. Any changes will take into account competitive products available in the market.


No material part of our business is dependent upon one, or a few, customers, or upon a particular industry segment, the loss of which would have a material adverse impact on our operations.


REGULATION AND SUPERVISION


General

As a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”), we are subject to regulation and supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”). As a state-chartered commercial bank, Merchants Bank is subject to regulation and supervision by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) and by the Commissioner of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration of the State of Vermont (the “Commissioner”). To the extent that the following information describes statutory or regulatory provisions, it is qualified in its entirety by reference to those particular statutory provisions. Any change in applicable law or regulation may have a material effect on our business and prospects. The following discussion of certain of the material elements of the regulatory framework applicable to banks and bank holding companies is not intended to be complete.


Recent Market Developments

Certain segments of the financial services industry are facing challenges in the face of prolonged economic uncertainty. In some areas, continued declines in the housing market, increasing foreclosures and continued elevated unemployment have resulted in significant write-downs of asset values by financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities and major commercial and investment banks. We are fortunate that, to date, the markets we serve have been impacted to a lesser extent than many areas around the country. Vermont’s December 2011 unemployment rate, at 5.1%, is one of the lowest in the country. Vermont is also fortunate to have one of the lowest foreclosure rates in the country; however, continued uncertainty about the U.S. economy could adversely affect markets and our financial condition and performance.


Financial Regulatory Reform Legislation

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) comprehensively reformed the regulation of financial institutions, products and services. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act:


grants the FRB increased supervisory authority and codifies the source of strength doctrine, as discussed in more detail in “—Source of Strength” below;




5



provides for new capital standards applicable to us, as discussed in more detail in “—Capital Adequacy and Safety and Soundness—Regulatory Capital Requirements” below;


modifies deposit insurance coverage, as discussed in “—Capital Adequacy and Safety and Soundness—Deposit Insurance” below;


bars banking organizations, such as ourselves, from engaging in proprietary trading and from sponsoring and investing in hedge funds and private equity funds, except as permitted under certain limited circumstances, as discussed in “—Bank Holding Company Regulation” below;


established new corporate governance and proxy disclosure requirements, as discussed in “—Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation” below;


established the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB”), as discussed in “—Consumer Protection Regulation” below;


established new minimum mortgage underwriting standards for residential mortgages, as discussed in “—Mortgage Reform” below;


authorizes the FRB to regulate interchange fees for debit card transactions. The FRB has issued a rule governing the interchange fees charged on debit cards which caps the fees a bank may charge on a debit card transactions and shifts such interchange fees from a percentage of the transaction amount to a per transaction fee. Although the rule does not directly apply to institutions with less than $10 billion in assets, market forces may result in debit card issuers of all sizes adopting fees that comply with this rule;


permits the payment of interest on business demand deposit accounts;


established and empowered the Financial Stability Oversight Council to designate certain activities as posing a risk to the U.S. financial system and recommend new or heightened standards and safeguards for financial institutions engaging in such activities; and


established the Office of Financial Research, which has the power to require reports from financial services companies such as ourselves.


Bank Holding Company Regulation

Unless a bank holding company becomes a financial holding company under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) as discussed below, the BHCA prohibits (with the exceptions noted below in this paragraph) a bank holding company from acquiring a direct or indirect interest in or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank or a bank holding company. In addition, the BHCA prohibits engaging directly or indirectly in activities other than those of banking, managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to its subsidiary banks. However, a bank holding company may engage in and may own shares of companies engaged in certain activities that the FRB determines to be so closely related to banking or managing and controlling banks so as to be a proper incident thereto. In making such determinations, the FRB is required to weigh the expected benefit to the public, including such factors as greater convenience, increased competition or gains in efficiency, against the possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests or unsafe or unsound banking practices.


Under GLBA, bank holding companies are permitted to offer their customers virtually any type of service that is financial in nature or incidental thereto, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both underwriting and agency), and merchant banking. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, however, a bank holding company and its affiliates are prohibited from engaging in proprietary trading and from sponsoring and investing in hedge funds and private equity funds, except as permitted under certain limited circumstances. In order to engage in financial activities under GLBA, a bank holding company must qualify and register with the FRB as a “financial holding company” by demonstrating that each of its bank subsidiaries is “well capitalized”, “well managed,” and has at least a “satisfactory” rating under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”). Although we believe that we meet the qualifications to become a financial holding company under GLBA, we have not elected “financial holding company” status, but rather to retain our pre-GLBA bank holding company regulatory status for the present time. This means that we can engage in those activities which are closely related to banking. We are required by the BHCA to file an annual report and additional reports required with the FRB. The FRB also inspects us periodically.




6


The BHCA requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the FRB before it may acquire substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of any voting shares of a bank, if, after such acquisition, it would own or control, directly or indirectly, more than five percent of the voting shares of such bank. Additionally, as a bank holding company, we are prohibited from acquiring ownership or control of five percent or more of any class of voting securities of any company that is not a bank, or from engaging in activities other than banking or controlling banks except where the FRB has determined that such activities are so closely related to banking as to be a “proper incident thereto.”


Source of Strength

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, Merchants is required to serve as a source of financial strength for Merchants Bank in the event of the financial distress of Merchants Bank. This provision codifies the longstanding policy of the FRB. In addition, any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its bank subsidiaries are subordinate to the payment of deposits and to certain other indebtedness. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a bank subsidiary will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.


Certain Transactions by Bank Holding Companies with their Affiliates

There are various statutory restrictions on the extent to which bank holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries may borrow, obtain credit from or otherwise engage in “covered transactions” with their insured depository institution subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition of affiliate to include an investment fund for which the depository institution or one of its affiliates is an investment adviser. An insured depository institution (and its subsidiaries) may not lend money to, or engage in covered transactions with, its non-depository institution affiliates if the aggregate amount of covered transactions outstanding involving the bank, plus the proposed transaction exceeds the following limits: (a) in the case of any one such affiliate, the aggregate amount of covered transactions of the insured depository institution and its subsidiaries cannot exceed 10% of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution; and (b) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of covered transactions of the insured depository institution and its subsidiaries cannot exceed 20% of the capital stock and surplus of the insured depository institution. For this purpose, “covered transactions” are defined by statute to include a loan or extension of credit to an affiliate, a purchase of or investment in securities issued by an affiliate, a purchase of assets from an affiliate unless exempted by the FRB, the acceptance of securities issued by an affiliate as collateral for a loan or extension of credit to any person or company, the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate, securities borrowing or lending transactions with an affiliate that creates a credit exposure to such affiliate, or a derivatives transaction with an affiliate that creates a credit exposure to such affiliate. Covered transactions are also subject to certain collateral security requirements. Covered transactions as well as other types of transactions between a bank and a bank holding company must be on market terms and not otherwise unduly favorable to the holding company or an affiliate of the holding company. Moreover, Section 106 of the BHCA provides that, to further competition, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tying arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property of any kind, or furnishing of any service.


Regulation of the Bank

As an FDIC-insured state-chartered bank, Merchants Bank is subject to the supervision of and regulation by the Commissioner and the FDIC. This supervision and regulation is for the protection of depositors, the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”), and consumers, and is not for the protection of Merchants’ shareholders. The prior approval of the FDIC and the Commissioner is required, among other things, for Merchants Bank to establish or relocate an additional branch office, assume deposits, or engage in any merger, consolidation, purchase or sale of all or substantially all of the assets of any bank. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FRB may directly examine the subsidiaries of Merchants, including Merchants Bank.


Capital Adequacy and Safety and Soundness

Regulatory Capital Requirements. The FRB and the FDIC have issued substantially similar risk-based and leverage capital guidelines applicable to United States banking organizations. In addition, these regulatory agencies may from time to time require that a banking organization maintain capital above the minimum levels, whether because of its financial condition or actual or anticipated growth.




7


The FRB risk-based guidelines define a three-tier capital framework. Tier 1 capital for bank holding companies generally consists of the sum of common stockholders’ equity, perpetual preferred stock and trust preferred securities (both subject to certain limitations and, in the case of the latter, to specific limitations on the kind and amount of such securities which may be included as Tier 1 capital and certain additional restrictions described below), and minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, less goodwill and other non-qualifying intangible assets. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, trust preferred securities issued after May 19, 2010, will not count as Tier 1 capital; however, our trust preferred securities have been grandfathered for Tier 1 eligibility. Tier 2 capital generally consists of hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt securities; perpetual preferred stock and trust preferred securities, to the extent it is not eligible to be included as Tier 1 capital; term subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock; and, subject to limitations, general allowances for loan losses. The sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital less certain required deductions, such as investments in unconsolidated banking or finance subsidiaries, represents qualifying total capital. Risk-based capital ratios are calculated by dividing Tier 1 and total capital, respectively, by risk-weighted assets. Assets and off-balance sheet credit equivalents are assigned to one of four categories of risk-weights, based primarily on relative credit risk. The minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is 4% and the minimum total risk-based capital ratio is 8%. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FRB to establish minimum risk-based capital requirements that may not be lower than those in effect on July 21, 2010. As of December 31, 2011, our Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio was 14.66% and our total risk-based capital ratio was 15.92%. We are currently considered “well capitalized” under all regulatory definitions.


In addition to the risk-based capital requirements, the FRB requires top-rated bank holding companies to maintain a minimum leverage capital ratio of Tier 1 capital (defined by reference to the risk-based capital guidelines) to its average total consolidated assets of at least 3.0%. For most other bank holding companies (including us), the minimum leverage capital ratio is 4.0%. Bank holding companies with supervisory, financial, operational or managerial weaknesses, as well as bank holding companies that are anticipating or experiencing significant growth, are expected to maintain capital ratios well above the minimum levels. Our leverage capital ratio at December 31, 2011 was 8.08%.


Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, as with the risk-based capital requirements discussed above, the leverage capital requirements generally applicable to insured depository institutions will serve as a floor for any leverage capital requirements the FRB may establish for bank holding companies, such as ourselves. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FRB to establish leverage capital requirements for bank holding companies that may not be lower than those in effect in effect for insured depository institutions as of July 21, 2010.


The FDIC has promulgated regulations and adopted a statement of policy regarding the capital adequacy of state-chartered banks, which, like Merchants Bank, are not members of the Federal Reserve System. These requirements are substantially similar to those adopted by the FRB regarding bank holding companies, as described above. Moreover, the FDIC has promulgated corresponding regulations to implement the system of prompt corrective action established by Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”). Under the regulations, a bank is “well capitalized” if it has: (i) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater; (ii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater; (iii) a leverage capital ratio of 5.0% or greater; and (iv) is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. A bank is “adequately capitalized” if it has: (1) a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater; (2) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or greater; and (3) a leverage capital ratio of 4.0% or greater (3.0% under certain circumstances) and does not meet the definition of a “well capitalized bank.”


The FDIC also must take into consideration: (i) concentrations of credit risk; (ii) interest rate risk; and (iii) risks from non-traditional activities, as well as an institution’s ability to manage those risks, when determining the adequacy of an institution’s capital. This evaluation will be made as a part of the institution’s regular safety and soundness examination. We are currently considered well-capitalized under all regulatory definitions.


Generally, a bank, upon receiving notice that it is not adequately capitalized (i.e., that it is “undercapitalized”), becomes subject to the prompt corrective action provisions of Section 38 of FDIA that, for example, (i) restrict payment of capital distributions and management fees, (ii) require that the FDIC monitor the condition of the institution and its efforts to restore its capital, (iii) require submission of a capital restoration plan, (iv) restrict the growth of the institution’s assets and (v) require prior regulatory approval of certain expansion proposals. A bank that is required to submit a capital restoration plan must concurrently submit a performance guarantee by each company that controls the bank. A bank that is “critically undercapitalized” (i.e., has a ratio of tangible equity to total assets that is equal to or less than 2.0%) will be subject to further restrictions, and generally will be placed in conservatorship or receivership within 90 days.




8


We have not elected, and do not expect to elect, to calculate our risk-based capital requirements under either the “advanced” or “standard” approach of the Basel II capital accords. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has also released new capital requirements, known as Basel III, setting forth higher capital requirements, enhanced risk coverage, a global leverage ratio, provisions for counter-cyclical capital, and liquidity standards. The FRB has not yet adopted Basel III, and when it is implemented in the United States, it may be with some modifications or adjustments. Additionally, the timetable for the adoption and implementation of Basel III is expected to last for several years. Accordingly, we are not yet in a position to determine the effect of Basel III on our capital requirements.


Deposit Insurance. Substantially all of the Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. The FDIA, as amended by the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, requires the FDIC to set a ratio of deposit insurance reserves to estimated insured deposits—the designated reserve ratio—of at least 1.35%. The FDIC utilizes a risk-based assessment system that imposes insurance premiums based upon a risk matrix that takes into account a bank’s capital level and supervisory rating (“CAMELS rating”). CAMELS ratings reflect the applicable bank regulatory agency’s evaluation of the financial institution’s capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity and sensitivity to risk. Assessment rates may also vary for certain institutions based on long-term debt issuer ratings, secured or brokered deposits. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, deposit premiums are based on assets rather than insurable deposits. To determine the Bank’s actual deposit insurance premiums, we compute the base amount on the Bank’s average consolidated assets less the Bank’s average tangible equity (defined as the amount of Tier 1 capital) and the Bank’s applicable assessment rate. Assessment rates range from 2.5 to 9 basis points on the broader assessment base for banks in the lowest risk category up to 30 to 45 basis points for banks in the highest risk category.


Pursuant to an FDIC rule issued in November 2009, we prepaid our quarterly risk-based assessments to the FDIC for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012 on December 31, 2009. We recorded the entire amount of our prepayment as a prepaid asset that bears a zero percent risk weight for risk-based capital purposes. Each quarter, we record an expense for our regular quarterly assessment for the quarter and a corresponding credit to the prepaid assessment until the asset is exhausted. The FDIC will not refund or collect additional prepaid assessments because of a decrease or growth in deposits over the next three years. However, should the prepaid assessment not be exhausted after collection of the amount due on June 30, 2013, the remaining amount of the prepayment will be returned to us. The timing of any refund of the prepaid assessment will not be affected by the change in the deposit insurance assessment calculation discussed above.


Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, FDIC deposit insurance has been permanently increased from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act provides temporary unlimited deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transactions accounts beginning December 31, 2010, and ending December 31, 2012. This replaced the FDIC’s Transaction Account Guarantee Program, which expired on December 31, 2010.


Our FDIC insurance expense totaled $936 thousand and $1.42 million in 2011 and 2010, respectively.


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


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




9


Depositor Preference. The FDIA provides that, in the event of the “liquidation or other resolution” of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors of the institution, including the claims of the FDIC as subrogee of insured depositors, and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as a receiver, will have priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors, along with the FDIC, will have priority in payment ahead of unsecured, non-deposit creditors, including depositors whose deposits are payable only outside of the United States and the parent bank holding company, with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.


Real Estate Lending Standards

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (“FDICIA”) requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to adopt uniform real estate lending standards. The FDIC has adopted regulations, which establish supervisory limitations on Loan-to-Value (“LTV”) ratios in real estate loans by FDIC-insured banks, including national banks. The regulations require banks to establish LTV ratio limitations within or below the prescribed uniform range of supervisory limits.


Activities and Investments of Insured State Banks

FDICIA provides that FDIC-insured state banks such as Merchants Bank may not engage as a principal, directly or through a subsidiary, in any activity that is not permissible for a national bank, unless the FDIC determines that the activity does not pose a significant risk to the insurance fund, and the bank is in compliance with its applicable capital standards. In addition, an insured state bank may not acquire or retain, directly or through a subsidiary, any equity investment of a type, or in an amount, that is not permissible for a national bank, unless such investments meet certain grandfather requirements.


GLBA includes a section of the FDIA governing subsidiaries of state banks that engage in “activities as principal that would only be permissible” for a national bank to conduct in a financial subsidiary. This provision permits state banks, to the extent permitted under state law, to engage in certain new activities, which are permissible for subsidiaries of a financial holding company. Further, it expressly preserves the ability of a state bank to retain all existing subsidiaries. Because the applicable Vermont statute explicitly permits banks chartered by the state to engage in all activities permissible for national banks, we are permitted to form subsidiaries to engage in the activities authorized by GLBA. In order to form a financial subsidiary, a state bank must be well-capitalized, and the state bank would be subject to certain capital deduction, risk management and affiliate transaction rules, which are applicable to national banks.


Consumer Protection Regulation

We are subject to a number of federal and state laws designed to protect consumers and prohibit unfair or deceptive business practices. These laws include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, Home Ownership Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (“FACT Act”), GLBA, the Truth in Lending Act, CRA, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the National Flood Insurance Act and various state law counterparts. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must interact with customers when taking deposits, making loans, collecting loans and providing other services. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB, which has the responsibility for making rules and regulations under the federal consumer protection laws relating to financial products and services. The CFPB also has a broad mandate to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts and practices and is specifically empowered to require certain disclosures to consumers and draft model disclosure forms. Failure to comply with consumer protection laws and regulations can subject financial institutions to enforcement actions, fines and other penalties. The FDIC examines Merchants Bank for compliance with CFPB rules and enforces CFPB rules with respect to Merchants Bank.




10


Mortgage Reform

The Dodd-Frank Act prescribes certain standards that mortgage lenders must consider before making a residential mortgage loan, including verifying a borrower’s ability to repay such mortgage loan. The Dodd-Frank Act also allows borrowers to assert violations of certain provisions of the Truth-in-Lending Act as a defense to foreclosure proceedings. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, prepayment penalties are prohibited for certain mortgage transactions and creditors are prohibited from financing insurance policies in connection with a residential mortgage loan or home equity line of credit. The Dodd-Frank Act requires mortgage lenders to make additional disclosures prior to the extension of credit, in each billing statement and for negative amortization loans and hybrid adjustable rate mortgages.


Privacy and Customer Information Security

GLBA requires financial institutions to implement policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. In general, we must provide our customers with an annual disclosure that explains our policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of such nonpublic personal information, and, except as otherwise required or permitted by law, we are prohibited from disclosing such information except as provided in such policies and procedures. GLBA also requires that we develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive written information security program designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information (as defined under GLBA), to protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such information; and to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. We are also required to send a notice to customers whose “sensitive information” has been compromised if unauthorized use of this information is “reasonably possible.” Most of the states, including the states where we operate, have enacted legislation concerning breaches of data security and our duties in response to a data breach. Congress continues to consider federal legislation that would require consumer notice of data security breaches. Pursuant to the FACT Act, we must also develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with the opening of certain accounts or certain existing accounts. Additionally, the FACT Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to generally prohibit a person from using information received from an affiliate to make a solicitation for marketing purposes to a consumer, unless the consumer is given notice and a reasonable opportunity and a reasonable and simple method to opt out of the making of such solicitations.


Regulatory Enforcement Authority

The enforcement powers available to the federal banking agencies include, among other things, the ability to assess civil money penalties, to issue cease and desist or removal orders and to initiate injunctive actions against banking organizations and institution-affiliated parties, as defined. In general, these enforcement actions may be initiated for violations of law and regulations and unsafe or unsound practices. Other actions or inactions may provide the basis for enforcement action, including misleading or untimely reports filed with regulatory authorities. Under certain circumstances, federal and state law requires public disclosure and reports of certain criminal offenses and also final enforcement actions by the federal banking agencies.


Community Reinvestment Act

Pursuant to the CRA and similar provisions of Vermont law, regulatory authorities review our performance in meeting the credit needs of the communities we serve. The applicable regulatory authorities consider compliance with this law in connection with the applications for, among other things, approval for de novo branches, branch relocations and acquisitions of banks and bank holding companies. We received a “satisfactory” rating at our CRA examination dated March 2, 2009.


Failure of an institution to receive at least a “satisfactory” rating could inhibit such institution or its holding company from undertaking certain activities, including engaging in activities newly permitted as a financial holding company under GLBA, and acquisitions of other financial institutions. The FRB must take into account the record of performance of banks in meeting the credit needs of the entire community served, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Current CRA regulations for large banks primarily rely on objective criteria of the performance of institutions under three key assessment tests: a lending test, a service test and an investment test. For smaller banks, current CRA regulations primarily evaluate the performance of institutions under two key assessment tests: a lending test and a community development test. We are committed to meeting the existing or anticipated credit needs of our entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations.




11


Branching and Acquisitions

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, as amended (“Riegle-Neal”) and the Dodd-Frank Act permit well capitalized and well managed bank holding companies, as determined by the FRB, to acquire banks in any state subject to certain concentration limits and other conditions. Riegle-Neal also generally authorizes the interstate merger of banks. In addition, among other things, Riegle-Neal and the Dodd-Frank Act permit banks to establish new branches on an interstate basis to the same extent a bank chartered by the host state may establish branches. Bank holding companies and banks are required to obtain prior FRB approval to acquire more than 5% of a class of voting securities, or substantially all of the assets, of a bank holding company, bank or savings association.


Anti-Money Laundering and the Bank Secrecy Act

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), a financial institution, is required to have systems in place to detect certain transactions, based on the size and nature of the transaction. Financial institutions are generally required to report to the United States Treasury any cash transactions involving more than $10,000. In addition, financial institutions are required to file suspicious activity reports for transactions that involve more than $5,000 and which the financial institution knows, suspects or has reason to suspect involves illegal funds, is designed to evade the requirements of the BSA or has no lawful purpose. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”), which amended the BSA, is designed to deny terrorists and others the ability to obtain anonymous access to the U.S. financial system. The USA PATRIOT Act has significant implications for financial institutions and businesses of other types involved in the transfer of money. The USA PATRIOT Act, together with the implementing regulations of various federal regulatory agencies, has caused financial institutions, such as Merchants Bank, to adopt and implement additional policies or amend existing policies and procedures with respect to, among other things, anti-money laundering compliance, suspicious activity, currency transaction reporting, customer identity verification and customer risk analysis. In evaluating an application under Section 3 of the BHCA to acquire a bank or an application under the Bank Merger Act to merge banks or affect a purchase of assets and assumption of deposits and other liabilities, the applicable federal banking regulator must consider the anti-money laundering compliance record of both the applicant and the target.


The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. These sanctions, which are administered by the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), take many different forms. Generally, however, they contain one or more of the following elements: (i) restrictions on trade with or investment in a sanctioned country, including prohibitions against direct or indirect imports from and exports to a sanctioned country and prohibitions on “U.S. persons” engaging in financial transactions relating to making investments in, or providing investment-related advice or assistance to, a sanctioned country; and (ii) a blocking of assets in which the government or specially designated nationals of the sanctioned country have an interest, by prohibiting transfers of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including property in the possession or control of U.S. persons). Blocked assets (for example, property and bank deposits) cannot be paid out, withdrawn, set off or transferred in any manner without a license from OFAC.


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley”)

Sarbanes-Oxley implemented a broad range of corporate governance and accounting measures for public companies (including publicly-held bank holding companies such as ourselves) designed to promote honesty and transparency in corporate America. Sarbanes-Oxley’s principal provisions, many of which have been interpreted through regulations released in 2003, provide for and include, among other things, (i) requirements for audit committees, including independence and financial expertise; (ii) certification of financial statements by the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the reporting company; (iii) standards for auditors and regulation of audits; (iv) disclosure and reporting requirements for the reporting company and directors and executive officers; and (v) a range of civil and criminal penalties for fraud and other violations of securities laws.




12


Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC has adopted rules granting shareholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation and “golden parachute” payments. Pursuant to modifications of the proxy rules under the Dodd-Frank Act, we will be required to disclose the relationship between executive pay and financial performance, the ratio of the median pay of all employees to the pay of the chief executive officer, and employee and director hedging activities. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires that stock exchanges change their listing rules to require that each member of a listed company’s compensation committee be independent and be granted the authority and funding to retain independent advisors and to prohibit the listing of any security of an issuer that does not adopt policies governing the claw back of excess executive compensation based on inaccurate financial statements. The federal regulatory agencies have proposed new regulations which prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage executives and certain other employees to take inappropriate risks.


Federal Home Loan Bank System

Merchants Bank is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (the “FHLBB”), which is one of the regional Federal Home Loan Banks comprising the Federal Home Loan Bank System. Each Federal Home Loan Bank provides a central credit facility primarily for member institutions. Member institutions are required to acquire and hold shares of capital stock in the FHLBB in an amount at least equal to the sum of 0.35% of the aggregate principal amount of its unpaid residential mortgage loans and similar obligations at the beginning of each year. We were in compliance with this requirement at December 31, 2011. We receive dividends on our FHLBB stock. The FHLBB has recently declared dividends equal to an annual yield of approximately the daily average three-month LIBOR yield for the quarter for which the dividend has been declared. Dividend income on FHLBB stock of $32 thousand was recorded during 2011.


Any advances from the FHLBB must be secured by specified types of collateral, and long-term advances may be used for the purpose of providing funds for residential housing finance, commercial lending and to purchase investments. Long term advances may also be used to help alleviate interest rate risk for asset and liability management purposes. As of December 31, 2011, we had approximately $22.56 million in FHLBB advances.


AVAILABLE INFORMATION

We file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other documents with the SEC. The public may read and copy any materials that we have filed with the SEC at the SEC's Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Also, the SEC maintains an Internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, including us, that file electronically with the SEC. The public can obtain any documents that we have filed with the SEC at the SEC website at www.sec.gov.


We also make available free of charge on or through our Internet website at www.mbvt.com our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and, if applicable, 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 Merchants electronically files such materials with or furnishes them to the SEC. We also make all filed insider transactions available through our website free of charge. In addition, our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and Nominating and Governance Committee Charters as well as our Code of Ethics Policy for Senior Financial Officers, are available free of charge on our website.


ITEM 1ARISK FACTORS


Interest rate volatility and sustained low interest rates may reduce our profitability.

Our consolidated earnings and financial condition are primarily dependent upon net interest income, which is the difference between interest earned from loans and investments and interest paid on deposits and borrowings. The narrowing of that difference could adversely affect our earnings and financial condition. We cannot predict with certainty or control changes in interest rates. Regional and local economic conditions and the policies of regulatory authorities, including monetary policies of the FRB, affect interest income and interest expense. While we have ongoing policies and procedures designed to manage the risks associated with changes in market interest rates, changes in interest rates still may have an adverse effect on our profitability. A steep yield curve provides opportunities for us as a financial intermediary; however, during 2011, the yield curve flattened. If the yield curve should flatten further, our net interest income could be negatively impacted. Increases in interest rates could affect the amount of loans that we can originate, because higher rates could cause customers to apply for fewer mortgages, or cause depositors to shift funds from accounts that have a comparatively lower cost, to accounts with a higher cost or experience customer attrition due to competitor pricing. If the cost of interest-bearing deposits increases at a rate greater than the yields on interest-earning assets, net interest income will be negatively affected. Changes in the asset and liability mix may also affect net interest income. Similarly, lower interest rates cause higher yielding assets to prepay and floating or adjustable rate assets to reset to lower rates, and at the same time reduce the profitability of our free or very low cost deposit accounts. If we are not able to reduce our funding costs sufficiently, due to either competitive factors or the maturity schedule of existing liabilities, then our net interest margin will decline.



13


Our financial condition and results of operations have been adversely affected, and may continue to be adversely affected, by the U.S. and international financial market and economic conditions.

We have been, and continue to be, impacted by general business and economic conditions in the United States and, to a lesser extent, abroad. These conditions include short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation, money supply, political issues, legislative and regulatory changes, fluctuations in both debt and equity capital markets, broad trends in industry and finance, unemployment and the strength of the U.S. economy and the local economies in which we operate, all of which are beyond our control. Deterioration in any of these conditions could result in increases in loan delinquencies, and non-performing assets, decreases in loan collateral values, decreases in the value of our investment portfolio and a decrease in demand for our products and services. While there are early indications that the U.S. economy is improving, there remains significant uncertainty regarding the sustainability of the economic recovery, unemployment levels and the impact of the U.S. government’s unwinding of its extensive economic and market support.


If our allowance for loan losses is not sufficient to cover actual loan losses, our earnings could decrease.

Our loan customers may not repay their loans according to the terms of the loans, and the collateral securing the payment of these loans may be insufficient to pay any remaining loan balance. We therefore may experience significant loan losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results.


Material additions to our allowance for loan losses also would materially decrease our net income, and the charge-off of loans may cause us to increase the allowance. We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of our loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of our borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of many of our loans. We rely on our loan quality reviews, our experience and our evaluation of economic conditions, among other factors, in determining the amount of the allowance for loan losses. If our assumptions prove to be incorrect, our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover losses inherent in our loan portfolio, resulting in additions to our allowance.


In addition, bank regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize further loan charge-offs, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We believe that the current amount of allowance for loan losses is sufficient to absorb inherent losses in our loan portfolio.


Our operations are concentrated in Vermont and we may be adversely affected by regional economic conditions and real estate values.

Because our loan portfolio is in Vermont, we may be adversely affected by regional economic conditions. Further, because a substantial portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate in Vermont, the value of the associated collateral is also subject to regional real estate market conditions. If these areas experience adverse economic, political or business conditions, we would likely experience higher rates of loss and delinquency on these loans than if the loans were more geographically diverse.


Our commercial, commercial real estate and construction loan portfolio may expose us to increased credit risks.

At December 31, 2011, approximately 47% of our loan portfolio was comprised of commercial, commercial real estate, and construction loans with some relationships exceeding $15 million dollars, exposing us to the risks inherent in financings based upon analyses of credit risk, the value of underlying collateral, including real estate, and other more intangible factors, which are considered in making commercial loans. In general, commercial and commercial real estate loans historically pose greater credit risks, than owner occupied residential mortgage loans. The repayment of commercial real estate loans depends on the business and financial condition of borrowers, and a number of our borrowers have more than one commercial real estate loan outstanding with us. Economic events and changes in government regulations, which we and our borrowers cannot control or reliably predict, could have an adverse impact on the cash flows generated by properties securing our commercial real estate loans and on the values of the properties securing those loans. Repayment of commercial loans depend substantially on the borrowers’ underlying business, financial condition and cash flows. Commercial loans are generally collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable and other fixed assets. Compared to real estate, that type of collateral is more difficult to monitor, its value is harder to ascertain, it may depreciate more rapidly and it may not be as readily saleable if repossessed.




14


We are highly regulated, which could limit or restrict our activities and impose financial requirements or limitations on the conduct of our business.

We are subject to regulation and supervision by the FRB and Merchants Bank is subject to regulation and supervision by the FDIC and the Commissioner. Federal and state laws and regulations govern numerous matters, including changes in the ownership or control of banks and bank holding companies, maintenance of adequate capital and the financial condition of a financial institution, permissible types, amounts and terms of extensions of credit and investments, permissible nonbanking activities, the level of reserves against deposits and restrictions on dividend payments. The FDIC and the Commissioner possess the power to issue cease and desist orders to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law by banks subject to their regulation, and the FRB possesses similar powers with respect to bank holding companies. These and other restrictions limit the manner in which we may conduct business and obtain financing.


We are also affected by the monetary policies of the FRB. Changes in monetary or legislative policies may affect the interest rates we must offer to attract deposits and the interest rates we must charge on our loans, as well as the manner in which we offer deposits and make loans. These monetary policies have had, and are expected to continue to have, significant effects on the operating results of depository institutions generally, including Merchants Bank.


The Dodd-Frank Act comprehensively reformed the regulation of financial institutions, products and services. Because many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, it is difficult to forecast the impact that such rulemaking will have on us, our customers or the financial industry. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that affect deposit insurance assessments, the payment of interest on demand deposits and interchange fees could increase the costs associated with Merchants Bank’s deposit-generating activities, as well as place limitations on the revenues that those deposits may generate. For example, while the FRB has proposed rules pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act governing debit card interchange fees that apply to institutions with greater than $10 billion in assets, market forces may effectively require all banks to adopt debit card interchange fee structures that comply with these rules.


Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or the “CFPB,” as an independent bureau of the FRB. The CFPB has the authority to prescribe rules for all depository institutions governing the provision of consumer financial products and services, which may result in rules and regulations that reduce the profitability of such products and services or impose greater costs on us and our subsidiaries. Merchants Bank will be examined by the FDIC for compliance with such rules. The Dodd-Frank Act established new minimum mortgage underwriting standards for residential mortgages and the regulatory agencies have focused on the examination and supervision of mortgage lending and servicing activities. Over the past year there has been a heightened regulatory scrutiny of consumer fees, which may result in new disclosure requirements or regulations regarding the fees that Merchants Bank may charge for products and services.


Regulators may raise capital requirements above current levels in connection with the implementation of Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act or otherwise, which may require us to hold additional capital which could limit the manner in which we conduct our business and obtain financing. Furthermore, the imposition of liquidity requirements in connection with the implementation of Basel III in the United States, or otherwise, could result in us having to lengthen the term of our funding, restructure our business models, and/or increase our holdings of liquid assets. If the federal banking agencies implement a capital conservation buffer and/or a countercyclical capital buffer, as proposed in Basel III, a failure by us to satisfy the applicable buffer’s requirements would limit our ability to make distributions, including paying out dividends or buying back shares.




15


Competition in the local banking industry may impair our ability to attract and retain customers at current levels. Competition in the local banking industry coupled with our relatively small size may limit our ability to attract and retain customers. In particular, our competitors include major financial companies whose greater resources may afford them a marketplace advantage by enabling them to maintain numerous banking locations and mount extensive promotional and advertising campaigns. Additionally, banks and other financial institutions with larger capitalization, as well as financial intermediaries not subject to bank regulatory restrictions, have larger lending limits and are able to serve the credit and investment needs of larger customers. Areas of competition include interest rates for loans and deposits, efforts to obtain deposits, and range and quality of services provided. If we are unable to attract and retain customers, we may be unable to continue our loan growth and our results of operations and financial condition may otherwise be negatively impacted.


Prepayments of loans may negatively impact our business.

Generally, our customers may prepay the principal amount of their outstanding loans at any time. The speed at which such prepayments occur, as well as the size of such prepayments, are within our customers’ discretion. If customers prepay the principal amount of their loans, and we are unable to lend those funds to other borrowers or invest the funds at the same or higher interest rates, our interest income will be reduced. A significant reduction in interest income could have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition.


We may incur significant losses as a result of ineffective risk management processes and strategies.

We seek to monitor and control our risk exposure through a risk and control framework encompassing a variety of separate but complementary financial, credit, operational, compliance and legal reporting systems, internal controls, management review processes and other mechanisms. While we employ a broad and diversified set of risk monitoring and risk mitigation techniques, those techniques and the judgments that accompany their application may not be effective and may not anticipate every economic and financial outcome in all market environments or the specifics and timing of such outcomes. Market conditions over the last several years have involved unprecedented dislocations and highlight the limitations inherent in using historical data to manage risk.


We may be unable to attract and retain key personnel.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract and retain key personnel. Competition for qualified personnel in the financial services industry can be intense and we may not be able to hire or retain the key personnel that we depend upon for success. The unexpected loss of services of one or more of our key personnel could have a material adverse impact on our business because of their skills, knowledge of the markets in which we operate, years of industry experience and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel.


Our ability to attract and retain customers and employees could be adversely affected to the extent our reputation is harmed.

Our ability to attract and retain customers and employees could be adversely affected to the extent our reputation is damaged. Our actual or perceived failure to address various issues could give rise to reputational risk that could cause harm to us and our business prospects, including failure to properly address operational risks. These issues also include, but are not limited to, legal and regulatory requirements; privacy; properly maintaining customer and associate personal information; record keeping; money-laundering; sales and trading practices; ethical issues; appropriately addressing potential conflicts of interest; and the proper identification of the legal, reputational, credit, liquidity and market risks inherent in our products. Failure to appropriately address any of these issues could also give rise to additional regulatory restrictions, reputational harm and legal risks, which could among other consequences increase the size and number of litigation claims and damages asserted or subject us to enforcement actions, fines and penalties and cause us to incur related costs and expenses.


We may suffer losses as a result of operational risk or technical system failures.

The potential for operational risk exposure exists throughout our organization. Integral to our performance is the continued efficacy of our internal processes, systems, relationships with third parties and the associates and executives in our day-to-day and ongoing operations. Operational risk also encompasses the failure to implement strategic objectives in a successful, timely and cost-effective manner. Failure to properly manage operational risk subjects us to risks of loss that may vary in size, scale and scope, including loss of customers, operational or technical failures, unlawful tampering with our technical systems, ineffectiveness or exposure due to interruption in third party support, as well as the loss of key individuals or failure on the part of key individuals to perform properly. Although we seek to mitigate operational risk through a system of internal controls, losses from operational risk could take the form of explicit charges, increased operational costs, harm to our reputation or foregone opportunities.




16


We must adapt to information technology changes in the financial services industry, which could present operational issues, require significant capital spending, or impact our reputation.

The financial services industry is constantly undergoing technological changes, with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and may 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. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers.


The market price and trading volume of our common stock may be volatile.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that the market price of our common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect our share price or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common stock include:


quarterly variations in our operating results or the quality of our assets;


operating results that vary from the expectations of Management, securities analysts and investors;


changes in expectations as to our future financial performance;


announcements of innovations, new products, strategic developments, significant contracts, acquisitions and other material events by us or our competitors;


the operating and securities price performance of other companies that investors believe are comparable to us;


our past and future dividend practices;


future sales of our equity or equity-related securities; and


changes in global financial markets and global economies and general market conditions, such as interest or foreign exchange rates, stock, commodity or real estate valuations or volatility.


We are a holding company and depend on our subsidiaries for dividends, distributions and other payments.

We are a separate and distinct legal entity from our subsidiaries and depend on dividends, distributions and other payments from our subsidiaries to fund dividend payments on our common and preferred stock and to fund all payments on our other obligations. Our subsidiaries are subject to laws that authorize regulatory bodies to block or reduce the payment of cash dividends or other distributions to us. Regulatory action of that kind could impede access to funds we need to make payments on our obligations or dividend payments. Additionally, if our subsidiaries’ earnings are not sufficient to make dividend payments to us while maintaining adequate capital levels, we may not be able to make dividend payments to our common and preferred shareholders. Furthermore, our right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors.


Our shareholders may not receive dividends on our common stock.

Holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends only when, as and if declared by our board of directors. Although we have historically declared cash dividends on our common stock, we are not required to do so and our board of directors may reduce or eliminate our common stock dividend in the future. Further, the FRB has issued guidelines for evaluating proposals by large bank holding companies to increase dividends or repurchase or redeem shares, which includes a requirement for such firms to develop a capital distribution plan. The FRB has indicated that it is considering expanding these requirements to cover all bank holding companies, which may in the future restrict our ability to pay dividends. A reduction or elimination of dividends could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.




17


Changes in accounting standards can be difficult to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations.

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) changes the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes can be hard to anticipate and implement and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations.


Our financial statements are based in part on assumptions and estimates, which, if wrong, could cause unexpected losses in the future.

Pursuant to GAAP, we are required to use certain assumptions and estimates in preparing our financial statements, including in determining credit loss reserves, reserves related to litigation and the fair value of certain assets and liabilities, among other items. If assumptions or estimates underlying our financial statements are incorrect, we may experience material losses. For additional information, see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Critical Accounting Policies.”


There are potential risks associated with future acquisitions and expansions.

We evaluate acquisition and other expansion opportunities and strategies. To the extent we acquire other companies in the future, our business may be negatively impacted by certain risks inherent with such acquisitions. These risks include the following:


the risk that the acquired business will not perform in accordance with Management’s expectations;


the risk that difficulties will arise in connection with the integration of the operations of the acquired business with the operations of our business;


the risk that Management will divert its attention from other aspects of our business;


the risk that we may lose key employees of the combined business; and


the risks associated with entering into geographic and product markets in which we have limited or no direct prior experience.


ITEM 1BUNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS


Merchants has no unresolved comments from the SEC staff.


ITEM 2PROPERTIES


As of December 31, 2011, we operated 34 full-service banking offices, and 41 ATMs throughout the state of Vermont. In late 2011, we announced our plans to close our branch location in Bellows Falls, Vermont, in 2012. Our headquarters are located at 275 Kennedy Drive, South Burlington, Vermont, which also houses our operations and administrative offices and our Trust division.


We lease certain premises from third parties, including our headquarters, under current market terms and conditions. The offices of all subsidiaries are in good physical condition with modern equipment and facilities considered adequate to meet the banking needs of customers in the communities served. Additional information relating to our properties is set forth in Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


ITEM 3LEGAL PROCEEDINGS


We are involved in various legal proceedings arising from our normal business activities. In the opinion of Management, based upon input from counsel on the outcome of such proceedings, final disposition of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position.


ITEM 4MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES


Not Applicable.




18



PART II


ITEM 5MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES


Common Stock and Dividends

The common stock of Merchants is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the trading symbol “MBVT”. Merchants currently pays dividends on a quarterly basis. Quarterly stock prices and dividends per share paid for each quarterly period during the last two years were as follows:


Quarter Ended

High

Low

Dividends
Paid

December 31, 2011

$30.13

$25.27

$0.28

September 30, 2011

27.78

23.79

0.28

June 30, 2011

27.79

23.53

0.28

March 31, 2011

28.87

23.77

0.28

December 31, 2010

29.31

24.15

0.28

September 30, 2010

25.86

22.05

0.28

June 30, 2010

24.21

21.09

0.28

March 31, 2010

23.74

19.57

0.28


High and low stock prices are based upon quotations as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market. Prices of transactions between private parties may vary from the ranges quoted above.


As of February 29, 2012, Merchants had 801 shareholders of record. Merchants declared and distributed dividends totaling $1.12 per share during 2011. In January 2012, Merchants declared a dividend of $0.28 per share, which was paid on February 16, 2012, to shareholders of record as of February 2, 2012. Future dividends will depend upon the financial condition and earnings of Merchants and its subsidiaries, its need for funds and other factors, including applicable government regulations.


Merchants Bancshares, Inc. is a legal entity separate and distinct from Merchants Bank. The revenue of Merchants (on a parent company only basis) is derived primarily from interest and dividends paid to it by its subsidiary bank. The right of Merchants, and consequently the right of shareholders of Merchants, to participate in any distribution of the assets or earnings of any subsidiary through the payment of such dividends or otherwise is necessarily subject to the prior claims of creditors of the subsidiary (including depositors, in the case of its banking subsidiary), except to the extent that certain claims of Merchants in a creditor capacity may be recognized.


It is the policy of the FRB that bank holding companies, should pay dividends only out of current earnings and only if, after paying such dividends, the bank holding company would remain adequately capitalized. The FRB has the authority to prohibit a bank holding company, such as Merchants, from paying dividends if it deems such payment to be an unsafe or unsound practice.


The FDIC has the authority to use its enforcement powers to prohibit a bank from paying dividends if, in its opinion, the payment of dividends would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice. Federal law also prohibits the payment of dividends by a bank that will result in the bank failing to meet its applicable capital requirements on a pro forma basis.


Vermont law requires the approval of state bank regulatory authorities if the dividends declared by state banks exceed prescribed limits. The payment of any dividends by Merchants Bank will be determined based on a number of factors, including recent earnings history, the Bank’s liquidity, asset quality profile and capital adequacy.




19


Performance Graph

The line-graph presentation below compares cumulative five-year shareholder returns with the NASDAQ Banks and the Russell 2000 Index. The comparison assumes the investment, on December 31, 2006, of $100 in Merchants’ common stock and each of the foregoing indices and reinvestment of all dividends.


[d78071_mer10k001.jpg]


 

Period Ending

Index

12/31/06

12/31/07

12/31/08

12/31/09

12/31/10

12/31/11

Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

100.00

107.63

90.54

115.03

146.86

162.18

NASDAQ Bank

100.00

80.09

62.84

52.60

60.04

53.74

Russell 2000

100.00

98.43

65.18

82.89

105.14

100.75


The graph and related information furnished under Part II, Item 5 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC, or subject to Regulation 14A or 14C, other than as provided in Item 201 of Regulation S-K, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such information shall not be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act or Exchange Act except to the extent that Merchants specifically incorporates it by reference into such filing.


Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

We maintain equity compensation plans: the 2008 Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors and Trustees and the Amended and Restated Merchants Bancshares, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan. Each of these plans has been approved by our shareholders. The following table includes information as of December 31, 2011 about these plans. See Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 for a description of these plans.




20



Plan Category

Number of Securities
to be Issued Upon
Exercise of
Outstanding Options,
Warrants and Rights

Weighted-
Average Price of
Outstanding
Options,
Warrants and
Rights

Number of Securities
Remaining Available for
Future Issuance Under
Equity Compensation
Plans (Excluding
Securities Reflected in
First Column)

Equity Compensation Plans
Approved by Security Holders

121,361(a)

$22.81(b)

588,891

Equity Compensation Plans Not
Approved by Security Holders

0    

0    

0

Total

121,361    

$22.81    

588,891


(a)

This number relates to the Amended and Restated Merchants Bancshares, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan.

(b)

This price reflects the weighted-average exercise price of outstanding stock options under the Stock Incentive Plan.


Issuer Repurchase of Equity Securities

We extended, through January 2013, our stock buyback program, originally adopted in January 2007. Under the program we may repurchase 200,000 shares of our common stock on the open market from time to time, and have purchased 143,475 shares at an average price per share of $22.94 since the program's adoption in 2007. We did not repurchase any of our shares during 2010 or 2011, and do not expect to repurchase shares in the near future.


ITEM 6SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA


The supplementary financial data presented in the following tables contain information highlighting certain significant trends in our financial condition and results of operations over an extended period of time.


The following information should be analyzed in conjunction with Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and with the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



21


Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Five Year Summary of Financial Data


 

 

At or For the Year Ended December 31,

 

(In thousands except share and per share data)

 

 

2011

 

 

2010

 

 

2009

 

 

2008

 

 

2007

 

Results for the Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest and dividend income

 

$

58,018 

 

$

60,262 

 

$

66,340 

 

$

68,582 

 

$

64,599 

 

Interest expense

 

 

8,644 

 

 

11,107 

 

 

16,224 

 

 

24,929 

 

 

26,386 

 

Net interest income

 

 

49,374 

 

 

49,155 

 

 

50,116 

 

 

43,653 

 

 

38,213 

 

Provision (credit) for loan losses

 

 

750 

 

 

(1,750)

 

 

4,100 

 

 

1,525 

 

 

1,150 

 

Net interest income after provision (credit) for loan losses

 

 

48,624 

 

 

50,905 

 

 

46,016 

 

 

42,128 

 

 

37,063 

 

Noninterest income

 

 

10,380 

 

 

11,631 

 

 

10,315 

 

 

8,658 

 

 

9,344 

 

Noninterest expense

 

 

41,260 

 

 

42,427 

 

 

40,098 

 

 

35,101 

 

 

32,288 

 

Income before income taxes

 

 

17,744 

 

 

20,109 

 

 

16,233 

 

 

15,685 

 

 

14,119 

 

Provision for income taxes

 

 

3,124 

 

 

4,648 

 

 

3,754 

 

 

3,768 

 

 

3,261 

 

Net income

 

$

14,620 

 

$

15,461 

 

$

12,479 

 

$

11,917 

 

$

10,858 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic earnings per common share

 

$

2.35 

 

$

2.51 

 

$

2.04 

 

$

1.96 

 

$

1.77 

 

Diluted earnings per common share

 

$

2.35 

 

$

2.51 

 

$

2.04 

 

$

1.96 

 

$

1.76 

 

Cash dividends declared per common share

 

$

1.12 

 

$

1.12 

 

$

1.12 

 

$

1.12 

 

$

1.12 

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding (1)

 

 

6,212,187 

 

 

6,167,446 

 

 

6,105,909 

 

 

6,069,653 

 

 

6,148,494 

 

Period end common shares outstanding (2)

 

 

6,232,783 

 

 

6,186,363 

 

 

6,141,823 

 

 

6,061,182 

 

 

6,096,737 

 

Year-end book value per share

 

$

18.54 

 

$

16.95 

 

$

15.65 

 

$

13.89 

 

$

13.05 

 

Year-end book value per share (2)

 

$

17.57 

 

$

16.06 

 

$

14.82 

 

$

13.15 

 

$

12.35 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Performance Ratios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on average shareholders' equity

 

 

14.11 

%

 

16.18 

%

 

14.73 

%

 

15.91 

%

 

15.37 

%

Return on average assets

 

 

0.97 

%

 

1.07 

%

 

0.91 

%

 

0.93 

%

 

0.96 

%

Average assets to average equity

 

 

6.87 

%

 

6.64 

%

 

6.16 

%

 

5.87 

%

 

6.24 

%

Tier 1 leverage ratio

 

 

8.08 

%

 

7.90 

%

 

7.67 

%

 

7.42 

%

 

8.14 

%

Tangible equity ratio

 

 

6.80 

%

 

6.68 

%

 

6.34 

%

 

5.94 

%

 

6.42 

%

Dividend payout ratio

 

 

47.66 

%

 

44.62 

%

 

54.90 

%

 

57.14 

%

 

63.64 

%

Allowance for loan losses to total loans at year-end

 

 

1.03 

%

 

1.11 

%

 

1.19 

%

 

1.05 

%

 

1.09 

%

Nonperforming loans as a percentage of total loans

 

 

0.24 

%

 

0.45 

%

 

1.58 

%

 

1.37 

%

 

1.26 

%

Net interest margin

 

 

3.51 

%

 

3.65 

%

 

3.80 

%

 

3.58 

%

 

3.56 

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Balances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total assets

 

$

1,507,656 

 

$

1,438,730 

 

$

1,376,054 

 

$

1,276,855 

 

$

1,131,588 

 

Earning assets

 

 

1,461,359 

 

 

1,379,475 

 

 

1,326,326 

 

 

1,220,393 

 

 

1,075,367 

 

Gross loans

 

 

971,003 

 

 

912,363 

 

 

901,582 

 

 

781,645 

 

 

713,119 

 

Investments (3)

 

 

436,170 

 

 

437,058 

 

 

388,215 

 

 

428,198 

 

 

325,860 

 

Total deposits

 

 

1,120,234 

 

 

1,053,503 

 

 

1,003,778 

 

 

923,863 

 

 

873,674 

 

Shareholders' equity

 

 

103,639 

 

 

95,580 

 

 

84,706 

 

 

74,916 

 

 

70,661 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At Year-End

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total assets

 

$

1,611,869 

 

$

1,487,644 

 

$

1,434,861 

 

$

1,340,823 

 

$

1,170,743 

 

Gross loans

 

 

1,027,626 

 

 

910,794 

 

 

918,538 

 

 

847,127 

 

 

731,508 

 

Allowance for loan losses

 

 

10,619 

 

 

10,135 

 

 

10,976 

 

 

8,894 

 

 

8,002 

 

Investments (3)

 

 

520,939 

 

 

475,386 

 

 

417,441 

 

 

440,132 

 

 

370,704 

 

Total deposits

 

 

1,177,880 

 

 

1,092,196 

 

 

1,043,319 

 

 

930,797 

 

 

867,437 

 

Shareholders' equity

 

 

109,537 

 

 

99,331 

 

 

90,625 

 

 

79,310 

 

 

75,307 

 


(1)

Weighted average common shares outstanding includes an average of 318,110; 318,549; 317,288; 315,130; and 319,357 shares held in Rabbi Trusts for deferred compensation plans for directors for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

(2)

Period end common shares outstanding and year-end book value include 325,703; 327,100; 326,453; 323,754; and 325,789; shares held in Rabbi Trusts for deferred compensation plans for directors for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively.

(3)

Includes Federal Home Loan Bank stock of $8.63 million.



22



Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Summary of Quarterly Financial Information

(Unaudited)


(In thousands except per share data)

2011

 

2010

 

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Year

 

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Year

Interest and dividend income

$14,390

$14,865

$14,712

$14,051

$58,018

 

$14,404 

$15,169 

$15,457

$15,232

$60,262 

Interest expense

2,005

2,121

2,219

2,299

8,644

 

2,585 

2,739 

2,816

2,967

11,107 

Net interest income

12,385

12,744

12,493

11,752

49,374

 

11,819 

12,430 

12,641

12,265

49,155 

Provision (credit) for loan losses

250

250

250

0

750

 

(1,950)

(400)

0

600

(1,750)

Noninterest income

2,315

3,412

2,560

2,093

10,380

 

2,541 

3,025 

3,155

2,910

11,631 

Noninterest expense

9,898

11,045

10,206

10,111

41,260

 

13,337 

10,003 

9,621

9,466

42,427 

Income before income taxes

4,552

4,861

4,597

3,734

17,744

 

2,973 

5,852 

6,175

5,109

20,109 

Provision for income taxes

843

680

968

633

3,124

 

429 

1,350 

1,589

1,280

4,648 

Net income

$  3,709

$  4,181

$  3,629

$  3,101

$14,620

 

$  2,544 

$  4,502 

$  4,586

$  3,829

$15,461 

Basic earnings per share

$    0.60

$    0.67

$    0.58

$    0.50

$    2.35

 

$    0.41 

$    0.73 

$    0.74

$    0.62

$    2.51 

Diluted earnings per share

0.59

0.67

0.58

0.50

2.35

 

0.41 

0.73 

0.74

0.62

2.51 

Cash dividends declared
 and paid per share

$    0.28

$    0.28

$    0.28

$    0.28

$    1.12

 

$    0.28 

$    0.28 

$    0.28

$    0.28

$    1.12 




23



ITEM 7—

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS


CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES


Management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on the consolidated financial statements, which are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of such consolidated financial statements requires Management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Management evaluates its estimates on an ongoing basis. Management bases its estimates on historical experience and various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis in making judgments about financial statement amounts. Actual results could differ from the amount derived from Management’s estimates and assumptions under different conditions.


Our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Management believes the following accounting policies are the most critical to the preparation of the consolidated financial statements.


Allowance for Credit Losses: The allowance for credit losses (“Allowance”) includes the allowance for loan losses and the reserve for undisbursed lines of credit. The Allowance, which is established through the provision for credit losses, is based on Management’s evaluation of the level of allowance required in relation to the estimated losses in the loan portfolio and undisbursed lines of credit. Management believes the Allowance is a significant estimate and therefore evaluates its adequacy each quarter. When determining the appropriate amount of the Allowance, Management considers factors such as previous loss experience, the size and composition of the loan portfolio, current economic and real estate market conditions, the performance of individual loans in relation to contract terms, and the estimated fair value of collateral that secures the loans. The use of different estimates or assumptions could produce a different Allowance.


Income Taxes: We estimate our income taxes for each period for which a statement of income is presented. This involves estimating our actual current tax exposure, as well as assessing temporary differences resulting from differing timing of recognition of expenses, income and tax credits, for tax and accounting purposes. These differences result in deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are included in our consolidated balance sheets. We must also assess the likelihood that any deferred tax assets will be recovered from future taxable income and, to the extent that recovery is not likely, a valuation allowance must be established. Significant management judgment is required in determining income tax expense, and deferred tax assets and liabilities. As of December 31, 2011, we determined that no valuation allowance for deferred tax assets was necessary.


Valuation of Investment Securities: Management evaluates securities for other-than-temporary impairment on at least a quarterly basis, and more frequently when economic or market concerns warrant such evaluation. When an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred, the amount of the other-than-temporary impairment recognized in earnings depends on whether we intend to sell the security or more likely than not will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current-period credit loss. To determine whether an impairment is other-than-temporary, we consider all available information relevant to the collectability of the security, including past events, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts when developing estimates of cash flows expected to be collected. Evidence considered in this assessment includes the reasons for the impairment, the severity and duration of the impairment, changes in value subsequent to year-end, forecasted performance of the investee, and the general market conditions in the geographic area or industry the investee operates in.


If we intend to sell the security or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current-period credit loss, the impairment is recognized in earnings equal to the entire difference between the investment’s amortized cost basis and its fair value at the balance sheet date. If we do not intend to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current-period credit loss, the other-than-temporary impairment is separated into the amount representing the credit loss and the amount related to all other factors. The amount of the total other-than-temporary impairment related to the credit loss is recognized in earnings. The amount of the total impairment related to other factors is recognized in other comprehensive income, net of applicable income taxes.



24


GENERAL


The following discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations of Merchants and its subsidiaries for the three years ended December 31, 2011 should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto and selected statistical information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The financial condition and results of operations of Merchants essentially reflect the operations of its principal subsidiary, Merchants Bank. Certain statements contained in this section are forward-looking statements subject to certain risks and uncertainties described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the headings “Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors.”


Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Certain measurements contained in this section which are presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis constitute non-GAAP financial measures as described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K under the heading “Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.”


RESULTS OF OPERATIONS


Overview

We realized net income of $14.62 million, $15.46 million and $12.48 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Basic earnings per share and diluted earnings per shares were $2.35, $2.51 and $2.04 for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. We declared and distributed total dividends of $1.12 per share each year during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. On January 19, 2012, we declared a dividend of $0.28 per share, which was paid on February 16, 2012, to shareholders of record as of February 2, 2012. This quarter represents our 61st consecutive quarterly dividend payment and our 25th consecutive quarter at the current payout level. Total assets reached a record high of $1.61 billion at December 31, 2011, an increase of $124.23 million, or 8.4% over year end 2010. Total shareholders’ equity also reached a record high of $109.54 million at December 31, 2011.


Our return on average equity was 14.11%, 16.18% and 14.73% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and our return on average assets was 0.97%, 1.07% and 0.91% for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Book value per share increased $1.51 per share, or 9.4%, to $17.57 during 2011. Our capital ratios remain strong, with a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.08%, a total risk-based capital ratio of 15.92% and a tangible capital ratio of 6.80%.


Net interest income - Our taxable equivalent net interest income was $51.30 million for 2011 compared to $50.35 million for 2010. Our taxable equivalent net interest margin decreased by 14 basis points for 2011 to 3.51% from 3.65% for 2010.

Provision for Credit Losses - The 2011 provision for credit losses was $750 thousand, compared to a negative provision of $1.75 million for 2010. The 2011 provision was primarily due to loan growth. Asset quality remained high throughout 2011.

Loans - We also achieved a new record high in our loan portfolio. Ending loan balances at December 31, 2011 were $1.03 billion, an increase of $116.83 million, or 12.8%, from ending loan balances at December 31, 2010.

Investments - Our investment portfolio totaled $512.31 million at December 31, 2011, an increase of $45.55 million from the December 31, 2010 ending balance of $466.76 million.

Deposits - Total deposits also reached a record high during 2011 and ended the year at $1.18 billion, an increase of $85.68 million, or 7.8%, from balances of $1.09 billion at December 31, 2010. Demand deposits increased by $56.11 million, or 39.7%, to $197.52 million at December 31, 2011 from $141.41 million at December 31, 2010.

Long-term debt prepayment - We prepaid a total of $16.00 million in long-term debt at an average rate of 2.92% during 2011, and we paid a prepayment penalty of $861 thousand in conjunction with the transaction.




25


Net Interest Income


2011 compared with 2010


As shown on the accompanying schedule on page 28, our taxable equivalent net interest income increased $956 thousand to $51.30 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, compared to $50.35 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. Our taxable equivalent net interest margin decreased by 14 basis points for 2011 to 3.51% from 3.65% for 2010. Our growth in net interest income in spite of margin compression was a result of a larger earning asset base. Our average earning assets increased $81.88 million, or 5.9%, during 2011; $58.64 million of that growth was in our loan portfolio, our highest yielding asset class. In spite of our success in growing the loan portfolio, the average rate on our earning assets decreased by 35 basis points to 4.10% during the year, while the average cost of our interest bearing liabilities decreased 23 basis points to 0.70% for 2011 compared to 0.93% for 2010. We experienced reduced yields on both our loan and investment portfolios. The average rate earned on loans decreased 32 basis points during 2011 to 4.86%, while the average rate earned on our investment portfolio decreased 34 basis points to 2.90% during the same period. Decreased loan yields resulted from the combined effect of the extended low interest rate environment and competitive pressure for strong credits. Decreased yields in our investment portfolio are a result of the extended low interest rate environment, flattening from the longer end of the yield curve and tight spreads for agency issued or guaranteed investments.


We have continued our efforts to offset decreased yields on the asset side by increasing balances in our relatively inexpensive checking and money market account balances and reducing our liability costs. Of the $66.73 million in total growth in average deposits during 2011, $33.14 million was in our demand deposit accounts and $50.51 million was in savings, money market and negotiable order of withdrawal (“NOW”) accounts. These increases were offset by a $16.92 million decrease in time deposits. Average time deposits as a percentage of total average deposits declined to 31.9% for 2011 compared to 35.6% for 2010. The average cost of interest bearing liabilities decreased 23 basis points during 2011 to 0.70%. The cost of interest bearing deposits decreased 14 basis points to 0.47% during 2011 and the cost of total borrowed funds decreased 46 basis points to 1.52% during the same time period.


We continue to work to reduce our dependence on wholesale funding and prepaid a total of $16.00 million in long-term debt with maturities in 2013 and 2015 at an average rate of 2.92% during the third quarter of 2011, and we paid a prepayment penalty of $861 thousand in conjunction with the transaction.


2010 compared with 2009


Our taxable equivalent net interest income decreased $33 thousand to $50.35 million for 2010 compared to $50.38 million for 2009. Our taxable equivalent net interest margin decreased to 3.65% for 2010 compared to 3.80% for 2009. Although our average earning assets for 2010 increased $53.15 million to $1.38 billion, the rate on those earning assets decreased 57 basis points to 4.45% from 5.02% for 2009. Most of the growth in average interest earning assets was in the investment portfolio, where the average annual balance increased $48.84 million to $437.06 million. The investment portfolio also accounted for much of the decrease in the average rate on interest earning assets. The average yield on investments decreased 155 basis points to 3.24% for 2010 compared to 4.79% for 2009. Annual average loans increased $10.78 million to $912.36 million during 2010, and the average yield on the loan portfolio decreased by only 13 basis points to 5.18% during 2010, in spite of the very low interest rate environment.


Average deposits increased $49.73 million to $1.05 billion during 2010. Of this increase in average deposits, $14.88 million, or 29.9%, was in non-interest bearing demand deposits. The average cost of interest bearing deposits dropped by 47 basis points to 0.61% during 2010. Average time deposits as a percentage of total average deposits decreased to 35.6% for 2010 compared to 40.7% for 2009. Average balances during 2010 increased $63.87 million, and, because these balances are priced as part of an overall relationship, the average cost of these deposits increased 37 basis points to 0.94% during 2010.


We prepaid a total of $46.50 million in long-term securities sold under agreements to repurchase at an average rate of 3.74% during the fourth quarter of 2010. We incurred a prepayment penalty of $3.07 million in conjunction with the prepayment. Because the entire prepayment occurred in the fourth quarter of 2010 and $20 million was on the last day of the year, the annual average balance in this category decreased by $3.94 million.




26


We closed our private placement of an aggregate of $20 million of trust preferred securities on December 15, 2004. The securities carried a fixed rate of interest at 5.95% through December 2009, at which time the rate became variable and adjusts quarterly at a fixed spread over three-month LIBOR. We entered into two interest rate swap arrangements for our trust preferred issuance. The swaps fix the interest rate on $10 million at 6.50% for three years and at 5.23% for seven years for the balance of $10 million. The swaps were effective beginning on December 15, 2009. Our blended cost of the trust preferred issuance beginning in December 2009 was 5.87% for a five-year average term. The impact on net interest income for 2011, 2010 and 2009 from the interest expense on the trust preferred securities was $1.19 million per year. The trust preferred securities mature on December 31, 2034, and are redeemable without penalty at our option, subject to prior approval by the FRB.




27


The following table presents an analysis of net interest income and illustrates interest income earned and interest expense charged for each major component of interest earning assets and interest bearing liabilities. Yields/rates are computed on a fully taxable-equivalent basis, using a 35% rate. Nonaccrual loans are included in the average loan balance outstanding.


Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity; Interest Rates and Net Interest Margin


 

 

2011

 

2010

 

2009

 

 

 

 

Interest

 

Average

 

 

 

Interest

 

Average

 

  

 

Interest

 

Average

Taxable equivalent

 

Average

 

Income/

 

Yield/

 

Average

 

Income/

 

Yield/

 

Average

 

Income/

 

Yield/

(In thousands)

 

Balance

 

Expense

 

Rate

 

Balance

 

Expense

 

Rate

 

Balance

 

Expense

 

Rate

ASSETS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Loans, including fees on loans(a)(b)

 

$

971,003

 

$

47,201 

 

4.86%

 

$

912,363 

 

$

47,234 

 

5.18%

 

$

901,582 

 

$

47,911 

 

5.31%

  Investments (c)

 

 

436,170

 

 

12,644 

 

2.90%

 

 

437,058 

 

 

14,140 

 

3.24%

 

 

388,215 

 

 

18,587 

 

4.79%

  Federal funds sold, securities sold under
   agreements to repurchase and interest
   bearing deposits with banks

 

 

54,186

 

 

103 

 

0.19%

 

 

30,054 

 

 

81 

 

0.27%

 

 

36,529 

 

 

107 

 

0.29%

      Total earning assets

 

 

1,461,359

 

$

59,948 

 

4.10%

 

 

1,379,475 

 

$

61,455 

 

4.45%

 

 

1,326,326 

 

$

66,605 

 

5.02%

  Allowance for loan losses

 

 

(10,432)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(10,609)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(10,430)

 

 

 

 

 

  Cash and cash equivalents

 

 

10,686

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24,460 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25,857 

 

 

 

 

 

  Premises and equipment

 

 

14,263

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13,583 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11,935 

 

 

 

 

 

  Other assets

 

 

31,780

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31,821 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22,366 

 

 

 

 

 

      Total assets

 

$

1,507,656

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

1,438,730 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

1,376,054 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS
 EQUITY:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Interest bearing deposits:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Savings, money market & NOW
      accounts

 

$

599,296

 

$

1,167 

 

0.19%

 

$

548,788 

 

$

1,461 

 

0.27%

 

$

479,951 

 

$

1,901 

 

0.40%

    Time deposits

 

 

357,848

 

 

3,307 

 

0.92%

 

 

374,768 

 

 

4,153 

 

1.11%

 

 

408,761 

 

 

7,704 

 

1.88%

      Total interest bearing deposits

 

 

957,144

 

 

4,474 

 

0.47%

 

 

923,556 

 

 

5,614 

 

0.61%

 

 

888,712 

 

 

9,605 

 

1.08%

  Federal funds purchased and FHLB
   short-term borrowings

 

 

2,153

 

 

 

0.05%

 

 

2,730 

 

 

 

0.15%

 

 

7,100 

 

 

20 

 

0.29%

  Securities sold under agreements to
   repurchase, short-term

 

 

217,823

 

 

2,064 

 

0.95%

 

 

172,165 

 

 

1,619 

 

0.94%

 

 

108,295 

 

 

621 

 

0.57%

  Securities sold under agreements to
   repurchase, long-term

 

 

4,726

 

 

141 

 

2.98%

 

 

50,056 

 

 

1,818 

 

3.63%

 

 

54,000 

 

 

1,970 

 

3.65%

  Other long-term debt

 

 

28,117

 

 

773 

 

2.75%

 

 

31,179 

 

 

863 

 

2.77%

 

 

83,676 

 

 

2,818 

 

3.37%

  Junior subordinated debentures issued to
   unconsolidated subsidiary trust

 

 

20,619

 

 

1,191 

 

5.87%

 

 

20,619 

 

 

1,189 

 

5.86%

 

 

20,619 

 

 

1,190 

 

5.87%

Total borrowed funds

 

 

273,438

 

 

4,170 

 

1.52%

 

 

276,749 

 

 

5,493 

 

1.98%

 

 

273,690 

 

 

6,619 

 

2.42%

      Total interest bearing liabilities

 

 

1,230,582

 

$

8,644 

 

0.70%

 

 

1,200,305 

 

$

11,107 

 

0.93%

 

 

1,162,402 

 

$

16,224 

 

1.40%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Demand deposits

 

 

163,090

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

129,947 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115,066 

 

 

 

 

 

  Other liabilities

 

 

10,345

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12,898 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13,880 

 

 

 

 

 

  Shareholders' equity

 

 

103,639

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95,580 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84,706 

 

 

 

 

 

      Total liabilities & shareholders' equity

 

$

1,507,656

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

1,438,730 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

1,376,054 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net interest income, FTE (b)

 

 

 

 

$

51,304 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

50,348 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

50,381 

 

 

Tax equivalent adjustment

 

 

 

 

 

(1,930)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1,193)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(265)

 

 

Net interest income, GAAP

 

 

 

 

$

49,374 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

49,155 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$

50,116 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yield spread

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.40%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.53%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.62%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net interest margin (b)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.51%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.65%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.80%


(a)

Includes principal balance of non-accrual loans and fees on loans.

(b)

Tax exempt interest has been converted to a tax equivalent basis using the Federal tax rate of 35%.

(c)

Includes taxable available for sale securities and held to maturity securities both at amortized cost.  Includes FHLB stock.




28



The following table presents the extent to which changes in interest rates and changes in the volume of earning assets and interest bearing liabilities have affected interest income and interest expense during the periods indicated. Information is presented in each category with respect to: (i) changes attributable to changes in volume (changes in volume multiplied by prior rate), (ii) changes attributable to changes in rate (changes in rate multiplied by prior volume) and (iii) changes in volume/rate (change in volume multiplied by change in rate).


Analysis of Changes in Fully Taxable Equivalent Net Interest Income


 

2011 vs 2010

 

 

 

Due to

 

 

 

Increase

 

 

Volume/

(In thousands)

2011

2010

(Decrease)

Volume

Rate

Rate

Fully taxable equivalent interest income:

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Loans

$  47,201 

$  47,234 

$      (33)

$  3,036 

$ (2,884)

$     (185)

  Investments

12,644 

14,140 

(1,496)

(29)

(1,470)

  Federal funds sold, securities sold under
   agreements to repurchase and interest
   bearing deposits with banks

103 

81 

22 

65 

(24)

(19)

      Total interest income

59,948 

61,455 

(1,507)

3,072 

(4,378)

(201)

Less interest expense:

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Savings, money market & NOW accounts

1,167 

1,461 

(294)

134 

(393)

(35)

  Time deposits

3,307 

4,153 

(846)

(188)

(690)

32 

  Federal funds purchased and FHLB short-term
   borrowings

(3)

(1)

(3)

  Securities sold under agreements to repurchase,
   short-term

2,064 

1,619 

445 

429 

12 

  Securities sold under agreements to repurchase,
   long-term

141 

1,818 

(1,677)

(1,646)

(328)

297 

  Other long-term debt

773 

863 

(90)

(85)

(5)

  Junior subordinated debentures issued to
   unconsolidated subsidiary trust

1,191 

1,189 

      Total interest expense

8,644 

11,107 

(2,463)

(1,357)

(1,405)

299 

      Net interest income

$  51,304 

$  50,348 

$     956 

$  4,429 

$ (2,973)

$     (500)


 

2010 vs 2009

 

 

 

Due to

 

 

 

Increase

 

 

Volume/

(In thousands)

2010

2009

(Decrease)

Volume

Rate

Rate

Fully taxable equivalent interest income:

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Loans

$  47,234 

$  47,911 

$   (677)

$    573 

$ (1,235)

$      (15)

  Investments

14,140 

18,587 

(4,447)

2,339 

(6,028)

(758)

  Federal funds sold, securities sold under

 

 

 

 

 

 

   agreements to repurchase and interest

 

 

 

 

 

 

   bearing deposits with banks

81 

107 

(26)

(19)

(8)

      Total interest income

61,455 

66,605 

(5,150)

2,893 

(7,271)

(772)

Less interest expense:

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Savings, money market & NOW accounts

1,461 

1,901 

(440)

273 

(623)

(90)

  Time deposits

4,153 

7,704 

(3,551)

(641) 

(3,174)

264

  Federal funds purchased and FHLB short-term
   borrowings

20 

(16)

(13)

(10)

  Securities sold under agreements to repurchase,
   short-term

1,619 

621 

998 

366 

398 

234 

  Securities sold under agreements to repurchase,
   long-term

1,818 

1,970 

(152)

(144)

(9)

  Other long-term debt

863 

2,818 

(1,955)

(1,768)

(502)

315 

  Junior subordinated debentures issued to
   unconsolidated subsidiary trust

1,189 

1,190 

(1)

(1)

      Total interest expense

11,107 

16,224 

(5,117)

(1,927)

(3,920)

730 

      Net interest income

$  50,348 

$  50,381 

$     (33)

$ 4,820 

$ (3,351)

$ (1,502)




29



Provision for Credit Losses

The allowance for loan losses at December 31, 2011 was $10.62 million, or 1.03% of total loans and 423% of non-performing loans compared to the December 31, 2010 balance of $10.14 million, or 1.11% of total loans and 247% of non-performing loans. We recorded a provision of $750 thousand during 2011 compared to a negative provision for credit losses of $1.75 million during 2010. Although our asset quality remained strong during 2011, our continued strong loan growth during the year was the primary reason for the provision during 2011. Nonperforming assets totaled $2.87 million, or 0.18% of total assets, at December 31, 2011 compared to $4.30 million, or 0.29% of total assets, at the December 31, 2010. Net charge-offs for 2011 were $151 thousand, compared to net recoveries of previously charged-off loans of $802 thousand during 2010. Loans past due 30-89 days were $213 thousand at December 31, 2011, compared to $1.29 million at December 31, 2010. Additionally, accruing substandard loans decreased to $12.41 million at December 31, 2011, compared to $18.07 million at December 31, 2010. We had $358 thousand in other real estate owned (“OREO”) at December 31, 2011 and $191 thousand at December 31, 2010. All of these factors are taken into consideration during Management’s quarterly review of the Allowance. For a more detailed discussion of our Allowance and nonperforming assets, see “Credit Quality and Allowance for Credit Losses.”


NONINTEREST INCOME AND EXPENSES


Noninterest income


2011 compared to 2010

Total noninterest income decreased to $10.38 million for 2011 from $11.63 million for 2010. Excluding net gains (losses) on security sales and other than temporary impairment losses, noninterest income decreased to $9.39 million for 2011 from $9.72 million for 2010. Income from our Trust division increased to $2.52 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, compared to $2.16 million for 2010, a result of a combination of increased sales and improved market performance. Revenue related to service charges on deposits decreased to $4.30 million for 2011, compared to $4.93 million for 2010. The decrease is a result of legislative changes restricting overdrafts that went into effect on August 15, 2010. Net overdraft fee revenue decreased to $3.43 million for 2011, compared to $4.05 million for 2010. Other noninterest income increased slightly to $4.34 million from $4.30 million, a result of increased net debit card income of $75 thousand offset by other smaller decreases.


Our equity in losses of real estate limited partnerships was $1.77 million for 2011 compared to $1.67 million for 2010. We account for our investment in these partnerships using the equity method. Losses generated by the partnerships are recorded as a reduction in our investments in the Consolidated Balance Sheets and as a reduction of noninterest income in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Tax credits generated by the partnerships are recorded as a reduction in the income tax provision. We find these investments attractive because they provide a high targeted internal rate of return, and provide an opportunity to invest in affordable housing in the communities in which we do business.


2010 compared to 2009

Our noninterest income increased to $11.63 million for 2010 compared to $10.32 million for 2009. Excluding net gains on security sales and other-than-temporary impairment losses, noninterest income increased to $9.72 million for 2010 from $9.10 million for 2009. Income from our Trust division increased to $2.16 million for 2010 compared to $1.72 million for 2009. This increase was a result of a combination of increased sales and improved market performance. Revenue related to service charges on deposits decreased to $4.93 million for 2010 compared to $5.67 million for 2009. This decrease is primarily a result of legislative changes relating to overdrafts that went into effect on August 15, 2010. Net overdraft fee revenue for 2010 decreased to $4.05 million compared to $4.73 million for 2009. Other noninterest income increased to $4.30 million for 2010 compared to $3.75 million for 2009. This increase was primarily a result of increased net debit card income. Our equity in losses of real estate limited partnerships was $1.67 million for 2010 compared to $2.05 million for 2009.




30


Noninterest expense


2011 compared to 2010

Total noninterest expense decreased to $41.26 million from $42.43 million for 2011 compared to 2010. There were a number of increases and decreases that contributed to this overall decrease.


Ø

The largest change for 2011 compared to 2010 was a result of decreased prepayment penalties in 2011 compared to 2010. We prepaid a total of $16.00 million in long-term debt during 2011 and incurred prepayment penalties of $861 thousand as a result. We prepaid a total of $46.50 million in long-term debt during 2010 and incurred prepayment penalties of $3.07 million.

Ø

Compensation and benefits were $20.52 million for 2011 compared to $20.50 million for 2010.

Ø

Occupancy and equipment expenses increased to $7.19 million for 2011 compared to $6.64 million for 2010 as a result of capital investments, which we expect will provide us with additional operating efficiencies and revenue enhancement opportunities.

Ø

Legal and professional fees increased to $2.81 million for 2011 compared to $2.44 million for 2010 as consultants were retained to help us explore opportunities for expense reductions and improved operating efficiencies.

Ø

FDIC insurance expense for 2011 decreased to $936 thousand from $1.42 million for 2010 as a result of new deposit insurance assessment rules that went into effect on April 1, 2011.

Ø

OREO expense for 2011 was $193 thousand, compared to expense recoveries and gains during 2010 related to sales of OREO properties leading to a negative expense of $298 thousand.

Ø

Other noninterest expenses were $5.75 million for 2011 compared to $6.01 million for 2010. The primary reason for the decrease was the final disposition of our flood damaged branch in Wilmington, Vermont. We sold the branch for $90 thousand during 2011 and received insurance proceeds of $298 thousand. In total, we booked a gain of approximately $152 thousand related to this branch.


2010 compared to 2009

Our noninterest expense increased to $42.43 million for 2010 from $40.10 million for 2009. There were a number of changes in various categories that contributed to this overall increase. The largest increase for 2010 was due to a $3.07 million prepayment penalty incurred as a result of prepaying $46.50 million in long-term debt. This compared to prepayment penalties on long-term debt totaling $1.55 million for 2009. Compensation and benefits increased to $20.50 million for 2010 compared to $18.86 million for 2009. We added staff in our corporate banking and trust areas during 2010. Additionally, our strong results for 2010 compared to 2009 led to a higher incentive accrual for 2010. Our FDIC insurance expense for 2010 was lower than 2009 as a result of the $630 thousand special assessment recorded during the second quarter of 2009. Additionally, we booked expense recoveries and gains during 2010 related to sales of OREO properties, leading to an expense recovery of $298 thousand compared to an expense of $142 thousand for 2009.


Income Taxes

We recognized $2.60 million, $2.03 million and $1.80 million, respectively, during 2011, 2010, and 2009, in low-income housing, historic rehabilitation and qualified school construction bond tax credits as a reduction in the provision for income taxes. This resulted in an effective tax rate of 17.6%, 23.1% and 23.1%, for 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. As of December 31, 2011, we had a net deferred tax asset of $3.45 million arising from temporary differences between our book and tax reporting. This net deferred tax asset is included in other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


BALANCE SHEET ANALYSIS


Our year-end total assets increased $124.23 million, or 8.3%, to $1.61 billion at December 31, 2011 from $1.49 billion at December 31, 2010, while our average earning assets increased by $81.88 million, or 5.9%, to $1.46 billion at December 31, 2011 from $1.38 billion at December 31, 2010.


Loans

Average loans for 2011 were $971.00 million, a $58.64 million increase over average loans for 2010 of $912.36 million. Loans at December 31, 2011 totaled $1.03 billion, a $116.83 million increase over 2010 ending balances of $910.79 million. We focused on growing our commercial and municipal loan portfolio in 2011 and the growth in these portfolios reflects the acquisition of new customers and growth within our existing customer base. Residential loan growth was concentrated in the last six months of 2011 and was driven by increased first mortgage refinance volume due to the very low interest rate environment.




31


The composition of our loan portfolio is shown in the following table:


 

As of December 31,

(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

2008   

2007   

Commercial, financial & agricultural

$   146,990

$  112,514

$  113,980

$  126,266

$    90,751

Municipal

101,705

67,861

44,753

2,766

1,989

Real estate – residential

439,818

422,981

435,273

395,834

356,472

Real estate – commercial

313,915

284,296

290,737

273,526

234,675

Real estate – construction

18,993

16,420

25,146

40,357

39,347

Installment

5,806

6,284

7,711

7,670

7,220

All other loans

399

438

938

708

1,054

 

$1,027,626

$  910,794

$  918,538

$  847,127

$  731,508

Totals above are shown net of deferred loans fees of $11 thousand, $(80) thousand, $(140) thousand, $(74) thousand and $22 thousand for 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.


Balances outstanding to municipalities and schools grew to $101.71 million at December 31, 2011 from $72.26 million at December 31, 2010. The majority of loans in this category consist of short-term notes with repayment generally derived from voter-approved tax payments. These credits are fully underwritten and typically reflect lower inherent risk due to the short-term nature of the loan and the taxing authority of the municipal borrower.


At December 31, 2011, we serviced $1.78 million in residential mortgage loans for investors such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”), and other financial investors and government agencies. This servicing portfolio continued to decrease during 2011. We have not sold a residential mortgage on the secondary market in over ten years. We do not expected servicing revenue to be a significant revenue source in the future.


The following table presents the contractual maturities of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2011:


(In thousands)

One Year
Or Less

Over One
Through
5 Years

Over Five
Years

Total

Commercial financial & agricultural

$  47,906

$  79,241

$  19,843

$   146,990

Municipal

 69,975

 7,815

 23,915

101,705

Real estate – residential

 8,442

 55,401

 375,975

439,818

Real estate – commercial

 17,175

 200,191

 96,549

313,915

Real estate – construction

 7,068

 4,910

 7,015

18,993

Installment

 3,243

 2,484

 79

5,806

All other loans

 399

 0

 0

399

 

 $154,208

 $350,042

 $523,376

$1,027,626


The following table presents loans maturing after one year that have predetermined interest rates and floating or adjustable interest rates as of December 31, 2011:


(In thousands)

Fixed

Adjustable

Commercial financial & agricultural

$  48,857

$  50,227

Municipal

31,730

0

Real estate – residential

394,769

36,607

Real estate – commercial

183,344

113,395

Real estate – construction

778

11,148

Installment

2,560

3

 

$662,038

$211,380



32


Investments

The investment portfolio is used to generate interest income, manage liquidity and mitigate interest rate sensitivity. Our investment portfolio totaled $512.31 million at December 31, 2011, an increase of $45.55 million from the December 31, 2010 ending balance of $466.76 million.


We purchased bonds with a total book value of $358.91 million during 2011; all bonds purchased during the year were agency-backed paper. We sold bonds with a book value of $131.86 million during 2011 for a net pre-tax gain of $1.05 million; these trades allowed us to lock in gains on faster paying mortgage-backed securities, and helped us to reduce our exposure to premium write-off in the portfolio. All but $6.11 million of the bonds in our portfolio carry some type of agency guarantee.


The composition of our investment portfolio at carrying amounts is shown in the following table:


 

As of December 31,

(In thousands)

2011

2010

2009

Available for Sale:

 

U.S. Treasury Obligations

$       250

$       250

$       250

U.S. Agency Obligations

90,419

47,788

40,378

FHLB Obligations

16,676

11,457

13,249

Agency Residential Real Estate Mortgage-backed
  Securities (“Agency MBSs”)

183,838

174,907

190,995

Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligations
  (“Agency CMOs”)

214,480

224,268

153,041

Non-agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligations
  (“Non-agency CMOs”)

4,855

5,852

6,862

Asset Backed Securities (“ABSs”)

1,233

1,440

2,877

   Total available for sale

511,751

465,962

407,652

Held to maturity:

 

 

 

Agency MBSs

558

794

1,159

   Total held to maturity

558

794

1,159

Total Securities

$512,309

$466,756

$408,811


Agency MBSs and agency CMOs consist of pools of residential mortgages which are guaranteed by the FNMA, FHLMC, or Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”) with various origination dates and maturities. Non-agency CMOs and ABSs are tracked individually by our investment advisor with updates on the performance of the underlying collateral provided at least quarterly. Additionally, our investment advisor performs stress testing of individual bonds that experience greater levels of market volatility.


We use an external pricing service to obtain fair market values for our investment portfolio. We have obtained and reviewed the service provider’s pricing and reference data document. Evaluations are based on market data and vary by asset class and incorporate available trade, bid and other market information. Because many fixed income securities do not trade on a daily basis, the service provider’s evaluated pricing applications apply available information as applicable through processes such as benchmark curves, benchmarking of like securities, sector groupings, and matrix pricing, to prepare evaluations. In addition, model processes, such as the Option Adjusted Spread model are used to assess interest rate impact and develop prepayment scenarios. We test the values provided to us by the pricing service through a combination of back testing on actual sales of securities and by obtaining prices on selected bonds from an alternative pricing source.


Our investment portfolio consists almost entirely of U.S. Treasury and Agency obligations, or Agency-guaranteed mortgage securities. We have two non-agency CMOs with a current book value of $5.30 million and one non-agency ABS with a current book value of $816 thousand. We have performed extensive impairment analyses on all three of these bonds with the assistance of an additional outside expert that specializes in valuing these types of securities. The outside expert performed an in-depth analysis of the underlying collateral and, based on that analysis formulated collateral performance assumptions regarding the likely magnitude and timing of defaults, severities and prepayments. Those assumptions were fed into a model that incorporates all aspects of the deal structure and waterfall and produces a cash flow projection. Data provided by the trustee and the servicer was examined and consideration given to both performance to date characteristics and loan credit characteristics such as the loan to value (“LTV”) ratio, FICO score, geographic location, modification status and vintage, among others. The collateral was divided into several distinct buckets and different default, recovery and prepayment assumptions were applied to each of the buckets. The collateral features weighted most heavily, because they are the most determinative of future performance, were: original LTV, underlying property location, current loan status, and loan modification status. Different liquidation curves, default rates and loss severity assumptions were applied to each bucket.




33


One of the non-Agency CMOs, with a cost basis of $3.55 million and a fair value of $3.30 million at December 31, 2011, is rated BBB by Fitch and Baa3 by Moody’s. Delinquencies have been fairly low and prepayment speeds for the bond during 2011 have been rapid leading to increased credit support. We own a senior tranche in this bond, although losses are expected in the bond overall, our position in the structure of the bond is expected to protect us from realizing losses. The second bond has a cost basis of $1.75 million and a fair value of $1.51 million. This bond is rated CCC by Fitch and BBB- by S&P. We own a super senior tranche in this bond, although losses are expected in the bond overall, our super senior position in the structure is expected to protect us from realizing losses. The third non-agency bond in our portfolio has an adjusted cost basis of $816 thousand and a fair value of $816 thousand. The bond has insurance backing from Ambac. However, because of Ambac’s uncertain financial status, we place no reliance on the insurance wrap in our impairment analysis. The bond is rated CC by Standard & Poor’s and Caa2 by Moody’s. This is the only bond in our portfolio with subprime exposure and we expect that we will incur losses on this bond. As a result, we have recorded a total of $177 thousand in impairment charges on this bond, the total amount of the principal write downs we expect to experience. We have taken charges of $55 thousand, $80 thousand and $42 thousand during 2011, 2010 and 2008, respectively.


We do not intend to sell the investment securities that are in an unrealized loss position, and it is unlikely that we will be required to sell the investment securities before recovery of their amortized cost bases, which may be maturity.


The contractual final maturity distribution of the debt securities classified as available for sale and held to maturity as of December 31, 2011, are as follows:


SECURITIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE (at fair value):


(In thousands)

Within
One Year

After One
But Within
Five Years

After Five
But Within
Ten Years

After Ten
Years

Total

U.S. Treasury Obligations

$   250

$         0

$           0

$           0

$       250

U.S. Agency Obligations

3,023

12,567

69,823

5,006

90,419

FHLB Obligations

3,389

0

13,287

0

16,676

Agency MBSs

20

6,118

32,897

144,803

183,838

Agency CMOs

0

0

3,056

211,424

214,480

Non-agency CMOs

0

0

50

4,805

4,855

ABSs

0

0

0

1,233

1,233

 

$6,682

$18,685

$119,113

$367,271

$511,751

Weighted average investment yield

3.53%

2.75%

2.56%

2.52%

 


SECURITIES HELD TO MATURITY (at amortized cost):


(In thousands)

Within
One Year

After One
But Within
Five Years

After Five
But Within
Ten Years

After Ten
Years

Total

Agency MBSs

$    0

$     158

$    0

$       400

$       558

Weighted average investment yield

0

6.78%

0

6.52%

 


Actual maturities will differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have rights to call or prepay obligations. Maturities of mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations are based on final contractual maturities.


As a member of the FHLB system, we are required to invest in stock of the FHLB of Boston (the “FHLBB”) in an amount determined based on our borrowings from the FHLBB. At December 31, 2011, our investment in FHLBB stock totaled $8.63 million. During 2011, the FHLBB announced that it would resume paying dividends on its stock. Dividend income on FHLBB stock of $32 thousand was recorded during 2011 and no dividend income was recorded during 2010. The FHLBB continues to be classified as “adequately capitalized” by its primary regulator. The FHLBB announced its eighth consecutive profitable quarter and its fourth consecutive dividend payment on October 27, 2011. Based on current available information, we have concluded that our investment in FHLBB stock is not impaired. We will continue to monitor our investment in FHLBB stock.




34


Other Assets

Bank Premises and Equipment decreased to $14.23 million at December 31, 2011 from $14.37 million at year-end 2010. During 2011, our branch in Wilmington, Vermont, was heavily damaged by Tropical Storm Irene. We have relocated our branch in that town to a new location and sold our flood damaged building at a small gain over its net book value.


Investments in Real Estate Limited Partnerships decreased $64 thousand due to amortization of existing investments. These partnerships provide affordable housing in the communities in which we do business, and provide us with an acceptable level of return on our investment.


We entered into a sale leaseback arrangement for our principal office in South Burlington, Vermont, in June 2008. Deferred gains on the sale leaseback transaction resulted in a $423 thousand offset to rent expense per year through 2015 and $1.06 million thereafter.


Deposits

Our year-end deposit balances increased to a record high of $1.18 billion, or 7.8%, from December 31, 2010 balances of $1.09 billion. The composition of our deposit balances is shown in the following table:


 

As of December 31,

(In thousands)

2011    

2010    

2009    

Demand

$   197,522

$   141,412

$   119,742

Free Checking for Life®

 247,341

 239,016

234,028

Other savings and NOW

 78,885

 55,947

47,837

Money market accounts

 305,884

 289,618

247,169

Time deposits

 348,248

 366,203

394,543

 

 $1,177,880

 $1,092,196

$1,043,319


We experienced growth in transaction accounts led by business and retail balances, during 2011. Demand deposits increased by $56.11 million, or 39.7%, to $197.52 million at year end 2011 from $141.41 million at the end of 2010, due in part to the migration away from time deposit categories during 2011. Time deposits decreased to 29.6% of total deposits at December 31, 2011 from 33.5% of total deposits at December 31, 2010.


Time deposits of $100 thousand and greater at December 31, 2011 and 2010 had the following schedule of maturities:


 

As of December 31,

(In thousands)

2011    

2010    

Three months or less

$  32,836

$  34,265

Three to six months

26,169

27,121

Six to twelve months

39,103

43,413

One to five years

29,195

22,950

 

$127,303

$127,749


Other Liabilities

Balances in our cash management sweep product totaled $262.53 million at December 31, 2011 compared to $224.69 million at December 31, 2010. The balances are included with “Securities sold under agreements to repurchase” on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The 16.8% increase is attributable to new and expanded municipal banking relationships. As mentioned previously, we prepaid the remainder of our long-term securities sold under agreements to repurchase of $7.50 million, reducing that funding source to zero at December 31, 2011 from $7.50 million at December 31, 2010. Additionally, we prepaid $8.50 million in long-term debt during 2011 contributing to the decrease of $8.58 million in that category.




35


On December 15, 2004, we closed our private placement of an aggregate of $20 million of trust preferred securities. The placement occurred through a newly-formed Delaware statutory trust affiliate, MBVT Statutory Trust I (the “Trust”) as part of a pooled trust preferred program. The Trust was formed for the sole purpose of issuing capital securities; these securities are non-voting. We own all of the common securities of the Trust. The proceeds from the sale of the capital securities were loaned to us under subordinated debentures issued to the Trust. The debentures are the only asset of the Trust and payments under the debentures are the sole revenue of the Trust. Our primary source of funds to pay interest on the debentures held by the Trust is current dividends from our principal subsidiary, Merchants Bank. Accordingly, our ability to service the debentures is dependent upon the continued ability of Merchants Bank to pay dividends to us.


These hybrid securities qualify as regulatory capital, up to certain regulatory limits. At the same time, they are considered debt for tax purposes, and as such, interest payments are fully deductible. The trust preferred securities total $20.62 million, and carried a fixed rate of interest through December 2009, at which time the rate became variable and adjusts quarterly at a fixed spread over three-month LIBOR. We entered into two interest rate swap arrangements for our trust preferred issuance. The swaps fix the interest rate on $10 million at 6.50% for three years and at 5.23% for seven years for the balance of $10 million. The swaps were effective beginning on December 15, 2009. The trust preferred securities mature on December 31, 2034, and were redeemable at our option, subject to prior approval by the FRB, beginning in December 2009.


CREDIT QUALITY AND ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES


The United States economy showed slight improvement during 2011, although high unemployment and foreclosure rates continued in certain parts of the country. Although Vermont, our primary market, has not been immune to this economic turmoil, the state has one of the lowest foreclosure rates in the country, home price depreciation has been muted, and the unemployment rate is lower than the national average.


Credit quality

Credit quality is a major strategic focus of ours. Although we actively manage current nonperforming and classified loans, there is no assurance that we will not have increased levels of problem assets in the future. The make up of the nonperforming pool is dynamic with accounts moving in and out of this category over time. The following table summarizes our nonperforming loans (“NPL”) and nonperforming assets (“NPA”) as of December 31, 2007, through December 31, 2011:


(In thousands)

2011  

2010  

2009  

2008  

2007  

Nonaccrual loans

$1,953

$3,171

$13,412

$  9,361

$1,409

Loans greater than 90 days and accruing

0

384

88

57

57

Troubled debt restructured loans

558

549

981

2,225

7,765

      Total nonperforming loans

2,511

4,104

14,481

11,643

9,231

OREO

358

191

655

802

475

      Total nonperforming assets

$2,869

$4,295

$15,136

$12,445

$9,706


Non-performing loans at December 31, 2011 were $2.51 million, a decrease of $1.59 million from December 31, 2010 balances of $4.10 million. The reduction was the result of successful work out arrangements with various borrowers involving asset sales or refinancing through a third party. Of the total $2.51 million in nonperforming loans in the table above, $1.99 million are residential mortgages. Our residential first lien mortgage portfolio consists entirely of traditional mortgages which are fully documented and underwritten.


We take a proactive risk management approach by conducting periodic stress-testing of the existing residential loan portfolio and adjusting underwriting requirements, if necessary, based upon the results of the analysis. The assumptions used in the stress testing include: credit score migration; calculation of possible losses using conservative assumptions of market decline; review of life-of-loan delinquency levels relative to loan size and credit score; analysis of the portfolio by loan size, and distribution within the portfolio by loan-to-value ratios. Based upon the results of assessments of the residential loan portfolio conducted in 2011 and 2010, Management concluded that current reserve levels were adequate.




36


Our analysis indicates that, through a combination of estimated collateral value and, where needed, an appropriately allocated reserve, any additional loss exposure on current non-accruing loans is minimal.


Troubled debt restructurings (“TDR”) represent balances where the existing loan was modified involving a concession in rate, term or payment amount due to the distressed financial condition of the borrower. There were seven restructured residential mortgages at December 31, 2011 with balances totaling $558 thousand, compared to four borrowers at December 31, 2010 with balances totaling $403 thousand. Five TDRs at December 31, 2011 continue to pay as agreed according to the modified terms and are considered well-secured, while two are in foreclosure. It is expected that these two properties will be auctioned during the first and second quarters of 2012.


OREO at December 31, 2011 totaled $358 thousand and consists of two residential properties and one commercial parcel of land. All OREO is marketed for sale and is carried at estimated fair value less estimated costs to sell.


Excluded from the nonperforming balances discussed above are our loans that are 30 to 89 days past due, which are not necessarily considered classified or impaired. Loans 30 to 89 days past due as a percentage of total loans as of the periods indicated are presented in the following table:


Year Ended

 

30-89 Days

December 31, 2011

 

0.02%

December 31, 2010

 

0.14%

December 31, 2009

 

0.09%

December 31, 2008

 

0.16%

December 31, 2007

 

0.09%


Loans, including impaired loans, are generally classified as nonaccrual if they are past due as to maturity or payment of principal or interest for a period of more than 90 days. If a loan or a portion of a loan is internally classified as impaired or is partially charged-off, the loan is classified as nonaccrual. Loans that are on a current payment status or past due less than 90 days may also be classified as nonaccrual if repayment in full of principal and/or interest is in doubt. Income accruals are suspended on all nonaccruing loans, and all previously accrued and uncollected interest is charged against current income.


Loans may be returned to accrual status when there is a sustained period of repayment performance (generally a minimum of six months) by the borrower, in accordance with the contractual terms of the loans and all principal and interest amounts contractually due, including arrearages, are reasonably assured of repayment within an acceptable period of time.


While a loan is classified as nonaccrual and the future collectability of the recorded loan balance is uncertain, any payments received are generally applied to reduce the principal balance. When the future collectability of the recorded loan balance is expected, interest income may be recognized on a cash basis. In the case where a nonaccrual loan had been partially charged-off, recognition of interest on a cash basis is limited to that which would have been recognized on the recorded loan balance at the contractual interest rate. Interest collections in excess of that amount are recorded as a reduction of principal.


A loan remains in nonaccruing status until the factors which suggest doubtful collectability no longer exist, the loan is liquidated, or when the loan is determined to be uncollectible, and is charged off against the allowance for loan losses. In those cases where a nonaccruing loan is secured by real estate, we can, and may, initiate foreclosure proceedings. The result of such action will either be to cause repayment of the loan with the proceeds of a foreclosure sale or to give us possession of the collateral in order to manage a future resale of the real estate. Foreclosed property is recorded at the lower of its cost or estimated fair value, less any estimated costs to sell. Any cost in excess of the estimated fair value on the transfer date is charged to the allowance for loan losses, while further declines in market values are recorded as OREO expense in the consolidated statement of income. Impaired loans, which primarily consist of non-accruing residential mortgage and commercial real estate loans, totaled $2.51 million and $4.10 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and are included as nonaccrual and TDR loans in the table above. At December 31, 2011, $885 thousand of impaired loans had specific reserve allocations totaling $227 thousand.


Substandard loans at December 31, 2011 totaled $13.98 million and include $1.57 million of the impaired loans discussed above and another $12.41 million of loans that continue to accrue interest. Loans identified as substandard have well-defined weaknesses that, if not addressed, could result in a loss. These accruing substandard loans have generally continued to pay promptly and Management conducts regularly scheduled comprehensive reviews of the borrowers’ financial condition, payment performance, accrual status and collateral. These reviews also ensure that these troubled accounts are properly administered with a focus on loss mitigation and that any potential loss exposures are appropriately quantified, and reserved for. The findings of this review process are a key component in assessing the adequacy of our loan loss reserve.




37


Accruing substandard loans at December 31, 2011 reflect a $5.66 million decrease in balances since December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2011, accruing substandard loans related to owner-occupied commercial real estate totaled $8.18 million, investor real estate loans totaled $2.33 million, commercial construction loans totaled $616 thousand, and $607 thousand in substandard loans are outstanding to corporate borrowers in a variety of different industries. Five borrowers in a variety of industries account for 68% of the total accruing substandard loans, and approximately $3.48 million of the total accruing substandard loans carry some form of government guarantee.


To date, with very few exceptions, all payments due from accruing substandard borrowers have been made as agreed and Management’s ongoing evaluation of these borrowers’ financial condition and collateral indicates a reasonable certainty that these exposures are adequately secured.


Merchants’ Management monitors asset quality closely and continuously performs detailed and extensive reviews on larger credits and problematic credits identified on the watched asset list, nonperforming asset listings and internal credit rating reports. In addition to frequent financial analysis and review of well-rated and adversely graded loans, Management incorporates active monitoring of key credit and non-credit risks for each customer, assessing risk through the daily reviews of overdrafts, delinquencies and usage of electronic banking products and tracking for timely receipt of all required financial statements.


Allowance for Credit Losses


The allowance for credit losses is made up of two components: the allowance for loan losses (“ALL”) and the reserve for undisbursed lines. The ALL is based on Management's estimate of the amount required to reflect the known and inherent risks in the loan portfolio, based on circumstances and conditions known at each reporting date. We review the adequacy of the ALL quarterly. Factors considered in evaluating the adequacy of the ALL include previous loss experience, the size and composition of the portfolio, risk rating composition, current economic and real estate market conditions and their effect on the borrowers, the performance of individual loans in relation to contractual terms and estimated fair values of properties that secure impaired loans.


The adequacy of the ALL is determined using a consistent, systematic methodology, consisting of a review of both specific reserves for loans identified as impaired and general reserves for the various loan portfolio classifications. When a loan is impaired, we determine its impairment loss by comparing the excess, if any, of the loan’s carrying amount over (1) the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate, (2) the observable market price of the impaired loan, or (3) the fair value of the collateral securing a collateral-dependent loan. When a loan is deemed to have an impairment loss, the loan is either charged down to its estimated net realizable value, or a specific reserve is established as part of the overall allowance for loan losses if Management needs more time to evaluate all of the facts and circumstances relevant to that particular loan.


The general allowance for loan losses is a percentage-based reflection of historical loss experience and assigns a required allocation by loan classification based on a fixed percentage of all outstanding loan balances. The general allowance for loan losses employs a risk-rating model that grades loans based on their general characteristics of credit quality and relative risk. Appropriate reserve levels are estimated based on Management’s judgments regarding the historical loss experience, current economic trends, trends in the portfolio mix, volume and trends in delinquencies and non-accrual loans.




38


The following table summarizes the allowance for loan losses allocated by loan type:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

2008   

2007   

Commercial financial &
 agricultural

$  2,412

$  2,112

$  3,106

$  2,840

$  1,843

Municipal

307

236

134

0

0

Real estate – residential

3,025

2,367

2,222

1,033

775

Real estate – commercial

4,442

5,098

4,943

4,254

4,204

Real estate – construction

393

277

349

542

1,070

Installment

23

24

39

4

4

All other loans

17

21

183

221

106

Allowance for loan losses

$10,619

$10,135

$10,976

$  8,894

$  8,002


Losses are charged against the ALL when Management believes that the collectability of principal is doubtful. To the extent Management determines the level of anticipated losses in the portfolio increased or diminished, the ALL is adjusted through current earnings. Overall, Management believes that the ALL is maintained at an adequate level, in light of historical and current factors, to reflect the level of credit risk in the loan portfolio. Loan loss experience and nonperforming asset data are presented and discussed in relation to their impact on the adequacy of the ALL.


The following table reflects our loan loss experience and activity in the Allowance for Credit Losses for the past five years:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

2008   

2007   

Average loans outstanding

$971,003 

$912,363 

$901,582 

$781,645 

$713,119 

Allowance beginning of year

10,754 

11,702 

9,311 

8,350 

7,281 

Charge-offs:

 

 

 

 

 

  Commercial, financial & agricultural
   and all other loans

(80)

(1,691)

(1,355)

(16)

(170)

  Real estate – residential

(83)

(25)

(255)

(28)

  Real estate – commercial

(60)

(259)

(258)

(242)

  Real estate – construction

(96)

(637)

  Installment

(10)

(2)

(8)

(20)

      Total charge-offs

(329)

(1,977)

(1,876)

(681)

(432)

Recoveries:

 

 

 

 

 

  Commercial, financial & agricultural
   and all other loans

101 

2,128 

110 

60 

271 

  Real estate – residential

20 

  Real estate – commercial

44 

31 

51 

56 

79 

  Real estate – construction

25 

593 

  Installment

      Total recoveries

178 

2,779 

167 

117 

351 

Net (charge-offs) recoveries

(151)

802 

(1,709)

(564)

(81)

Provision (credit) for credit losses

750 

(1,750)

4,100 

1,525 

1,150 

Allowance end of year

$  11,353 

$  10,754 

$  11,702 

$    9,311 

$    8,350 

Ratio of net charge-offs to average
 loans outstanding

(0.02)%

0.09 %

(0.19)%

(0.72)%

(0.01)%


Components:


Allowance for loan losses

$  10,619 

$  10,135 

$  10,976 

$    8,894 

 $    8,002 

Reserve for undisbursed lines of credit

734 

619 

726 

417 

348 

Allowance for credit losses

$  11,353 

$  10,754 

$  11,702 

$    9,311 

 $    8,350 


We recorded a provision for credit losses of $750 thousand during 2011 compared to a negative provision for credit losses of $1.75 million in 2010. The increase in the provision was primarily a result of our loan growth during 2011. Additionally, we experienced net charge-offs during 2011 of $151 thousand compared to net recoveries of $802 thousand for 2010.




39


The following table reflects our nonperforming asset and coverage ratios as of the dates indicated:


 

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

NPL to total loans

0.24%

0.45%

1.58%

1.37%

1.26%

NPA to total assets

0.18%

0.29%

1.05%

0.93%

0.83%

Allowance for loan losses to total loans

1.03%

1.11%

1.19%

1.05%

1.09%

Allowance for loan losses to NPL

423%

247%

76%

76%

87%


We will continue to take all appropriate measures to restore nonperforming assets to performing status or otherwise liquidate these assets in an orderly fashion so as to maximize their value. There can be no assurances that we will be able to complete the disposition of nonperforming assets without incurring further losses.


Loan Portfolio Monitoring

Our Board of Directors grants each loan officer the authority to originate loans on our behalf, subject to certain limitations. The Board of Directors also establishes restrictions regarding the types of loans that may be granted and the distribution of loan types within our portfolio, and sets loan authority limits for each lender. These authorized lending limits are reviewed at least annually and are based upon the lender's knowledge and experience. Loan requests that exceed a lender's authority require the signature of our credit division manager, senior loan officer, and/or our President. All extensions of credit of $4.0 million or greater to any one borrower, or related party interest, are reviewed and approved by the Loan Committee of Merchants Bank’s Board of Directors.


The Loan Committee and the credit department regularly monitor our loan portfolio. The entire loan portfolio, as well as individual loans, is reviewed for loan performance, compliance with internal policy requirements and banking regulations, creditworthiness, and strength of documentation. We monitor loan concentrations by individual borrowers, industries and loan types. As part of the annual credit policy review process, targets are set by loan type for the total portfolio. Credit risk ratings assessing inherent risk in individual loans are assigned to commercial loans at origination and are routinely reviewed by lenders and Management on a periodic basis according to total exposure and risk rating. These internal reviews assess the adequacy of all aspects of credit administration, additionally we maintain an on-going active monitoring process of loan performance during the year. We have also hired external loan review firms to assist in monitoring both the commercial and residential loan portfolios. The commercial loan review firm reviews at a minimum 60% in dollar volume of our commercial loan portfolio each year. These comprehensive reviews assessed the accuracy of our risk rating system as well as the effectiveness of credit administration in managing overall credit risks.


All loan officers are required to service their loan portfolios and account relationships. Loan officers, a commercial workout officer, or collection personnel take remedial actions to assure full and timely payment of loan balances as necessary, with the supervision of the Senior Lender and the Senior Credit Officer.


EFFECTS OF INFLATION


The financial nature of our consolidated balance sheet and statement of income is more clearly affected by changes in interest rates than by inflation, but inflation does affect us because as prices increase the money supply tends to increase, the size of loans requested tends to increase, total company assets increase, and interest rates are affected by inflationary expectations. In addition, operating expenses tend to increase without a corresponding increase in productivity. There is no precise method, however, to measure the effects of inflation on our financial statements. Accordingly, any examination or analysis of the financial statements should take into consideration the possible effects of inflation.


LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT


General

Liquid assets are maintained at levels considered adequate to meet our liquidity needs. Liquidity is adjusted as appropriate to meet asset and liability management objectives. Liquidity is monitored by the Asset and Liability Committee (“ALCO”) of Merchants Bank’s Board of Directors, based upon Merchants Bank’s policies. Our primary sources of liquidity are deposits, amortization and prepayment of loans, maturities of investment securities and other short-term investments, periodic principal repayments on mortgage-backed and other amortizing securities, advances from the FHLBB, and earnings and funds provided from operations. While scheduled principal repayments on loans are a relatively predictable source of funds, deposit flows and loan prepayments are greatly influenced by market interest rates, economic conditions, and rates offered by our competition. Interest rates on deposits are priced to maintain a desired level of total deposits.




40


As of December 31, 2011, we could borrow up to $44 million in overnight funds through unsecured borrowing lines established with correspondent banks. We have established both overnight and longer term lines of credit with FHLBB. FHLBB borrowings are secured by residential mortgage loans. The total amount of loans pledged to the FHLB for both short and long-term borrowing arrangements totaled $225.86 million at December 31, 2011. We have additional borrowing capacity with the FHLBB of $111.76 million as of December 31, 2011. We have also established a borrowing facility with the FRB which will enable us to borrow at the discount window. Additionally, we have the ability to borrow through the use of repurchase agreements, collateralized by Agency MBS and Agency CMO, with certain approved counterparties. Our investment portfolio, which is managed by the ALCO, has a book value of $501.97 million at December 31, 2011, of which $299.36 million was pledged. The portfolio is a reliable source of cash flow for us. We closely monitor our short term cash position. Any excess funds are either left on deposit at the FRB, or are in a fully insured account with one of our correspondent banks.


FHLBB short-term borrowings mature daily and there was no outstanding balance at December 31, 2011. The demand note due to the U.S. Treasury matures daily and bears interest at the federal funds rate less 0.25%. The rate on this borrowing at December 31, 2011 was zero.


(Dollars in thousands)

Year Ended
December 31, 2011

 

Year Ended
December 31, 2010

FHLB and other short-term borrowings

 

 

 

  Amount outstanding at end of period

$             0

 

$             0

  Maximum month-end amount outstanding

0

 

13,000

  Average amount outstanding

359

 

1,316

  Weighted average-rate during the period

0.28%

 

0.31%

  Weighted average rate at period end

0%

 

0%

Demand note due U.S. Treasury

 

 

 

  Amount outstanding at end of period

$             0

 

$      2,964

  Maximum month-end amount outstanding

3,013

 

3,330

  Average amount outstanding

1,794

 

1,414

  Weighted average-rate during the period

0.00%

 

0%

  Weighted average rate at period-end

0.00%

 

0%

Securities sold under agreement to repurchase, short-term

 

 

 

  Amount outstanding at end of period

$  262,527

 

$  224,693

  Maximum month-end amount outstanding

266,897

 

224,693

  Average amount outstanding

217,823

 

172,165

  Weighted average-rate during the period

0.95%

 

0.94%

  Weighted average rate at period end

0.91%

 

1.01%




41


Contractual Obligations

We have certain long-term contractual obligations, including long-term debt agreements, operating leases for branch operations, and time deposits. The maturity schedules for these obligations are as follows:


(In thousands)

Less than
One year

One Year
To Three
Years

Three
Years To
Five Years

Over Five
Years

Total

Debt maturities

$           78

$     163

$20,170

$  2,151

$  22,562

Junior subordinated debentures

0

0

0

20,619

20,619

Operating lease payments

1,037

1,491

1,184

3,023

6,735

Time deposits

277,402

47,926

22,914

6

348,248

 

$  278,517

$49,580

$44,268

$25,799

$398,164


Commitments and Off-Balance Sheet Risk

We are a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of our customers. These financial instruments primarily include commitments to extend credit and financial guarantees. Such instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk that are not recognized in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.


Exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instruments for commitments to extend credit and financial guarantees written is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. We use the same credit policies in making commitments as we do for on-balance sheet instruments. The contractual amounts of these financial instruments at December 31, 2011 are as follows:


(In thousands)

Contractual
Amount

Financial instruments whose contract amounts
 represent credit risk:

 

  Commitments to originate loans

$  17,569

  Unused lines of credit

186,196

  Standby letters of credit

4,262

  Loans sold with recourse

22

Equity commitments to affordable housing
 limited partnerships

2,619


Commitments to originate loans are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments to originate loans generally have expiration dates within 60 days of the commitment. Unused lines of credit have expiration dates ranging from one to two years from the date of the commitment. Because a portion of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amount does not necessarily represent a future cash requirement. We evaluate each customer's creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. Upon extension of credit, we obtain an appropriate amount of real and/or personal property as collateral based on our credit evaluation of the counterparty.


We do not issue any guarantees that would require liability-recognition or disclosure, other than standby letters of credit. We have issued conditional commitments in the form of standby letters of credit to guarantee payment on behalf of a customer and guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. Standby letters of credit generally arise in connection with lending relationships. The credit risk involved in issuing these instruments is essentially the same as that involved in extending loans to customers. Contingent obligations under standby letters of credit totaled approximately $4.26 million and $4.91 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and represent the maximum potential future payments we could be required to make. Typically, these instruments have terms of 12 months or less and expire unused; therefore, the total amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Each customer is evaluated individually for creditworthiness under the same underwriting standards used for commitments to extend credit and on-balance sheet instruments. Our policies governing loan collateral apply to standby letters of credit at the time of credit extension. LTV ratios are generally consistent with LTV requirements for other commercial loans secured by similar types of collateral. The fair value of our standby letters of credit at December 31, 2011 and 2010 was insignificant.




42


Equity commitments to affordable housing partnerships represent funding commitments for certain limited partnerships. These partnerships were created for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and/or redeveloping affordable housing projects. The funding of these commitments is generally contingent upon substantial completion of the project and none extend beyond the fifth anniversary of substantial completion.


Capital Resources

In general, capital growth is essential to support deposit and asset growth and to ensure our strength and safety. Net income increased our capital by $14.62 million in 2011, $15.46 million in 2010 and $12.48 million in 2009. Payment of dividends decreased our capital by $6.95 million, $6.90 million and $6.83 million while the use of treasury stock to fund our dividend reinvestment plan increased our capital by $719 thousand, $796 thousand and $796 thousand during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. In December 2004 we privately placed $20 million in capital securities as part of pooled trust preferred program. These capital securities have certain features that make them an attractive funding vehicle. The securities qualify as regulatory capital under regulatory adequacy guidelines, and are included in capital in the table below.


Changes in the market value of our available for sale investment portfolio, net of tax, increased capital by $1.94 million in 2011 and decreased capital by $796 thousand in 2010. Our pre-tax unrecognized net actuarial loss in our pension plan was $4.13 million at December 31, 2011 which resulted in a cumulative after-tax charge to equity of $2.68 million. Our unrealized loss on our interest rate swaps, net of taxes, at December 31, 2011, reduced capital by a cumulative $914 thousand.


We extended, through January 2013, our stock buyback program, originally adopted in January 2007. Under the program, we may repurchase up to 200,000 shares of our common stock on the open market from time to time, and have purchased 143,475 shares at an average price per share of $22.94 since the program's adoption in 2007. We did not repurchase any of our shares during 2011, and do not expect to repurchase shares in the near future.


ITEM 7AQUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK


RISK MANAGEMENT


General

Our Management and Board of Directors are committed to sound risk management practices throughout the organization. We have developed and implemented a centralized risk management monitoring program. Risks associated with our business activities and products are identified and measured as to probability of occurrence and impact on us (low, moderate, or high), and the control or other activities in place to manage those risks are identified and assessed. Periodically, department-level and senior managers re-evaluate and report on the risk management processes for which they are responsible. This documented program provides us with a comprehensive framework for monitoring our risk profile from a macro perspective. It also serves as a tool for assessing internal controls over financial reporting as required under the FDICIA and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


Market Risk

Market risk is the risk of loss in a financial instrument arising from adverse changes in market rates or prices such as interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices, and equity prices. Our primary market risk exposure is interest rate risk. An important component of our asset and liability management process is the ongoing monitoring and management of this risk, which is governed by established policies that are reviewed and approved annually by our Board of Directors. Our Investment Policy details the types of securities that may be purchased, and establishes portfolio limits and maturity limits for the various sectors. The Investment Policy also establishes specific investment quality limits. Our Board of Directors has established a board-level Asset/Liability Committee, which delegates responsibility for carrying out the asset/liability management policies to the Management-level Asset/Liability Committee (the “ALCO”). The ALCO, chaired by the Chief Financial Officer and composed of members of senior management, develops guidelines and strategies impacting our asset and liability management related activities based upon estimated market risk sensitivity, policy limits and overall market interest rate levels and trends. The ALCO manages the investment portfolio. As the portfolio has grown, the ALCO has used portfolio diversification as a way to mitigate the risk of being too heavily invested in any single asset class. We continued to work to maximize net interest income while mitigating risk during the year through further repositioning of the investment portfolio, selective sales of specific securities, as well as carefully monitoring the overall duration and average life of the portfolio, and monitoring individual securities, among other strategies. We have an outside investment advisory firm which helps us identify opportunities for increased yield, without significantly increasing risk, in the investment portfolio. The ALCO and the investment advisor have frequent conference calls to discuss portfolio activity and to set future strategy. Additionally, any specific bonds or sectors that require additional attention are discussed on these calls.




43


Liquidity Risk

Our liquidity is measured by our ability to raise cash when needed at a reasonable cost. We must be capable of meeting expected and unexpected obligations to customers at any time. Given the uncertain nature of customer demands as well as the need to maximize earnings, we must have available reasonably priced sources of funds, on- and off-balance sheet, which can be accessed quickly in time of need. As discussed above under Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Liquidity and Capital Resource Management,” we have several sources of readily available funds, including the ability to borrow using our investment portfolio as collateral. We also monitor our liquidity on a quarterly basis in compliance with our Liquidity Contingency Plan. We have expanded our liquidity monitoring process over the last year and have partnered with our ALCO consultant to provide a more robust modeling process that monitors early liquidity stress triggers, and also allows us to model worst case liquidity scenarios, and various responses to those scenarios.


Financial markets have been volatile and challenging for many financial institutions. Because of our favorable credit quality and strong balance sheet, we have not experienced any liquidity constraints through the end of 2011. During the past several quarters, our liquidity position has been strong, as depositors and investors in the wholesale funding markets seek strong financial institutions.


Interest Rate Risk

Interest rate risk is the exposure to a movement in interest rates, which, as described above, affects our net interest income. Asset and liability management is governed by policies reviewed and approved annually by Merchants Bank’s Board of Directors. The ALCO meets frequently to review and develop asset/liability management strategies and tactics.


The ALCO is responsible for evaluating and managing the interest rate risk which arises naturally from imbalances in repricing, maturity and cash flow characteristics of our assets and liabilities. Techniques used by the ALCO take into consideration the cash flow and repricing attributes of balance sheet and off-balance sheet items and their relation to possible changes in interest rates. The ALCO manages interest rate exposure primarily by using on-balance sheet strategies, generally accomplished through the management of the duration, rate sensitivity and average lives of our various investments, and by extending or shortening maturities of borrowed funds, as well as carefully managing and monitoring the pricing of loans and deposits. The ALCO also considers the use of off-balance sheet strategies, such as interest rate caps and floors and interest rate swaps, to help minimize the Company’s exposure to changes in interest rates. By using derivative financial instruments to hedge exposures to changes in interest rates we are exposed to credit risk and market risk. Credit risk is the failure of the counterparty to perform under the terms of the derivative contract. When the fair value of a derivative contract is positive, the counterparty owes us, creating credit risk. We minimize credit risk in derivative instruments by entering into transactions only with high-quality counterparties. The market risk associated with interest-rate contracts is managed by establishing and monitoring parameters that limit the types and degree of market risk that may be undertaken.


The ALCO is responsible for ensuring that our Board of Directors receives accurate information regarding our interest rate risk position at least quarterly. The investment advisory firm and ALCO consultant meet collectively with the board and Management-level ALCOs on a quarterly basis. During these meetings the ALCO consultant reviews our current position and discusses future strategies, as well as reviewing the result of rate shocks of its balance sheet and a variety of other analyses. The investment advisor reports on the overall performance of the portfolio and performs modeling of the cash flow, effective duration, and yield characteristics of the portfolio under various interest rate scenarios; and also reviews and provides detail on individual holdings in the portfolio.


The ALCO consultant’s most recent review was as of December 31, 2011. The consultant ran a base simulation assuming no changes in rates as well as a 200 basis point rising and, because rates continue to be very low, a 100 basis point falling interest rate scenario that assumes a parallel and pro rata shift of the yield curve over a one-year period, and no growth assumptions. Additionally, the consultant ran a 400 basis point rising simulation that assumed a parallel shift of the curve over 24 months, and a 500 basis point rising simulation which assumed the curve flattened over a 24 month time frame. A summary of the results is as follows:




44


Current/Flat Rates: Net interest income levels are projected to trend downward throughout the simulation as the sustained low rate environment has us adding assets at lower than portfolio levels while funding costs are nearing their floors. This downward trend becomes more pronounced each quarter as interest rates remain very low.


Falling Rates: If rates fall 100 basis points (which would push the ten year Treasury rate below 1%) our net interest income is projected to trend in line with the base case over the first year as deposit rates are assumed to move to close to one basis point. Thereafter net interest income trends downward rapidly as funding rate reductions subside while asset cash flow continues to reset at reduced yields. Accelerated prepayment speeds on mortgage-based assets exacerbate the impact of lower rates. Margins are challenged in this environment as funding relief has been exhausted while asset cash flow continues to reprice lower.


Rising Rates: In spite of the fact that we are liability sensitive based on our static gap position, higher rates are better for us under all scenarios because our low cost deposits can be invested at higher rates. In the up 200 basis points scenario, net interest income is projected to increase quickly as asset yields reprice more quickly than funding costs and asset cash flows are reinvested at higher rates. A more pronounced rising rate scenario is projected to trend slightly lower than the up 200 basis points scenario over the first two years due to additional pricing pressure on deposit rates, but eventually moves higher.


As of December 31, 2011, our one-year static gap position was a $169.04 million liability sensitive position, a decrease from the $216.27 million liability sensitive position at December 31, 2010. This change is primarily a result of increased prepayment expectations in our loan and investment portfolios as a result of the sustained low interest rate environment. This trend has been somewhat mitigated by our deposit growth during the year being concentrated in transaction accounts and short-term CDs as customers have chosen to keep their money short. Our ALCO investment consultant modeled a 200 basis point rising and, because rates continue to be low, a 100 basis point falling interest rate scenario that assume a parallel and pro rata shift of the yield curve over a one-year period. We have established a target range for the change in net interest income of zero to 7.5%. The net interest income simulation as of December 31, 2011 showed that the change in net interest income for the next 12 months from our expected or “most likely” forecast was as follows:



Rate Change

Percent Change in
Net Interest Income

Up 200 basis points

2.46%

Down 100 basis points

0.18%


Actual results may differ materially from those projected. The analysis assumes a static balance sheet. All rate changes are ramped over a 12 month time horizon based upon a parallel yield curve shift. In the down 100 basis points scenario, Federal funds and Treasury yields are floored at 0.01% while Prime is floored at 3.00%. All other market rates (e.g. LIBOR, FHLB) are floored at 0.25% to reflect credit spreads. All risk levels were within policy guidelines. The model used to perform the balance sheet simulation assumes a parallel shift of the yield curve over 12 months and reprices every interest-bearing asset and liability on our balance sheet. The model uses contractual repricing dates for variable products, contractual maturities for fixed rate products, and product-specific assumptions for deposits which are subject to repricing based on current market conditions. Investment securities with call provisions are examined on an individual basis in each rate environment to estimate the likelihood of a call. The model also assumes that the rate at which certain mortgage related assets prepay will vary as rates rise and fall, based on prepayment estimates derived from the Loan Processing System Applied Analytics model.


The preceding sensitivity analysis does not represent our forecast and should not be relied upon as being indicative of expected operating results. These estimates are based upon numerous assumptions including without limitation: the nature and timing of interest rate levels including yield curve shape, prepayments on loans and securities, deposit run-off rates, pricing decisions on loans and deposits and reinvestment/replacement of asset and liability cash flows, among others. While assumptions are developed based upon current economic and local market conditions, we cannot make any assurances as to the predictive nature of these assumptions including how customer preferences or competitor influences might change. As market conditions vary from those assumed in the sensitivity analysis, actual results will differ.




45


The most significant ongoing factor affecting market risk exposure of net interest income during the year ended December 31, 2011 was the sustained low interest rate environment Interest rates plummeted during 2008 and have remained low as the global economy slowed at unprecedented levels, unemployment levels soared, delinquencies on all types of loans increased along with decreased consumer confidence and dramatic declines in housing prices. Interest rates continued to decrease throughout 2011 in spite of a modest economic recovery. Net interest income exposure is also significantly affected by the shape and level of the U.S. Government securities and interest rate swap yield curves, and changes in the size and composition of the loan, investment and deposit portfolios. During 2011, the two year Treasury note decreased by 36 basis points and the ten year Treasury note decreased by 141 basis points. The spread between the two year and the ten year Treasury notes ended the year at 164 basis points, compared to 269 basis points at December 31, 2010.


Credit Risk

The Board of Directors reviews and approves our loan policy on an annual basis. Among other things, the loan policy establishes restrictions regarding the types of loans that may be granted, and the distribution of loan types within our portfolio. Our Board of Directors grants each loan officer the authority to originate loans on our behalf, subject to certain limitations. These authorized lending limits are reviewed at least annually and are based upon the lender’s knowledge and experience. Loan requests that exceed a lender’s authority require the signature of our Credit Division Manager, Senior Loan Officer, and/or President. All extensions of credit of $4.0 million or greater to any one borrower or related party interest are reviewed and approved by the Loan Committee of our Board of Directors. Our loan portfolio is continuously monitored for performance, creditworthiness and strength of documentation through the use of a variety of management reports and the assistance of an external loan review firm. Credit ratings are assigned to commercial loans and are routinely reviewed. Loan officers, under the supervision of the Senior Lender and Senior Credit Officer, take remedial actions to assure full and timely payment of loan balances when necessary. Our policy is to discontinue the accrual of interest on loans when scheduled payments become contractually past due 90 or more days and the ultimate collectability of principal or interest become doubtful. In certain instances the accrual of interest is discontinued prior to 90 days past due if Management determines that the borrower will not be able to continue making timely payments.




46


ITEM 8—FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA


Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets


 

 

December 31,

December 31,

(In thousands except share and per share data)

 

2011

2010

ASSETS

 

 

 

    Cash and due from banks

 

$       10,392 

$       11,753 

    Interest earning deposits with banks and other short-term investments

 

27,420 

62,273 

        Total cash and cash equivalents

 

37,812 

74,026 

    Investments:

 

 

 

        Securities available for sale, at fair value

 

511,751 

465,962 

        Securities held to maturity (fair value of $624 and $882)

 

558 

794 

            Total investments

 

512,309 

466,756 

    Loans

 

1,027,626 

910,794 

    Less: Allowance for loan losses

 

10,619 

10,135 

            Net loans

 

1,017,007 

900,659 

    Federal Home Loan Bank stock

 

8,630 

8,630 

    Bank premises and equipment, net

 

14,232 

14,365 

    Investment in real estate limited partnerships

 

5,189 

5,253 

    Other assets

 

16,690 

17,955 

            Total assets

 

$  1,611,869 

$  1,487,644 

LIABILITIES

 

 

 

    Deposits:

 

 

 

        Demand deposits

 

$     197,522 

$     141,412 

        Savings, NOW and money market accounts

 

632,110 

584,582 

        Time deposits $100 thousand and greater

 

127,303 

127,749 

        Other time deposits

 

220,945 

238,453 

            Total deposits

 

1,177,880 

1,092,196 

    Short-term debt

 

2,964 

    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase

 

262,527 

232,193 

    Other long-term debt

 

22,562 

31,139 

    Junior subordinated debentures issued to unconsolidated subsidiary trust

 

20,619 

20,619 

    Other liabilities

 

18,744 

9,202 

            Total liabilities

 

1,502,332 

1,388,313 

    Commitments and contingencies (Note 15)

 

 

 

SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

 

 

 

    Preferred stock Class A non-voting

 

 

 

     Shares authorized - 200,000, none outstanding

 

    Preferred stock Class B voting

 

 

 

     Shares authorized - 1,500,000, none outstanding

 

    Common stock, $.01 par value

 

67 

67 

        Shares authorized

10,000,000

 

 

        Issued

As of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010

6,651,760

 

 

        Outstanding

As of December 31, 2011

5,907,080

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2010

5,859,263

 

 

    Capital in excess of par value

 

36,544 

36,348 

    Retained earnings

 

79,393 

71,725 

    Treasury stock, at cost

 

(15,817)

(16,836)

 

As of December 31, 2011

744,680

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2010

792,497

 

 

    Deferred compensation arrangements

 

6,248 

6,350 

    Accumulated other comprehensive income

 

3,102 

1,677 

            Total shareholders' equity

 

109,537 

99,331 

            Total liabilities and shareholders' equity

 

$  1,611,869 

$  1,487,644 


See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements



47


Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Income


 

Years Ended December 31,

(In thousands except share and per share data)

2011

2010

2009

INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME:

 

 

 

  Interest and fees on loans

$     45,271 

$     46,041 

$     47,646 

  Investment income:

 

 

 

    Interest and dividends on debt securities

12,644 

14,140 

18,587 

    Interest on interest earning deposits with banks and other

 

 

 

     short-term investments

103 

81 

107 

Total interest and dividend income

58,018 

60,262 

66,340 

 

 

 

 

INTEREST EXPENSE:

 

 

 

  Savings, interest bearing checking and money market accounts

1,167 

1,461 

1,901 

  Time deposits $100 thousand and greater

1,135 

1,292 

2,321 

  Other time deposits

2,172 

2,861 

5,383 

  Securities sold under agreement to repurchase and other short-term debt

2,065 

1,623 

641 

  Long-term debt

2,105 

3,870 

5,978 

Total interest expense

8,644 

11,107 

16,224 

Net interest income

49,374 

49,155 

50,116 

  Provision (credit) for credit losses

750 

(1,750)

4,100 

Net interest income after provision (credit) for credit losses

48,624 

50,905 

46,016 

 

 

 

 

NONINTEREST INCOME:

 

 

 

  Changes in fair value on impaired securities

(65)

329 

    Non-credit related (gain) losses on securities not expected to be sold

 

 

 

     (recognized in other comprehensive income)

10 

(498)

    Net impairment losses

(55)

(169)

  Net gains (losses) on investment securities

1,049 

2,082 

1,219 

  Trust division income

2,516 

2,163 

1,724 

  Service charges on deposits

4,298 

4,929 

5,671 

  Equity in losses of real estate limited partnerships

(1,766)

(1,672)

(2,049)

  Other

4,338 

4,298 

3,750 

Total noninterest income

10,380 

11,631 

10,315 

 

 

 

 

NONINTEREST EXPENSES:

 

 

 

  Compensation and benefits

20,517 

20,499 

18,858 

  Occupancy expense

3,824 

3,703 

3,579 

  Equipment expense

3,366 

2,932 

2,826 

  Legal and professional fees

2,811 

2,443 

2,499 

  Marketing

1,733 

1,505 

1,470 

  State franchise taxes

1,265 

1,151 

1,142 

  FDIC Insurance

936 

1,415 

1,964 

  Prepayment penalty

861 

3,071 

1,548 

  Other real estate owned ("OREO") expense (income)

193 

(298)

142 

  Other

5,754 

6,006 

6,070 

Total noninterest expenses

41,260 

42,427 

40,098 

 

 

 

 

Income before provision for income taxes

17,744 

20,109 

16,233 

Provision for income taxes

3,124 

4,648 

3,754 

NET INCOME

$     14,620 

$     15,461 

$     12,479 

 

 

 

 

Basic earnings per common share

$         2.35 

$         2.51 

$         2.04 

Diluted earnings per common share

$         2.35 

$         2.51 

$         2.04 

 

 

 

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding

6,212,187 

6,167,446 

6,105,909 

Weighted average diluted shares outstanding

6,223,769 

6,171,473 

6,107,389 


See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.



48


Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income


 

Years Ended December 31,

(In thousands)

2011

2010

2009

Net income

$  14,620 

$  15,461 

$  12,479 

Other comprehensive income, net of tax:

 

 

 

  Change in net unrealized gain on securities available for sale,
   net of taxes of $1,394, $300 and $2,355

2,590 

558

4,373

  Reclassification adjustments for net securities gains included in net
   income, net of taxes of $(348), $(729) and $(427)

(646)

(1,354)

(792)

  Change in net unrealized (loss) gain on interest rate swaps, net of taxes
   of $(66), $(197) and $15

(123)

(366)

28

  Pension liability adjustment, net of taxes of $(213), $93 and $246

(396)

172

456

Other comprehensive income (loss)

1,425 

(990)

4,065

Comprehensive income

$  16,045 

$  14,471 

$  16,544 


See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.



49


Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Equity

For the Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009


 

 

 

 

 

 

Accumulated

 

 

 

Capital in

 

 

Deferred

Other

 

 

Common

Excess of

Retained

Treasury

Compensation

Comprehensive

 

(In thousands except per share data)

Stock

Par Value

Earnings

Stock

Arrangements

Income (loss)

Total

Balance at December 31, 2008

$ 67 

$ 36,862 

$ 57,302 

$ (19,853)

$ 6,117 

$ (1,185)

$ 79,310 

  Net income

12,479 

12,479 

  Dividends paid ($1.12 per share)

(6,829)

(6,829)

  Sale of treasury stock

(1)

  Distribution of stock under deferred
   compensation arrangements

400 

(400)

  Shares issued under stock plans, net of excess tax benefit

(496)

1,080 

178 

762 

  Share based compensation expense

65 

65 

  Dividend reinvestment plan

(152)

570 

351 

769 

  Cumulative effect adjustment upon adoption of ASC
   320-10-65, net of tax

213 

(213)

  Other comprehensive income

4,065 

4,065 

Balance at December 31, 2009

$ 67 

$ 36,278 

$ 63,165 

$ (17,798)

$ 6,246 

$  2,667 

$ 90,625 

  Net income

15,461 

15,461 

  Dividends paid ($1.12 per share)

(6,901)

(6,901)

  Sale of treasury stock

10 

10 

  Distribution of stock under deferred
   compensation arrangements

455 

(455)

  Shares issued under stock plans, net of excess tax benefit

(7)

63 

207 

263 

  Share based compensation expense

101 

101 

  Dividend reinvestment plan

(24)

434 

352 

762 

  Other comprehensive loss

(990)

(990)

Balance at December 31, 2010

$ 67 

$ 36,348 

$ 71,725 

$ (16,836)

$ 6,350 

$  1,677 

$ 99,331 

  Net income

14,620 

14,620 

  Dividends paid ($1.12 per share)

(6,952)

(6,952)

  Sale of treasury stock

13 

14 

  Distribution of stock under deferred
   compensation arrangements

432 

(432)

  Shares issued under stock plans, net of excess tax benefit

19 

273 

(76)

216 

  Share based compensation expense

110 

54 

164 

  Dividend reinvestment plan

66 

301 

352 

719 

  Other comprehensive income

1,425 

1,425 

Balance at December 31, 2011

$ 67 

$ 36,544 

$ 79,393 

$ (15,817)

$ 6,248 

$ 3,102 

$109,537 


See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements



50


Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows


For the years ended December 31,

 

2011   

2010   

2009   

(In thousands)

 

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

Net income

 

$    14,620 

$    15,461 

$    12,479 

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by

 

 

 

 

  Operating activities:

 

 

 

 

    Provision (credit) for loan losses

 

750 

(1,750)

4,100 

    Deferred tax expense (benefit)

 

(1,337)

205 

(4,941)

    Depreciation and amortization

 

1,891 

1,700 

1,595 

    Amortization of investment security premiums and accretion of discounts, net

 

3,858 

4,827 

462 

    Stock option expense

 

164 

101 

65 

    Contribution to pension plan

 

(2,300)

    Net gains on investment securities

 

(1,049)

(2,082)

(1,219)

    Other-than-temporary impairment losses on investment securities

 

55 

169 

    Gains from sales of loans, net

 

(25)

(12)

    Net gains (losses) on disposition of premises and equipment

 

119 

23 

(159)

    Net gains and expense recoveries on sales of other real estate owned

 

(50)

(537)

    Equity in losses of real estate limited partnerships, net

 

1,766 

1,672 

2,049 

Changes in assets and liabilities:

 

 

 

 

    Increase in interest receivable

 

(129)

(211)

(242)

    Increase in other assets

 

2,131 

(877)

(4,495)

    Decrease in interest payable

 

(96)

(467)

(526)

    Increase (decrease) in other liabilities

 

8,726 

(5,888)

5,196 

      Net cash provided by operating activities

 

31,394 

12,334 

12,064 

 

 

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

    Proceeds from sales of investment securities available for sale

 

131,858 

58,477 

65,202 

    Proceeds from maturities of investment securities available for sale

 

181,385 

245,890 

105,024 

    Proceeds from maturities of investment securities held to maturity

 

236 

365 

577 

    Purchases of investment securities available for sale

 

(358,906)

(366,816)

(141,738)

    Loan originations (in excess of) less than principal payments

 

(117,536)

7,467 

(73,160)

    Proceeds from sales of loans, net

 

80 

290 

    Purchases of Federal Home Loan Bank stock, net

 

(107)

    Proceeds from sales of premises and equipment

 

52 

254 

    Proceeds from sales of other real estate owned

 

380 

1,801 

188 

    Real estate limited partnership investments

 

(1,702)

(1,705)

(1,905)

    Purchases of bank premises and equipment

 

(1,929)

(3,001)

(3,220)

      Net cash used in investing activities

 

(166,082)

(57,228)

(48,885)

 

 

 

 

 

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:

 

 

 

 

    Net increase in deposits

 

85,684 

48,877 

112,522 

    Net (decrease) increase in short-term borrowings

 

(2,964)

1,561 

(30,597)

    Proceeds from long-term debt

 

1,225 

    Net increase in securities sold under agreement to repurchase-short term

 

37,834 

46,378 

85,907 

    Net decrease in securities sold under agreement to repurchase-long term

 

(7,500)

(46,500)

    Principal payments on long-term debt

 

(8,577)

(76)

(88,653)

    Cash dividends paid

 

(6,233)

(6,139)

(6,059)

    Sale of treasury stock

 

14 

10 

    Increase in deferred compensation arrangements

 

216 

202 

179 

    Proceeds from exercise of stock options, net of withholding taxes

 

(1)

59 

532 

    Tax benefit from exercise of stock options

 

51 

      Net cash provided by financing activities

 

98,474 

44,374 

75,111 

 

 

 

 

 

(Decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents

 

(36,214)

(520)

38,290 

Cash and cash equivalents beginning of year

 

74,026 

74,546 

36,256 

Cash and cash equivalents end of year

 

$    37,812 

$    74,026 

$    74,546 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION:

 

 

 

 

    Total interest payments

 

$      8,739 

$    11,575 

$    16,750 

    Total income tax payments

 

1,950 

8,400 

4,995 

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF NON-CASH INVESTING
  AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES

 

 

 

 

    Distribution of stock under deferred compensation arrangements

 

432 

455 

400 

    Distribution of treasury stock in lieu of cash dividend

 

719 

796 

796 

    Transfer of loans to other real estate owned

 

497 

800 

41 

    Increase (decrease) in payable for investments purchased

 

9,461 

(3,000)

3,000 


See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements



51


Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009


NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES


Principles of Consolidation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Merchants Bancshares, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiary Merchants Bank and Merchants Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiary Merchants Trust Company, which was merged into Merchants Bank in 2009 (collectively “Merchants”, “we,” “us, “our”). All material intercompany accounts and transactions are eliminated in consolidation. We offer a full range of deposit, loan, cash management, and trust services to meet the financial needs of individual consumers, businesses and municipalities at 34 full-service banking offices throughout the state of Vermont as of December 31, 2011.


Management’s Use of Estimates in Preparation of Financial Statements

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires Management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting periods. The most significant estimates include those used in determining the allowance for loan losses, income taxes, interest income recognition on loans and investments and analysis of other-than-temporary impairment of our investment securities portfolio. Operating results in the future may vary from the amounts derived from Management's estimates and assumptions.


Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents consist of cash on hand, amounts due from banks, Federal Funds sold and other short-term investments, with maturities at time of purchase of less than 90 days, in the accompanying consolidated statements of cash flows.


Investment Securities

We classify certain of our investments in debt securities as held to maturity, which are carried at amortized cost, if we have the positive intent and ability to hold such securities to maturity. Investments in debt securities that are not classified as held to maturity and equity securities that have readily determinable fair values are classified as available for sale securities or trading securities. Available for sale securities are investments not classified as trading or held to maturity. Available for sale securities are carried at fair value which is measured at each reporting date. The resulting unrealized gain or loss is reflected in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) net of the associated tax effects. Gains and losses on sales of investment securities are recognized through the statement of income using the specific identification method.


Transfers from securities available for sale to securities held to maturity are recorded at the securities’ fair values on the date of the transfer. Any net unrealized gains or losses continue to be included as a separate component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), on a net of tax basis. As long as the securities are carried in the held to maturity portfolio, such amounts are amortized (accreted) over the estimated remaining life of the transferred securities as an adjustment to yield in a manner consistent with the amortization of premiums and discounts.


Interest and dividend income, including amortization of premiums and discounts, are recorded in earnings for all categories of investment securities. Discounts and premiums related to debt securities are amortized using the level-yield method.


Management reviews reductions in fair value below book value of investment securities to determine whether the impairment is other than temporary. When an other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) has occurred, the amount of OTTI recognized in earnings depends on whether we intend to sell the security or more likely than not will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current period credit loss. To determine whether an impairment is other-than-temporary, we consider all available information relevant to the collectability of the security, including past events, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts when developing estimates of cash flows expected to be collected. Evidence considered in this assessment includes the reasons for the impairment, the severity and duration of the impairment, changes in value subsequent to year-end, forecasted performance of the investee, and the general market condition in the geographic area or industry the investee operates in.




52


If we intend to sell the security, or more likely than not will be required to sell the security, before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current period credit loss, the OTTI is recognized in earnings equal to the entire difference between the investment’s amortized cost basis and its fair value at the balance sheet date. If we do not intend to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any current period credit loss, the OTTI is separated into the amount representing the credit loss and the amount related to all other factors. The amount of the total OTTI related to the credit loss is recognized in earnings. The amount of the total OTTI related to other factors is recognized in other comprehensive income, net of applicable income taxes.


Federal Home Loan Bank System

We are a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, which consists of 12 regional Federal Home Loan Banks. The Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (“FHLBB”) provides a central credit facility primarily for member institutions. Member institutions are required to acquire and hold shares of capital stock in the FHLBB in an amount at least equal to the sum of 0.35% of the aggregate principal amount of its unpaid residential mortgage loans and similar obligations at the beginning of each year. We were in compliance with this requirement at December 31, 2011.


Loans

Loans are carried at the principal amounts outstanding net of the allowance for loan losses, and net of deferred loan costs and fees. Deferred loan costs and fees are amortized over the estimated lives of the loans using the interest method.


Allowance for Credit Losses

The Allowance for Credit Losses (“Allowance”) is comprised of the Allowance for Loan Losses and the Reserve for Undisbursed Lines of Credit, and is based on Management’s estimate of the amount required to reflect the known and inherent losses in the loan portfolio. Factors considered in evaluating the adequacy of the Allowance include previous loss experience, the size and composition of the portfolio, risk rating composition, current economic and real estate market conditions and their effect on the borrowers, the performance of individual loans in relation to contractual terms and estimated fair values of properties that secure impaired loans.


The adequacy of the Allowance is determined using a consistent, systematic methodology, consisting of a review of both specific reserves for loans identified as impaired and general reserves for the various loan portfolio classifications. When a loan is impaired, we determine its impairment loss by comparing the excess, if any, of the loan’s carrying amount over (1) the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate, (2) the observable market price of the impaired loan, or (3) the fair value of the collateral securing a collateral-dependent loan. When a loan is deemed to have an impairment loss, the loan is either charged down to its estimated net realizable value, or a specific reserve is established as part of the overall allowance for loan losses if Management needs more time to evaluate all of the facts and circumstances relevant to that particular loan.


Income Recognition on Impaired and Nonaccrual Loans

Loans, including impaired loans, are generally classified as nonaccrual if they are past due as to maturity or payment of principal or interest for a period of more than 90 days. If a loan or a portion of a loan is internally classified as impaired or is partially charged-off, the loan is classified as nonaccrual. Loans that are on a current payment status or past due less than 90 days may also be classified as nonaccrual if repayment in full of principal and/or interest is in doubt. Income accruals are suspended on all nonaccruing loans, and all previously accrued and uncollected interest is charged against current income.


Loans may be returned to accrual status when there is a sustained period of repayment performance (generally a minimum of six months) by the borrower, in accordance with the contractual terms of the loans and all principal and interest amounts contractually due, including arrearages, are reasonably assured of repayment within an acceptable period of time.


While a loan is classified as nonaccrual and the future collectability of the recorded loan balance is uncertain, any payments received are generally applied to reduce the principal balance. When the future collectability of the recorded loan balance is expected, interest income may be recognized on a cash basis. In the case where a nonaccrual loan had been partially charged-off, recognition of interest on a cash basis is limited to that which would have been recognized on the recorded loan balance at the contractual interest rate. Interest collections in excess of that amount are recorded as a reduction of principal.




53


Troubled Debt Restructuring (“TDR”)

Loans are designated as a TDR when a concession is made on a credit as a result of financial difficulties of the borrower. Typically, such concessions consist of a reduction in interest rate to a below market rate, taking into account the credit quality of the note, or a deferment or reduction of payments, principal or interest, which materially alters the Bank’s position or significantly extends the note’s maturity date, such that the present value of cash flows to be received is materially less than those contractually established at the loan’s origination.


Premises and Equipment

Premises and equipment are stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization are provided using straight-line and accelerated methods at rates that depreciate the original cost of the premises and equipment over their estimated useful lives or the expected lease term in the case of leasehold improvements. Expenditures for maintenance, repairs and renewals of minor items are generally charged to expense as incurred. When premises and equipment are replaced, retired, or deemed no longer useful they are written down to estimated selling price less costs to sell by a charge to current earnings.


Income Taxes

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are reflected at currently enacted income tax rates applicable to the period in which the deferred tax assets or liabilities are expected to be realized or settled. As changes in tax laws or rates are enacted, deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted through the provision for income taxes. Low-income housing tax credits and historic rehabilitation credits are recognized as a reduction of income tax expense in the year in which they are earned. Penalties and/or interest were immaterial for 2011, 2010 and 2009 and were classified as other noninterest expense in our consolidated statements of income. Our policy is to reduce deferred tax assets by a valuation allowance if, based on the weight of available evidence, it is more likely than not that some or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized.


Investments in Real Estate Limited Partnerships

We have investments in various real estate limited partnerships that acquire, develop, own and operate low and moderate-income housing. Our ownership interest in these limited partnerships ranges from 3.3% to 99.9% as of December 31, 2011. We account for our investments in these limited partnerships, where we neither actively participate nor have a controlling interest, under the equity method of accounting.


Management periodically reviews the results of operations of the various real estate limited partnerships to determine if the partnerships generate sufficient operating cash flow to fund their current obligations. In addition, we review the current value of the underlying property compared to the outstanding debt obligations. If it is determined that the investment suffers from a permanent impairment, the carrying value is written down to the estimated realizable value. The maximum exposure on these investments is the current carrying amount plus amounts obligated to be funded in the future.


Other Real Estate Owned

Collateral acquired through foreclosure is recorded at the lower of cost or fair value, less estimated costs to sell, at the time of acquisition. Any cost in excess of the estimated fair value on the transfer date is charged to the allowance for loan losses. Subsequent decreases in the fair value of other real estate owned (“OREO”) are reflected as a write-down and charged to expense. Net operating income or expense related to foreclosed property is included in noninterest expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of income.


Repurchase Agreements

Repurchase agreements are accounted for as secured financing transactions since we maintain effective control over the transferred securities and the transfer meets the other criteria for such accounting. Obligations to repurchase securities sold are reflected as a liability in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The securities underlying the agreements are delivered to a custodial account for the benefit of the repurchase agreement holders. The repurchase agreement holders, who may sell, loan or otherwise dispose of such securities to other parties in the normal course of their operations, agree to resell to us the same securities at the maturities of the agreements.




54


Stock-Based Compensation

The Amended and Restated Merchants Bancshares, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan ("Plan") provides grants of up to 600,000 stock options or restricted stock awards to certain key employees. We recognize compensation expense for services received in a share-based payment transaction over the required service period, generally defined as the vesting period. The compensation cost is based on the grant-date fair value of the award (as determined by quoted market prices). Stock awards are granted at fair market value on the date of the grant and vest based on a three year service period.


The fair value of an option grant is estimated on the grant date using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model that requires us to develop estimates for assumptions used in the model. The Black-Scholes valuation model uses the following assumptions: expected volatility, expected term of option, risk-free interest rate and dividend yield. Expected volatility estimates are developed by us based on historical volatility of our stock. We use historical data to estimate the expected term of the options. The risk-free interest rate for periods within the expected life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield in effect at the grant date.


Restricted stock provides grantees with rights to shares of common stock upon completion of the service period. During the service period, all shares are considered outstanding and dividends are paid on the restricted stock.


Employee Benefit Costs

Prior to 1995, we maintained a non-contributory pension plan covering substantially all employees that met eligibility requirements. The plan was curtailed in 1995. The cost of this plan, based on actuarial computations of current and future benefits, is charged to current operating expenses. We recognize the overfunded or underfunded status of a single employer defined benefit post retirement plan as an asset or liability on the consolidated balance sheets and recognize changes in the funded status in comprehensive income in the year in which the change occurred.


Earnings Per Share

Basic earnings per share are calculated by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share are computed in a manner similar to that of basic earnings per share except that the weighted average number of common shares outstanding is increased to include the number of additional common shares that would have been outstanding if all potentially dilutive common shares (such as stock options and unvested restricted stock awards) were issued during the period, computed using the treasury stock method. Shares held in rabbi trusts related to deferred compensation plans are considered outstanding for purposes of computing earnings per share.


Derivative Financial Instruments and Hedging Activities

Derivative instruments utilized by us include interest rate floor, cap and swap agreements. We are an end-user of derivative instruments and do not conduct trading activities for derivatives. We recognize our derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the balance sheet and measure those instruments at fair value. Changes in the fair value of the derivative financial instruments are reported as a component of other comprehensive income because they qualify for hedge accounting.


We formally document our hedging relationships and our risk-management objective and strategy for undertaking the hedge, the hedging instrument, the hedged item, the nature of the risk being hedged, how the hedging instrument’s effectiveness in offsetting the hedged risk will be assessed prospectively and retrospectively, and a description of the method of measuring ineffectiveness. We also formally assess, both at the hedge’s inception and on an ongoing basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting cash flows of hedged items. Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is highly effective and that is designated and qualifies as a cash-flow hedge are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income to the extent that the derivative is effective as a hedge, until earnings are affected by the variability in cash flows of the designated hedged item. The ineffective portion, if any, of the change in fair value of a derivative instrument that qualifies as a cash-flow hedge is reported in earnings.


Segment Reporting

Our operations are solely in the financial services industry and include providing to our customers traditional banking and other financial services. We operate primarily in the state of Vermont. Management makes operating decisions and assesses performance based on an ongoing review of our consolidated financial results. Therefore, we have a single operating segment for financial reporting purposes.




55


Fair Value Measurements

Fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants and such fair value measurements are not adjusted for transaction costs. The fair value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.


The types of instruments valued based on quoted market prices in active markets include most U.S. government and Agency securities, liquid mortgage products, active listed equities and most money market securities. Such instruments are generally classified within Level 1 or Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. We do not adjust the quoted price for such instruments.


The types of instruments valued based on quoted prices in markets that are not active, broker or dealer quotations, or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency include most investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, less liquid mortgage products, less liquid Agency securities, less liquid listed equities, state, municipal and provincial obligations, and certain physical commodities. Such instruments are generally classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.


Level 3 is for positions that are not traded in active markets or are subject to transfer restrictions; valuations are adjusted to reflect illiquidity and/or non-transferability, and such adjustments are generally based on available market evidence. In the absence of such evidence, Management’s best estimate will be used. Management’s best estimate consists of both internal and external support on certain Level 3 investments. Subsequent to inception, Management only changes Level 3 inputs and assumptions when corroborated by evidence such as transactions in similar instruments, completed or pending third-party transactions in the underlying investment or comparable entities, subsequent rounds of financing, recapitalizations and other transactions across the capital structure, offerings in the equity or debt markets, and changes in financial ratios or cash flows.


Reclassifications

Reclassifications are made to prior years’ consolidated financial statements whenever necessary to conform to the current year’s presentation.


NOTE 2: RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS


In June 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220) - Presentation of Comprehensive Income.” ASU 2011-05 requires that all non-owner changes in stockholders’ equity be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In both choices, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12 which defers the effective date of the requirement in ASU 2011-05 to present items that are reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to net income alongside their respective components of net income and other comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 is effective retrospectively for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. We do not expect that these updates will have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.


In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210) – “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. The amendments in this Update require an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. The amendments in this Update affect all entities that have financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either (1) offset in accordance with either Section 210-20-45 or Section 815-10-45 or (2) subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. The requirements amend the disclosure requirements on offsetting in Section 210-20-50. An entity is required to apply the amendments for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. An entity should provide the disclosures required by those amendments retrospectively for all comparative periods presented. We do not expect that this update will have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.




56


In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) - Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs.” The amendments in this ASU change the wording used to describe the requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The amendments clarify the Board’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement and disclosure requirements. The amendments in this ASU are to be applied prospectively. For public entities, the amendments are effective during interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We do not expect that this guidance will have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.


In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-03, “Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860) - Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreement.” ASU 2011-03 removes from the assessment of effective control the criterion relating to the transferor’s ability to repurchase or redeem financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee. ASU 2011-03 is effective for the first interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. The guidance should be applied prospectively to transactions or modifications of existing transactions that occur on or after the effective date. Early adoption is not permitted. We are assessing the impact of ASU 2011-03 on our financial condition, results of operations, and disclosures.


In January 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-01, “Receivables (Topic 310) – Deferral of the Effective Date of Disclosures about Troubled Debt Restructurings in Updated No. 2010-20” and in April 2011 issued ASU 2011-02, “Receivables (Topic 310) – A Creditors Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring.” The main provisions in this Update indicate that a creditor must separately conclude, in evaluating whether a restructuring constitutes a TDR, that both of the following exist: the restructuring constitutes a concession and the debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. The amendments to Topic 310 clarify the guidance on a creditor’s evaluation of whether it has granted a concession, and whether a debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. This ASU also clarifies that a creditor is precluded from using the effective interest rate test when evaluating whether a restructuring constitutes a TDR. The amendments are effective for the first interim period beginning on or after June 15, 2011 and should be applied retrospectively to the beginning of the annual period of adoption. The adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.


NOTE 3: INVESTMENT SECURITIES


Investments in securities are classified as available for sale or held to maturity as of December 31, 2011 and 2010. The amortized cost and fair values of the securities classified as available for sale and held to maturity as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 are as follows:


(In thousands)

Amortized
Cost

Gross
Unrealized
Gains

Gross
Unrealized
Losses

Fair
Value

As of December 31, 2011

 

 

 

 

Available for sale:

 

 

 

 

U.S. Treasury Obligations

$       250

$         0

$       0

$       250

U.S. Agency Obligations

89,597

828

6

90,419

FHLB Obligations

16,545

134

3

16,676

Agency Residential Real Estate Mortgage-backed
  Securities (“Agency MBSs”)

176,756

7,100

18

183,838

Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligations
  (“Agency CMOs”)

211,749

2,976

245

214,480

Non-agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligations
  (“Non-agency CMOs”)

5,346

2

493

4,855

Asset Backed Securities (“ABSs”)

1,172

61

0

1,233

    Total available for sale

$501,415

$11,101

$   765

$511,751

Held to maturity:

 

 

 

 

Agency MBSs

$       558

$       66

$       0

$       624

    Total held to maturity

$       558

$       66

$       0

$       624




57



(In thousands)

Amortized
Cost

Gross
Unrealized
Gains

Gross
Unrealized
Losses

Fair
Value

As of December 31, 2010

 

 

 

 

Available for sale:

 

 

 

 

U.S. Treasury Obligations

$       250

$         0

$       0

$       250

U.S. Agency Obligations

47,717

287

216

47,788

FHLB Obligations

11,211

253

7

11,457

Agency MBSs

169,396

6,136

625

174,907

Agency CMOs

222,435

2,289

456

224,268

Non-agency CMOs

6,114

2

264

5,852

ABSs

1,492

0

52

1,440

    Total available for sale

$458,615

$  8,967

$1,620

$465,962

Held to maturity:

 

 

 

 

Agency MBSs

$       794

$       88

$       0

$       882

    Total held to maturity

$       794

$       88

$       0

$       882


There were no securities classified as trading at December 31, 2011 and 2010.


The contractual final maturity distribution of the debt securities classified as available for sale and held to maturity as of December 31, 2011, are as follows:


SECURITIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE (at fair value):


(In thousands)

Within
One Year

After One
But Within
Five Years

After Five
But Within
Ten Years

After Ten
Years

Total

U.S. Treasury Obligations

$   250

$         0

$           0

$           0

$       250

U.S. Agency Obligations

3,023

12,567

69,823

5,006

90,419

FHLB Obligations

3,389

0

13,287

0

16,676

Agency MBSs

20

6,118

32,897

144,803

183,838

Agency CMOs

0

0

3,056

211,424

214,480

Non-Agency CMOs

0

0

50

4,805

4,855

ABSs

0

0

0

1,233

1,233

    Total

$6,682

$18,685

$119,113

$367,271

$511,751


SECURITIES HELD TO MATURITY (at amortized cost):


(In thousands)

Within
One Year

After One
But Within
Five Years

After Five
But Within
Ten Years

After Ten
Years

Total

Agency MBSs

$       0

$     158

$           0

$       400

$       558

    Total

$       0

$     158

$           0

$       400

$       558


Actual maturities will differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have rights to call or prepay obligations. Maturities of MBSs and CMOs in the table above are based on final contractual maturities.


Proceeds from sales of available for sale debt securities were $131.86 million, $58.48 million, and $65.20 million during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Gross gains of $1.19 million, $2.12 million and $1.80 million, and gross losses of $139 thousand, $40 thousand and $576 thousand were realized from sales of securities in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.


Securities with a book value of $299.36 million and $279.82 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, were pledged to secure U.S. Treasury borrowings, public deposits, securities sold under agreements to repurchase, and for other purposes required by law.




58


Gross unrealized losses on investment securities available for sale and the fair value of the related securities, aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have been in continuous unrealized loss position, at December 31, 2011, were as follows:


 

Less Than 12 Months

12 Months or More

Total

 

Fair

Unrealized

Fair

Unrealized

Fair

Unrealized

(In thousands)

Value

Losses

Value

Losses

Value

Losses

U.S. Agency Obligations

$  2,536

$    6

$       0

$    0

$  2,536

$    6

FHLB Obligations

5,047

3

0

0

5,047

3

Agency MBSs

10,452

18

0

0

10,452

18

Agency CMOs

43,708

205

2,861

40

46,569

245

Non-Agency CMOs

0

0

4,805

493

4,805

493

 

$61,743

$232

$7,666

$533

$69,409

$765


Gross unrealized losses on investment securities available for sale and the fair value of the related securities, aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have been in continuous unrealized loss position, at December 31, 2010, were as follows:


 

Less Than 12 Months

12 Months or More

Total

 

Fair

Unrealized

Fair

Unrealized

Fair

Unrealized

(In thousands)

Value

Losses

Value

Losses

Value

Losses

U.S. Agency Obligations

$  16,173

$   216

$       0

$    0

$  16,173

$   216

FHLB Obligations

4,989

7

0

0

4,989

7

Agency MBSs

61,276

625

0

0

61,276

625

Agency CMOs

86,542

456

0

0

86,542

456

Non-Agency CMOs

96

2

5,684

262

5,780

264

ABSs

349

7

1,090

45

1,439

52

 

$169,425

$1,313

$6,774

$307

$176,199

$1,620


There were no securities held to maturity with unrealized losses as of December 31, 2011 or 2010.


Unrealized losses on investment securities result from the cost basis of the security being higher than its current fair value. These discrepancies generally occur because of changes in interest rates since the time of purchase, or because the credit quality of the issuer has deteriorated. We perform a quarterly analysis of each security in our portfolio to determine if impairment exists, and if it does, whether that impairment is other-than-temporary.


We use an external pricing service to obtain fair market values for our investment portfolio. We have obtained and reviewed the service provider’s pricing and reference data document. Evaluations are based on market data and vary by asset class and incorporate available trade, bid and other market information. Because many fixed income securities do not trade on a daily basis, the service provider’s evaluated pricing applications apply available information through processes such as benchmark curves, benchmarking of like securities, sector groupings, and matrix pricing, to prepare evaluations. In addition, model processes, such as the Option Adjusted Spread model are used to assess interest rate impact and develop prepayment scenarios. We test the values provided to us by the pricing service through a combination of back testing on actual sales of securities and by obtaining prices on selected bonds from an alternative pricing source.


Our investment portfolio consists almost entirely of U.S. Treasury and Agency obligations, or Agency-guaranteed mortgage securities. We have two non-agency CMOs with a current book value of $5.30 million and one non-agency ABS with a current book value of $816 thousand. We have performed extensive impairment analyses on all three of these bonds with the assistance of an additional outside expert that specializes in valuing these types of securities. The outside expert performed an in-depth analysis of the underlying collateral and, based on that analysis formulated collateral performance assumptions regarding the likely magnitude and timing of defaults, severities and prepayments. Those assumptions were fed into a model that incorporates all aspects of the deal structure and waterfall and produces a cash flow projection. Data provided by the trustee and the servicer was examined and consideration given to both performance to date characteristics and loan credit characteristics such as the loan to value (“LTV”) ratio, FICO score, geographic location, modification status and vintage, among others. The collateral was divided into several distinct buckets and different default, recovery and prepayment assumptions were applied to each of the buckets. The collateral features weighted most heavily, because they are the most determinative of future performance, were: original LTV, underlying property location, current loan status, and loan modification status. Different liquidation curves, default rates and loss severity assumptions were applied to each bucket.




59


One of the non-Agency CMOs, with a cost basis of $3.55 million and a fair value of $3.30 million at December 31, 2011, is rated BBB by Fitch and Baa3 by Moody’s. Delinquencies have been fairly low and prepayment speeds for the bond during 2011 have been rapid leading to increased credit support. We own a senior tranche in this bond. Although losses are expected in the bond overall, our position in the structure of the bond is expected to protect us from realizing losses. The second bond has a cost basis of $1.75 million and a fair value of $1.51 million. This bond is rated CCC by Fitch and BBB- by S&P. We own a super senior tranche in this bond. Although losses are expected in the bond overall, our super senior position in the structure is expected to protect us from realizing losses. The third non-agency bond in our portfolio has an adjusted cost basis of $816 thousand and a fair value of $816 thousand. The bond has insurance backing from Ambac. However, because of Ambac’s uncertain financial status, we place no reliance on the insurance wrap in our impairment analysis. The bond is rated CC by Standard & Poor’s and Caa2 by Moody’s. This is the only bond in our portfolio with subprime exposure and we expect that we will incur losses on this bond. As a result we have recorded a total of $177 thousand in impairment charges on this bond, the total amount of the principal write downs we expect to experience. We have taken charges of $55 thousand, $80 thousand and $42 thousand during 2011, 2010 and 2008, respectively.


We do not intend to sell the investment securities that are in an unrealized loss position, and it is unlikely that we will be required to sell the investment securities before recovery of their amortized cost bases, which may be maturity.


As a member of the FHLB system, we are required to invest in stock of the FHLB of Boston (the “FHLBB”) in an amount determined based on our borrowings from the FHLBB. At December 31, 2011, our investment in FHLBB stock totaled $8.63 million. We received and recorded dividend income totaling $32 thousand during the 2011. We received no dividend income on FHLBB stock during 2010.


NOTE 4: LOANS AND THE ALLOWANCE FOR CREDIT LOSSES


Loans

The composition of the loan portfolio at December 31, 2011 and 2010 is as follows:


(In thousands)

2011

2010

Commercial, financial and agricultural

$   146,990

$  112,514

Municipal loans

101,705

67,861

Real estate loans – residential

439,818

422,981

Real estate loans – commercial

313,915

284,296

Real estate loans – construction

18,993

16,420

Installment loans

5,806

6,284

All other loans

399

438

Total loans

$1,027,626

$  910,794


At December 31, 2011 and 2010, total loans included $11 thousand and $(80) thousand of net deferred loan origination fees. The aggregate amount of overdrawn deposit balances classified as loan balances was $399 thousand and $437 thousand at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.


Residential and commercial loans serviced for others at December 31, 2011 and 2010 amounted to approximately $18.02 million and $19.41 million, respectively.


We primarily originate residential real estate, commercial, commercial real estate, municipal obligations and installment loans to customers throughout the state of Vermont. There are no significant industry concentrations in the loan portfolio. There has been continued volatility in financial and capital markets during 2011. While continuing to adhere to prudent underwriting standards, we are not immune to some negative consequences arising from overall economic weakness and, in particular, a sharp downturn in the real estate market in Vermont.


Allowance for Credit Losses

We have divided the loan portfolio into portfolio segments, each with different risk characteristics and methodologies for assessing risk. Each portfolio segment is broken down into class segments where appropriate. Class segments contain unique measurement attributes, risk characteristics and methods for monitoring and assessing risk that are necessary to develop the allowance for loan and lease losses. Unique characteristics such as borrower type, loan type, collateral type, and risk characteristics define each class segment. A description of the segments follows:




60


Commercial, financial and agricultural: We offer a variety of loan options to meet the specific needs of commercial customers including term loans and lines of credit. Such loans are made available to businesses for working capital such as inventory and receivables, business expansion and equipment purchases. Generally, a collateral lien is placed on equipment, receivables, inventory or other assets owned by the borrower. These loans carry a higher risk than commercial real estate loans by the nature of the underlying collateral, and the collateral value may change daily. To reduce the risk, management generally employs enhanced monitoring requirements, obtains personal guarantees and, where appropriate, may also attempt to secure real estate as collateral.


Municipal: Municipal loans primarily consist of shorter term loans issued on a tax-exempt basis which are considered general obligations of the municipality. These loans are generally viewed as lower risk and self-liquidating as Vermont statutes mandate that a municipality utilize its taxing power to meet its financial obligations. To a lesser extent, we also make longer term loans under the federal Qualified School Construction Bond program. Proceeds are used for the construction, rehabilitation or repair of public school properties and we receive a federal tax credit in lieu of interest income on these loans.


Real Estate – Residential: Residential real estate loans consist primarily of loans secured by first or second mortgages on primary residences. We originate adjustable-rate and fixed-rate, one-to-four family residential real estate loans for the construction, purchase or refinancing of a mortgage. These loans are collateralized by owner-occupied properties located in our market area. Loans on one-to-four family residential real estate are generally originated in amounts of no more than 80% of the purchase price or appraised value (whichever is lower). Mortgage title insurance and hazard insurance are required.


Real Estate – Commercial: We offer commercial real estate loans to finance real estate purchases and refinancing of existing commercial properties. These commercial real estate loans are secured by first liens on the real estate, which may include both owner occupied and non owner occupied facilities. The types of facilities financed include apartments, hotels, warehouses, retail facilities, manufacturing facilities and office buildings. Our underwriting analysis includes credit verification, independent appraisals, a review of the borrower's financial condition, and a detailed analysis of the borrower’s underlying cash flows.


Real Estate – Construction: We offer construction loans for the construction, expansion and improvement of residential and commercial properties which are secured by the real estate being developed. A review of all plans and budgets is performed prior to approval, third party progress documents are required during construction, and an independent approval process for all draw and release requests is maintained to ensure that funding is prudently administered and that funds are sufficient to complete the project.


Installment - We offer traditional direct consumer installment loans for various personal needs, including vehicle and boat financing. The vast majority of these loans are secured by a lien on the purchased vehicle and are underwritten using credit scores and income verification. We do not provide any indirect consumer lending activities.


For purposes of evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for credit losses, we consider a number of significant factors that affect the collectability of the portfolio. For individually evaluated loans, these include estimates of loss exposure, which reflect the facts and circumstances that affect the likelihood of repayment of such loans as of the evaluation date. For homogeneous pools of loans and leases, estimates of our exposure to credit loss reflect a current assessment of a number of factors, which could affect collectability. These factors include: past loss experience; size, trend, composition, and nature of loans; changes in lending policies and procedures, including underwriting standards and collection, charge-offs and recoveries; trends experienced in nonperforming and delinquent loans; current economic conditions in our market; the effect of external factors such as competition, legal and regulatory requirements; and the experience, ability, and depth of lending management and staff. Past loss experience is based on net loan losses as a percentage of portfolio balances, using a five year weighted average. An external loan review firm and various regulatory agencies periodically review our allowance for credit losses.


After a thorough consideration of the factors discussed above, any required additions to the allowance for credit losses are made periodically by charges to the provision for credit losses. These charges are necessary to maintain the allowance for credit losses at a level which Management believes is reasonably reflective of overall inherent risk of probable loss in the portfolio. While Management uses available information to recognize losses on loans, additions may fluctuate from one reporting period to another. These fluctuations are reflective of changes in risk associated with portfolio content and/or changes in management’s assessment of any or all of the determining factors discussed above.




61


A summary of changes in the allowance for credit losses for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 is as follows:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

Balance, beginning of year

$10,754 

$11,702 

$  9,311 

Charge-offs

(329)

(1,977)

(1,876)

Recoveries

178 

2,779 

167 

(Credit) provision

750 

(1,750)

4,100 

Balance, end of year

$11,353 

$10,754 

$11,702 

Components:

Allowance for loan losses

$10,619 

$10,135 

$10,976 

Reserve for undisbursed lines of credit

734 

619 

726 

Allowance for credit losses

$11,353 

$10,754 

$11,702 


The following table reflects our loan loss experience and activity in the allowance for credit losses for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011:


(In thousands)

Commercial,
financial and
agricultural

Municipal

Real estate-
residential

Real estate-
commercial

Real estate-
construction

Installment

All
other

Totals

Allowance for credit losses:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beginning balance

$    2,617 

$       236 

$    2,428 

$    5,143 

$     283 

$     24 

$  23 

$     10,754 

Charge-offs

(80)

(83)

(60)

(96)

(10)

(329)

Recoveries

101 

44 

25 

178 

Provision (credit)

267 

73 

789 

(643)

265 

(6)

750 

Ending balance

$    2,905 

$       309 

$    3,138 

$    4,484 

$     477 

$     23 

$  17 

$     11,353 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ending balance individually
 evaluated for impairment

$         17 

$           0 

$       210 

$           0 

$         0 

$       0 

$    0 

$          227 

Ending balance collectively
 evaluated for impairment

2,888 

309 

2,928 

4,484 

477 

23 

17 

11,126 

Totals

$    2,905 

$       309 

$    3,138 

$    4,484 

$     477 

$     23 

$  17 

$     11,353 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financing receivables:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ending balance individually
 evaluated for impairment

$       114 

$         0 

$    1,985 

$412 

$         0 

$       0 

$    0 

$       2,511 

Ending balance collectively
 evaluated for impairment

146,876 

101,705 

437,833 

313,503 

18,993 

5,806 

399 

1,025,115 

Totals

$146,990 

$101,705 

$439,818 

$313,915 

$18,993 

$5,806 

$399 

$1,027,626 

Components:

Allowance for loan losses

$    2,412 

$       307 

$    3,025 

$    4,442 

$     393 

$     23 

$  17 

$     10,619 

Reserve for undisbursed
 lines of credit

493 

113 

42 

84 

734 

Total allowance for credit
 losses

$    2,905 

$       309 

$    3,138 

$    4,484 

$     477 

$     23 

$  17 

$     11,353 




62


The following table reflects our loan loss experience and activity in the allowance for credit losses for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010:


(In thousands)

Commercial,
financial and
agricultural

Municipal

Real estate-
residential

Real estate-
commercial

Real estate-
construction

Installment

All
other

Totals

Allowance for credit losses:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beginning balance

$    3,697 

$       134

$    2,289 

$    5,000 

$     360 

$     39 

$ 183 

$  11,702 

Charge-offs

(1,691)

0

(25)

(259)

(2)

(1,977)

Recoveries

2,128 

0

20 

30 

593 

2,779 

Provision (credit)

(1,517)

102

144 

372 

(670)

(21)

(160)

(1,750)

Ending balance

$    2,617 

$     236

$    2,428 

$    5,143 

$     283 

$     24 

$   23 

$  10,754 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ending balance individually
 evaluated for impairment

$       275 

$        0

$         58 

$           0 

$         0 

$       0 

$     0 

$       333 

Ending balance collectively
 evaluated for impairment

2,342 

236

2,370 

5,143 

283 

24 

23 

10,421 

Totals

$    2,617 

$     236

$    2,428 

$    5,143 

$     283 

$     24 

$   23 

$  10,754 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financing receivables:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ending balance individually
 evaluated for impairment

$       595 

$        0

$    2,626 

$       883 

$         0 

$       0 

$     0 

$    4,104 

Ending balance collectively
 evaluated for impairment

111,919 

67,861

420,355 

283,413 

16,420 

6,284 

438 

906,690 

Totals

$112,514 

$67,861

$422,981 

$284,296 

$16,420 

$6,284 

$ 438 

$910,794 

Components:

Allowance for loan losses

$    2,113 

$     236

$    2,366 

$    5,096 

$     277 

$     24 

$   23 

$  10,135 

Reserve for undisbursed
 lines of credit

504 

0

62 

47 

619 

Total allowance for credit
 losses

$    2,617 

$     236

$    2,428 

$    5,143 

$     283 

$     24 

$  23 

$  10,754 


Presented below is an aging of past due loans, including nonaccrual loans, by class as of December 31, 2011:


(In thousands)

30-59
Days
Past
Due

60-89
Days
Past
Due

Over 90
Days
Past
Due

Total
Past
Due

Current

Total

Greater
Than 90
Days and
Accruing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial, financial and agricultural

$  0

$  40

$       8

$     48

$   146,942

$   146,990

$     0

Municipal

0

0

0

0

101,705

101,705

0

Real estate – residential:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  First mortgage

39

305

731

1,075

400,256

401,331

0

  Second mortgage

0

0

281

281

38,206

38,487

0

Real estate – commercial:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Owner occupied

0

325

87

412

205,844

206,256

0

  Non-owner occupied

0

0

0

0

107,659

107,659

0

Real estate – construction:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Residential

0

0

0

0

1,798

1,798

0

  Commercial

0

0

0

0

17,195

17,195

0

Installment

0

0

0

0

5,806

5,806

0

Other

0

0

0

0

399

399

0

Total

$39

$670

$1,107

$1,816

$1,025,810

$1,027,626

$     0




63



Presented below is an aging of past due loans, including nonaccrual loans, by class as of December 31, 2010:


(In thousands)

30-59
Days
Past
Due

60-89
Days
Past
Due

Over 90
Days
Past
Due

Total
Past
Due

Current

Total

Greater
Than 90
Days and
Accruing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial, financial and agricultural

$  38

$     88

$   169

$   295

$112,219

$112,514

$    0

Municipal

0

0

0

0

67,861

67,861

0

Real estate – residential:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  First mortgage

0

743

1,461

2,204

378,508

380,712

216

  Second mortgage

128

118

491

737

41,532

42,269

168

Real estate – commercial:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Owner occupied

186

0

445

631

125,325

125,956

0

  Non-owner occupied

0

21

400

421

157,919

158,340

0

Real estate – construction:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Residential

0

0

0

0

6,287

6,287

0

  Commercial

0

167

0

167

9,966

10,133

0

Installment

20

6

0

26

6,258

6,284

0

Other

5

0

0

5

433

438

0

Total

$377

$1,143

$  2,966

$  4,486

$906,308

$910,794

$384


Impaired loans by class at December 31, 2011 are as follows:


(In thousands)

Recorded
Investment

Unpaid
Principal
Balance

Related
Allowance

Average
Recorded
Investment

Interest
Income
Recognized

With no related allowance recorded:

 

 

 

 

 

  Commercial, financial and agricultural

$     77

$1,099

$    0

$   154

$    0

  Real estate loans – residential:

 

 

 

 

 

    First mortgage

914

1,162

0

1,201

44

    Second mortgage

222

224

0

325

43

  Real estate loans – commercial:

 

 

 

 

 

    Owner occupied

412

548

0

495

11

    Non-owner occupied

0

70

0

64

4

  Real estate – construction:

 

 

 

 

 

    Residential

0

0

0

0

0

    Commercial

0

94

0

107

0

  Installment

0

43

0

3

1

With an allowance recorded:

 

 

 

 

 

  Commercial, financial and agricultural

37

43

17

240

18

  Real estate loans – residential:

 

 

 

 

 

    First mortgage

790

830

207

761

0

    Second mortgage

59

60

3

34

0

  Real estate – commercial:

 

 

 

 

 

    Non-owner occupied

0

0

0

46

9

Total:

 

 

 

 

 

  Commercial, financial and agricultural

114

1,142

17

394

18

  Real estate loans – residential

1,985

2,276

210

2,321

87

  Real estate loans – commercial

412

618

0

605

24

  Real estate – construction

0

94

0

107

0

  Installment

0

43

0

3

1

    Total

$2,511

$4,173

$227

$3,430

$130




64


Impaired loans by class at December 31, 2010 were as follows:


(In thousands)

Recorded
Investment

Unpaid
Principal
Balance

Related
Allowance

Average
Recorded
Investment

Interest
Income
Recognized

With no related allowance recorded:

 

 

 

 

 

  Commercial, financial and agricultural

$   112

$1,077

$    0

$2,767

$248

  Real estate – residential:

 

 

 

 

 

    First mortgage

1,318

1,636

0

293

83

    Second mortgage

644

644

0

444

17

  Real estate – commercial:

 

 

 

 

 

    Owner occupied

483

490

0

656

49

    Non-owner occupied

400

640

0

439

22

  Real estate – construction:

 

 

 

 

 

    Residential

0

0

0

213

41

    Commercial

0

0

0

141

0

  Installment

0

17

0

0

0

With related allowance recorded:

 

 

 

 

 

  Commercial, financial and agricultural

483

483

275

2,070

100

  Real estate – residential:

 

 

 

 

 

    First mortgage

664

664

58

1,156

14

Total:

 

 

 

 

 

  Commercial, financial and agricultural

595

1,560

275

4,837

348

  Real estate – residential

2,626

2,944

58

1,893

114

  Real estate – commercial

883

1,130

0

1,095

71

  Real estate – construction

0

0

0

354

41

  Installment

0

17

0

0

0

    Total

$4,104

$5,651

$333

$8,179

$574


Impaired loans at December 31, 2011 consist predominantly of residential real estate loans. Total impaired loans totaled $2.51 million and $4.10 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. At December 31, 2011, $885 thousand of the impaired loans had a specific reserve allocation of $227 thousand, and $1.63 million of the impaired loans had no specific reserve allocation. At December 31, 2010, $1.15 million of the impaired loans had a specific reserve allocation of $333 thousand, and $2.96 million of the impaired loans had no specific reserve allocation


We recorded interest income on impaired loans of approximately $130 thousand during 2011. No interest was recorded on a cash basis during the period the loan was impaired. We recorded interest income on impaired loans of approximately $574 thousand during 2010 which included $288 thousand in interest recorded on a cash basis during the period the loan was impaired. We recorded interest income on impaired loans of $38 thousand during 2009. The average balance of impaired loans was $3.43 million, $8.18 million and $12.56 million during 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.


Nonperforming loans at December 31, 2011 and 2010 are as follows:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

Nonaccrual loans

$1,953

$3,171

Loans greater than 90 days and accruing

0

384

TDRs

558

549

Total nonperforming loans

$2,511

$4,104


Of the total TDRs in the table above, $224 thousand at December 31, 2011 and $146 thousand at December 31, 2010, are nonaccruing.


As a result of adopting the amendments in ASU 2011-02, we have reassessed all restructurings that occurred on or after January 1, 2011 for identification as troubled debt restructurings. We did not identify as TDR any loans for which the allowance for credit losses had been measured under a general allowance for credit losses methodology. The loans in the table below are considered impaired under the guidance in Section 310-10-35. Included in the total TDRs of $558 thousand at December 31, 2011 are $347 thousand which were restructured prior to January 1, 2011.




65


Presented below is a summary of our restructurings during the year ended December 31, 2011:


(Dollars in thousands)

Number
of loans

Pre-
modification
Outstanding
Recorded
Investment

Post-
modification
Outstanding
Recorded
Investment

Real estate – residential:

 

 

 

    First mortgage

3

$262

$211


The loans in the table above were classified as TDRs because the borrowers demonstrated cash flow insufficient to service their debt, as well as an inability to obtain funds at market rates from other sources. All three of the loans that were restructured during 2011 were in non-accruing status at the time of the modification. One of the loans was returned to accruing status at the end of the year because there was a sustained period of repayment performance by the borrower, in accordance with the modified term of the loan, and all principal and interest amounts contractually due are reasonably assured of repayment within an acceptable period of time.


Modifications were granted which consisted of lower interest rates and more favorable payment terms to the borrower. There were no TDRs restructured within the past twelve months that have defaulted.


TDRs consist of seven residential real estate loans at December 31, 2011. All seven borrowers experienced financial difficulties that led to the restructure. At the time of restructure five were in payment default and all seven demonstrated cash flow insufficient to service their debt as well and an inability to obtain funds at market rates from other sources. At December 31, 2011, five of the restructured loans were performing in accordance with modified agreements, while two loans totaling $63 thousand, that were restructured in a prior year, were in default with foreclosure proceedings in process. At December 31, 2011, three of the loans totaling $334 thousand were accruing and four of the loans totaling $224 thousand were in nonaccrual. At December 31, 2011, there were no commitments to lend additional funds to borrower whose loans have been modified in a troubled debt restructuring. We had no commitments to lend additional funds to borrowers whose loans were in nonaccrual status or to borrowers whose loans were 90 days past due and still accruing. Merchants recorded interest income on restructured loans of approximately $13 thousand for 2011. Merchants had no commitments to lend additional funds to borrowers whose loans were in nonaccrual or TDR status at the end of 2011.


We had $358 thousand in OREO at December 31, 2011, compared with $191 thousand at December 31, 2010.


Nonaccrual loans by class as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 are as follows:


(In thousands)

2011

2010

Commercial, financial and agricultural

$   114

$   595

Real estate loans – residential:

 

 

    First mortgage

1,146

1,340

    Second mortgage

281

391

Real estate loans – commercial:

 

 

    Owner occupied

412

445

    Non owner occupied

0

400

Installment

 

 

Total nonaccrual non-TDR loans

$1,953

$3,171

 

 

 

Nonaccruing TDRs

 

 

    Real estate – residential

 

 

    First Mortgage

224

146

Total nonaccrual loans

$2,177

$3,317


Commercial Grading System

We use risk rating definitions for our commercial loan portfolios and certain residential loans which are generally consistent with regulatory and banking industry norms. Loans are assigned a credit quality grade which is based upon management’s on-going assessment of risk based upon an evaluation of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of each credit. This assessment is a dynamic process and risk ratings are adjusted as each borrower’s financial situation changes. This process is designed to provide timely recognition of a borrower’s financial condition and appropriately focus management resources.




66


Pass rated loans exhibit acceptable risk to the bank in terms of financial capacity to repay their loans as well as possessing acceptable fallback repayment sources, typically collateral and personal guarantees. These loans are subject to a formal annual review process, additionally, management reviews the risk rating at the time of any late payments, overdrafts or other sign of deterioration in the interim.


Loans rated Pass-Watch require more than usual attention and monitoring by the account officer, though not to the extent that a formal remediation plan is warranted. Borrowers can be rated Pass-Watch based upon a weakened capital structure, adequate but low cash flow and/or collateral coverage or early-stage declining trends in operations or financial condition.


Loans rated Special Mention possess potential weakness that may expose the bank to some risk of loss in the future. These loans require more frequent monitoring and formal reporting to Management.


Substandard loans reflect well-defined weaknesses in the current repayment capacity, collateral or net worth of the borrower with the possibility of some loss to the bank if these weaknesses are not corrected. Action plans are required for these loans to address the inherent weakness in the credit and are formally reviewed.


Below is a summary of loans by credit quality indicator as of December 31, 2011:


(In thousands)

Unrated
Residential
and
Consumer

Pass

Pass-
Watch

Special
Mention

Sub-
standard

Total

Commercial, financial and agricultural

$           2

$117,772

$28,326

$   170

$     720

$   146,990

Municipal loans

0

101,705

0

0

0

101,705

Real estate loans – residential:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    First mortgage

379,512

18,647

1,569

641

962

401,331

    Second mortgage

38,020

146

0

0

321

38,487

Real estate loans – commercial:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Owner occupied

0

175,878

14,001

7,355

9,022

206,256

    Non owner occupied

0

95,239

8,891

1,195

2,334

107,659

Real estate loans – construction:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Residential

99

0

1,699

0

0

1,798

    Commercial

81

15,925

573

0

616

17,195

Installment loans

5,806

0

0

0

0

5,806

All other loans

399

0

0

0

0

399

    Total

$423,919

$525,312

$55,059

$9,361

$13,975

$1,027,626




67


Below is a summary of loans by credit quality indicator as of December 31, 2010:


(In thousands)

Unrated
Residential
and
Consumer

Pass

Pass-
Watch

Special
Mention

Sub-
standard

Total

Commercial, financial and agricultural

$           0

$103,384

$  5,271

$  2,038

$  1,821

$112,514

Municipal

0

67,861

0

0

0

67,861

Real estate – residential:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    First mortgage

380,712

0

0

0

0

380,712

    Second mortgage

42,269

0

0

0

0

42,269

Real estate – commercial:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Owner occupied

0

95,705

14,732

4,601

10,918

125,956

    Non-owner occupied

0

120,491

26,735

4,604

6,510

158,340

Real estate – construction:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Residential

0

3,568

1,562

1,157

0

6,287

    Commercial

0

9,015

186

629

303

10,133

Installment

6,284

0

0

0

0

6,284

All other loans

270

0

0

168

0

438

    Total

$429,535

$400,024

$48,486

$13,197

$19,552

$910,794


The amount of interest which was not earned, but which would have been earned had our nonaccrual and restructured loans performed in accordance with their original terms and conditions, was approximately $193 thousand, $425 thousand and $638 thousand in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.


It is our policy to make loans to directors, executive officers, and associates of such persons on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing for comparable lending transactions with other persons.


NOTE 5: PREMISES AND EQUIPMENT


The components of premises and equipment included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets are as follows:


 

 

 

Estimated

 

 

 

Useful Lives

(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

(In years)

Land

$     544

$     600

N/A

Bank premises

10,712

11,070

39

Leasehold improvements

6,627

6,380

5 – 20

Furniture, equipment, and software

16,376

16,538

3 – 7

 

34,259

34,588

 

Less: accumulated depreciation and amortization

20,027

20,223

 

 

$14,232

$14,365

 


Depreciation and amortization expense related to premises and equipment amounted to $1.89 million, $1.70 million and $1.59 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.


We occupy certain banking offices under non-cancellable operating lease agreements expiring at various dates over the next 20 years. The majority of leases have multiple options with escalation clauses for increases associated with the cost of living or other variable expenses over time. Rent expense on these properties totaled $1.02 million, $1.02 million and $1.01 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Minimum lease payments on these properties subsequent to December 31, 2011 are as follows: 2012 – $1.04 million; 2013 – $818 thousand; 2014 – $672 thousand; 2015 – $650 thousand; 2016 - $534 thousand and $3.02 million thereafter. We entered into a sale leaseback arrangement for our principal office in South Burlington, Vermont, in June 2008. Deferred gains on the sale leaseback transaction resulted in a $423 thousand offset to rent expense per year through 2015 and $1.06 million thereafter.




68


We had no intangibles on our balance sheet at any point during 2011 or 2010, therefore no amortization was recorded during 2011 or 2010. Amortization for intangibles is expected to be zero for 2012.


NOTE 6: TIME DEPOSITS


Scheduled maturities of time deposits at December 31, 2011 were as follows:


(In thousands)

 

Mature in year ending December 31,

 

    2012

$277,402

    2013

27,181

    2014

20,745

    2015

11,779

    2016

11,135

    Thereafter

6

Total time deposits

$348,248


Time deposits greater than $100 thousand totaled $127.30 million and $127.75 million as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Interest expense on time deposits greater than $100 thousand amounted to $1.14 million, $1.29 million and $2.32 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.


NOTE 7: SECURITIES SOLD UNDER AGREEMENTS TO REPURCHASE AND OTHER SHORT-TERM
DEBT


Securities sold under agreements to repurchase and other short-term debt consisted of the following at December 31, 2011 and 2010:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

Demand note due U.S. Treasury

$           0

$    2,964

Securities sold under agreements to repurchase – short-term

262,527

224,693

 

$262,527

$227,657


FHLB short term borrowings mature daily. There were no outstanding balances at December 31, 2011. The Demand Note Due U.S. Treasury matures daily and bears interest at the federal funds rate less 0.25%; the rate on this borrowing at December 31, 2011 was zero. The Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase are collateralized by mortgage backed securities and collateralized mortgage backed obligations. The repurchase agreements mature daily and the average rate paid on these funds for 2011 was 0.95%. The carrying value of the securities sold under repurchase agreements was $290.06 million and the market value was $296.73 million at December 31, 2011. We maintain effective control over the securities underlying the agreements.


As of December 31, 2011, we could borrow up to $44 million in overnight funds through unsecured borrowing lines established with correspondent banks. We have established both overnight and longer term lines of credit with the FHLB. The borrowings are secured by residential mortgage loans. The total amount of loans pledged to the FHLB for both short and long-term borrowing arrangements totaled $225.86 million and $193.29 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. We have $111.76 million in additional short or long-term borrowing capacity with FHLBB. We also have the ability to borrow short-term or long-term through the use of repurchase agreements, collateralized by our investments, with certain approved counterparties.




69


The following table provides certain information regarding other borrowed funds for the three years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:


(In thousands)

2011

2010

2009

FHLB short-term borrowings

 

 

 

    Amount outstanding at year end

$           0

$           0

$           0

    Maximum month-end amount outstanding

0

13,000

35,000

    Average amount outstanding

359

1,316

5,721

    Weighted average-rate during the year

0.28%

0.31%

0.33%

    Weighted average rate at year-end

0%

0%

0%

Demand note due U.S. Treasury

 

 

 

    Amount outstanding at year end

$0

$2,964

$1,403

    Maximum month-end amount outstanding

3,013

3,330

1,676

    Average amount outstanding

1,794

1,414

1,094

    Weighted average-rate during the year

0%

0%

0%

    Weighted average rate at year-end

0%

0%

0%

Securities sold under agreement to repurchase

 

 

 

    Amount outstanding at year end

$262,527

$224,693

$178,315

    Maximum month-end amount outstanding

266,897

224,693

178,315

    Average amount outstanding

217,823

172,165

108,295

    Weighted average-rate during the year

0.95%

0.94%

0.57%

    Weighted average rate at year-end

0.91%

1.01%

0.93%


NOTE 8: LONG-TERM DEBT


Long-term debt consisted of the following at December 31, 2011 and 2010:


(In thousands)

2011

2010

FHLB Note, 3.09%, final maturity February 2013, one time call
  February 2011

$         0

$  5,000

FHLB Note, 3.69%, final maturity September 2014, callable quarterly

0

1,000

FHLB Note, 2.75%, final maturity April 2015

20,000

20,000

Federal Home Loan Bank Notes, payable through March 2029, Rates
  ranging from 1.50% to 2.50%

2,562

5,139

Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase, payable January 2013
  through February 2015, rates ranging from 2.52% to 3.27%

0

7,500

 

$22,562

$38,639


Interest expense on FHLB debt totaled $774 thousand and $863 thousand for 2011 and 2010 respectively. Interest on Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase totaled $141 thousand and $1.97 million for 2011 and 2010, respectively.


During 2011, we pre-paid $16 million in long-term debt and incurred prepayment penalties totaling $861 thousand.


Contractual maturities and amortization of long-term debt subsequent to December 31, 2011, are as follows: 2012 - $78 thousand; 2013 - $81 thousand; 2014 - $82 million; 2015 - $20.08 million; 2016 - $85 million and $2.15 million thereafter.


NOTE 9: TRUST PREFERRED SECURITIES


On December 15, 2004, we closed our private placement of an aggregate of $20 million of trust preferred securities. The placement occurred through a newly formed Delaware statutory trust affiliate, MBVT Statutory Trust I (the “Trust”), as part of a pooled trust preferred program. The Trust was formed for the sole purpose of issuing capital securities which are non-voting. We own all of the common securities of the Trust. The proceeds from the sale of the capital securities were loaned to us under deeply subordinated debentures issued to the Trust. The debentures are the only asset of the Trust and payments under the debentures are the sole revenue of the Trust. Our primary source of funds to pay interest on the debentures held by the Trust is current dividends from our principal subsidiary, Merchants Bank. Accordingly, our ability to service the debentures is dependent upon the continued ability of Merchants Bank to pay dividends to us.




70


These hybrid securities qualify as regulatory capital for us, up to certain regulatory limits. At the same time they are considered debt for tax purposes, and as such, interest payments are fully deductible. The trust preferred securities total $20.62 million, and carried a fixed rate of interest through December 2009 at which time the rate became variable and adjusts quarterly at a fixed spread over three month LIBOR. We have entered into two interest rate swap arrangements for our trust preferred issuance. The swaps fix the interest rate on $10 million at 6.50% for three years and at 5.23% for seven years for the balance of $10 million. The swaps were effective beginning on December 15, 2009. The trust preferred securities mature on December 31, 2034, and are redeemable at our option, subject to prior approval by the FRB, beginning in December 2009. The proceeds from the sale of the trust preferred securities were used for general corporate purposes, and helped fund the special dividend declared on December 1, 2004.


NOTE 10: INCOME TAXES


The components of the provision for income taxes were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

Current

$ 4,461 

$4,443

$ 8,695 

Deferred

(1,337)

205

(4,941)

Provision for income taxes

$3,124 

$4,648

$ 3,754 


Not included in the above table is the income tax impact associated with the unrealized gain or loss on securities available for sale and the income tax impact associated with the funded status of the pension plan, which are recorded directly in shareholders’ equity as a component of accumulated other comprehensive loss.


The tax effects of temporary differences and tax credits that give rise to deferred tax assets and liabilities at December 31, 2011 and 2010 are presented below:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

Deferred tax assets:



    Allowance for loan losses

$  3,974 

$ 3,764 

    Post retirement benefit obligation

1,444 

1,231 

    Loan mark-to-market adjustment

2,627 

1,028 

    Deferred compensation

1,217 

1,297 

    Installment sales

293 

409 

    Core deposit intangible

108 

147 

    Other

335 

361 

    Investment in real estate limited partnerships, net

86 

33 

        Total deferred tax assets

$10,084 

$ 8,270 

Deferred tax liabilities:

 

 

    Unrealized gain on securities available for sale

$ (3,598)

$(2,571)

    Depreciation

(1,746)

(1,436)

    Accrued pension cost

(1,288)

(1,334)

        Total deferred tax liabilities

$ (6,632)

$(5,341)

        Net deferred tax asset

$  3,452 

$ 2,929 


In assessing the realizability of our total deferred tax assets, Management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of those assets will not be realized. Based upon Management’s consideration of historical and anticipated future pre-tax income, as well as the reversal period for the items giving rise to the deferred tax assets and liabilities, a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets was not considered necessary at December 31, 2011 and 2010. We paid total income taxes in 2011, 2010, and 2009 of $1.95 million, $8.40 million and $5.00 million, respectively. However, factors beyond management’s controls, such as the general state of the economy can affect future levels of taxable income and there can be no assurances that sufficient taxable income will be generated to fully realize the deferred tax assets in the future.




71


The following is a reconciliation of the federal income tax provision, calculated at the statutory rate of 35%, to the recorded provision for income taxes:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

Applicable statutory federal income tax

 $6,210 

$  7,038 

$  5,682 

(Reduction) increase in taxes resulting from:

 

 

 

    Tax-exempt income

 (716)

(402)

(127)

    Housing tax credits

 (2,053)

(1,652)

(1,791)

    Qualified school construction bond tax credits

 (539)

(375)

    Other, net

 222 

39 

(10)

Provision for income taxes

 $3,124 

$  4,648 

$  3,754 


We have not identified any of our tax positions that contain significant uncertainties. Housing tax credits are recognized using the flow through method. We are currently open to audit under the statute of limitations by the Internal Revenue Service for the years ending December 31, 2008 through 2011. Our state income tax returns are also open to audit under the statute of limitations for the years ending December 31, 2008 through 2011.


The State of Vermont assesses a franchise tax for banks in lieu of income tax. The franchise tax is assessed based on deposits. Vermont franchise taxes, net of state credits amounted to approximately $1.18 million, $1.07 million and $1.02 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, which is included as non-interest expense in the accompanying consolidated statement of income.


NOTE 11: EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS


Pension Plan

Prior to January 1995, we maintained a noncontributory defined benefit plan covering all eligible employees. Our Pension Plan (the “Plan”) was a final average pay plan with benefits based on the average salary rates over the five consecutive plan years out of the last ten consecutive plan years that produce the highest average. It was our policy to fund the cost of benefits expected to accrue during the year plus amortization of any unfunded accrued liability that had accumulated prior to the valuation date based on IRS regulations for funding. During 1995, the Plan was curtailed. Accordingly, all accrued benefits were fully vested and no additional years of service or age will be accrued.


We recognize the overfunded or underfunded status of a single employer defined benefit post retirement plan as an asset or liability on the consolidated balance sheets and recognize changes in the funded status in comprehensive income in the year in which the change occurred.


The following tables provide a reconciliation of the changes in the plan’s benefit obligations and fair value of assets over the two year period ending December 31, 2011, and a statement of the funded status as of December 31 of both years:


(In thousands)

2011

2010

Reconciliation of benefit obligation

 

 

Benefit obligation at beginning of year

$9,109 

$8,586 

Service cost including expenses

50 

54 

Interest cost

473 

482 

Actuarial (gain) loss

138 

507 

Benefits paid

(530)

(520)

Benefit obligation at year-end

$9,240 

$9,109 

Reconciliation of fair value of plan assets

 

 

Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year

$9,404 

$8,793 

Actual return on plan assets

(83)

1,127 

Employer contributions

Benefits paid

(528)

(516)

Fair value of plan assets at year-end

$8,793 

$9,404 

Funded status at year end

$  (447)

$   295 




72


Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income include the unrecognized actuarial loss of $2.68 million at December 31, 2011 and $2.29 million at December 31, 2010, net of taxes.


The accumulated benefit obligation is equal to the projected benefit obligation and was $9.24 million and $9.11 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.


The following tables summarize the components of net periodic benefit cost and other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized in other comprehensive income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

Interest cost

$ 473 

$ 482 

$ 492 

Expected return on plan assets

(642)

(600)

(408)

Service costs

50 

54 

45 

Net loss amortization

252 

242 

410 

Net periodic pension cost

$ 133 

$ 178 

$ 539 


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

Net loss (gain)

$ 861 

$  (23)

$(285)

Net loss amortization

(252)

(242)

(410)

Total recognized in other comprehensive income

$ 609 

$(265)

$(695)

Total recognized in net periodic pension cost and
  other comprehensive income

$ 742 

$  (87)

$(156)


The estimated net actuarial loss for the plan that will be amortized from accumulated other comprehensive income into net periodic pension cost for 2012 is $299 thousand.


The following table summarizes the assumptions used to determine the benefit obligations and net periodic benefit costs for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:


 

2011   

2010   

2009   

Benefit obligations

 

 

 

    Discount rate

5.24%

5.26%

5.80%

Net periodic benefit cost


 

 

    Discount rate

5.26%

5.80%

6.18%

    Expected long-term return on plan assets

7.00%

7.00%

7.00%


The discount rate reflects the rates at which pension benefits could be effectively settled. We look to rates of return on high-quality fixed income investments currently available and expected to be available during the period of maturity of the pension benefits. Consideration was given to the rates that would be used to settle plan obligations as of December 31, 2011 and to the rates of other indices at year-end. Our actuary constructed a hypothetical high quality bond portfolio with cash flows that match the expected monthly benefit payments under the pension plan and calculated a discount rate based upon that portfolio. The expected long-term rate of return on plan assets reflects long-term earnings expectations on existing plan assets and those contributions expected to be received during the current plan year. In estimating that rate, appropriate consideration was given to historical returns earned by plan assets in the fund and the rates of return expected to be available for reinvestment. Rates of return were adjusted to reflect current capital market assumptions and changes in investment allocations, if any.


The Board of Directors has chosen our Trust division as the investment manager for the plan. The investment objectives of the plan are to provide both income and capital appreciation and to assist with current and future spending needs of the Plan while at the same time minimizing the risks of investing. The investment target of the Plan is to achieve a total annual rate of return in excess of the change in the Consumer Price Index for the aggregate investments of the Plan evaluated over a period of five years. A certain amount of risk must be assumed to achieve the Plan's investment target rate of return. The Plan uses a balanced portfolio which has a 5-15 year time horizon and is considered moderate risk. The portfolio strategy followed by the plan has a baseline allocation of 60% stock and 40% fixed income securities, but the investment manager may allocate funds within certain specified ranges. The range for equities is 35% to 75% and for fixed income securities the range is 25% to 60%. The allocation among categories will vary from the baseline allocation when opportunities are identified to improve returns and/or reduce risk.




73


The fair value of our pension plan assets at December 31, 2011 by asset category are as follows:


 

 

Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using:

(In thousands)
Description

Total

Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)

Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)

Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)

Cash

$     13

$     13

$    0

$    0

Money Market Funds

258

258

0

0

Equity Securities:

 

 

 

 

    Large Cap Equity Mutual Funds

2,425

2,425

0

0

    Small Cap Equity Mutual Funds

80

80

0

0

    Domestic Equities

223

223

0

0

    Global Equity Mutual Funds

506

506

0

0

    International Equity Mutual Funds

822

822

0

0

    Absolute Return Funds

419

419

0

0

Fixed Income:

 

 

 

 

    International Bond Mutual Funds

419

419

0

0

    Taxable Bond Mutual Funds

3,641

3,641

0

0

    Total

$8,806

$8,806

$    0

$    0


The fair value of our pension plan assets at December 31, 2010 by asset category are as follows:


 

 

Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using:

(In thousands)
Description

Total

Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)

Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)

Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)

Cash

$     26

$     26

$    0

$    0

Money Market Funds

196

196

0

0

Equity Securities:

 

 

 

 

    Large Cap Equity Mutual Funds

2,702

2,702

0

0

    Small Cap Equity Mutual Funds

101

101

0

0

    Domestic Equities

211

211

0

0

    Global Equity Mutual Funds

590

590

0

0

    International Equity Mutual Funds

681

681

0

0

    Absolute Return Funds

439

439

0

0

Fixed Income:

 

 

 

 

    International Bond Mutual Funds

878

878

0

0

    Taxable Bond Mutual Funds

3,581

3,581

0

0

    Total

$9,405

$9,405

$    0

$    0


Large Cap Equity Mutual Funds: Funds in this category have a diversified, actively managed multi-manager approach to investing in domestic stocks. There are multiple fund managers that are included in the portfolio with multiple categories of industries being invested in by the managers in mid-size, to large-size publicly traded firms with a majority of funds invested in large companies.


Small Cap Equity Mutual Funds: Funds in this category have a diversified, active fund manager approach to investing in small company domestic stocks.




74


Domestic equities: The pension plan holds 7,650 shares of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. stock with a cost basis of $64 thousand and a market value at December 31, 2011 of $223 thousand.


Global Equity Mutual Funds: Funds in this category are diversified, active global equity funds that have exposure to both large company domestic stocks as well as large company developed country international stocks.


International Equity Mutual Funds: Funds in this category have a diversified, actively managed multi-manager approach to investing in international developed country stocks with limited exposure to emerging market international stocks.


Absolute Return Funds: Funds in this category are invested in a diversified portfolio of stocks, preferred stocks, convertible bonds, and bonds. The portfolio manager’s objective is to take advantage of inefficiencies in the stock and bond markets to capture a return on investment by using specialized trading strategies. The goal of these trading strategies is to provide investors with consistent, positive returns that are not necessarily correlated to the general equity markets.


International Bond Mutual Funds: Funds in this category have a diversified, actively managed multi-manager approach to investing in international bonds, with an average credit rating for the entire portfolio being investment grade.


Taxable Bond Mutual Funds: Funds in this category have a diversified, actively managed multi-manager approach to investing in domestic and international bonds. A majority of funds are invested in domestic bonds with an average credit rating for the entire portfolio being investment grade.


We have no minimum required contribution for 2012.


The following table summarizes the estimated future benefit payments expected to be paid under the Plan:


(In thousands)

Pension
Benefits

2012

$   478

2013

506

2014

535

2015

550

2016

572

Years 2017 to 2021

$3,277


The estimated future benefit payments expected to be paid under the Plan are based on the same assumptions used to measure our benefit obligation at December 31, 2011. No future service estimates were included due to the frozen status of the Plan.


401(k) Employee Stock Ownership Plan

Under the terms of our 401(k) Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“401(k)”) eligible employees are entitled to contribute up to 75% of their compensation, subject to IRS limitations, to the 401(k), and we contribute a percentage of the amounts contributed by the employees as authorized by Merchants’ Bank’s Board of Directors. In 2011 we introduced a Roth plan available to all employees as part of the 401K plan. We contributed approximately 49%, 49% and 54% of the amounts contributed by the employees in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.


Summary of Expense

A summary of expense relating to our various employee benefit plans for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2011 is as follows:


(In thousands)

2011   

2010   

2009   

Pension plan

$133

$178

$   539

401(k)

622

554

562

Total

$755

$732

$1,101




75


NOTE 12: STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION PLANS


Our Board of Directors and stockholders approved the Amended and Restated Merchants Bancshares, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) in 2011. The Plan allows us to grant stock options and restricted stock grants to certain employees. The Plan allows for the issuance of up to 600,000 shares of stock. As of December 31, 2011, there were 467,990 shares that remain available for future grants under the Plan.


The fair value of stock option and restricted stock awards, measured at the grant date are amortized to compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting period. The total compensation cost recognized related to stock option awards was $110 thousand, $103 thousand and $65 thousand for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The total compensation expense recognized related to restricted stock awards for 2011 was $54 thousand. There were no restricted stock awards prior to 2011. Compensation cost related to stock option and restricted stock awards is included in salary expense in the accompanying consolidated Statements of Income. Remaining compensation expense relating to current outstanding stock option grants is $99 thousand. Remaining compensation expense related to current outstanding restricted stock awards is $223 thousand.


Restricted Stock

Restricted stock provides grantees with rights to shares of common stock upon completion of a service period. During the service period, all shares are considered outstanding and dividends are paid on the restricted stock. We made a grant of 11,054 restricted shares in 2011, our first grant of restricted shares under the Plan. The shares will vest in 2014. No restricted shares vested during 2011, and the grant date fair value of restricted stock granted during 2011 was $25.00 per share.


Stock Options

Stock options are granted at 100% of fair market value and vest over three years. No stock options were granted during 2011. We granted 52,475 options during May 2010. The fair value of the options granted during 2010 was $3.06 per option. The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the grant date using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model that requires Merchants to develop estimates for assumptions used in the model. The Black-Scholes valuation model uses the following assumptions: expected volatility, expected term of option, risk-free interest rate and dividend yield. Expected volatility estimates are developed based on historical volatility of our stock. We use historical data to estimate the expected term of the options. The risk-free interest rate for periods within the expected life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield in effect at the grant date. The dividend yield represents the expected dividends on our stock.


The following table presents the assumptions used for options granted during 2010:


 

2010

Expected volatility

24.41%

Expected term of option

7.0 years

Risk-free interest rate

2.82%

Annual rate of quarterly dividends

5.07%


A summary of Merchants’ stock option plan as of December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 and changes during the years then ended are as follows, with numbers of shares in thousands:


 

2011

2010

2009

 

Number
Of
Shares

Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
Per Share

Number
Of
Shares

Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
Per Share

Number
Of
Shares

Weighted
Average
Exercise
Price
Per Share

Options outstanding,
  beginning of year

127

$22.82

81

$23.30

100

$20.14

Granted

0

0

52

22.07

39

22.75

Exercised

6

  22.93

2

23.00

58

17.49

Forfeited

0

0

4

22.75

0

0

Expired

0

0

0

0

0

0

Options outstanding,
  end of year

121

$22.81

127

$22.82

81

$23.30

Options exercisable

34

$24.01

10

$26.63

13

$25.88




76


As of December 31, 2011, there were options outstanding within the following ranges: 111 thousand at an exercise price within the range of $22.07 to $22.93, and 10 thousand at $26.63.


The total intrinsic value of options exercised was $8 thousand, $6 thousand and $240 thousand for the three years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. We generally use shares held in treasury for option exercises. Options exercisable at December 31, 2011 had an intrinsic value of $177 thousand and a weighted average remaining term of 5.91 years. The total cash received from employees, net of withholding taxes, as a result of employee stock option exercises was zero, $60 thousand and $475 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. There were 5 thousand shares surrendered by employees to satisfy the exercise price in conjunction with the option exercise for the year ended December 31, 2011 and no shares surrendered by employees to satisfy the exercise price in conjunction with the option exercise for the year ended December 31, 2010. Total shares surrendered by employees to satisfy the exercise price in conjunction with option exercises were 21,933 shares for the year ended December 31, 2009. The tax benefit realized as a result of the stock option exercises was less than $1 thousand, $2 thousand and $52 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.


Deferred Compensation Plans

Merchants has established deferred compensation plans for non-employee directors. Under the terms of these plans participating directors can elect to have all, or a specified percentage, of their director’s fees for a given year paid in the form of cash or deferred in the form of restricted shares of Merchants’ common stock. These shares are held in a rabbi trust and are considered outstanding for purposes of computing earnings per share. Directors who elect to have their compensation deferred are credited with a number of shares of Merchants’ common stock equal in value to the amount of fees deferred. Prior to 2011 Directors were also credited with a risk premium of 20% of the amount deferred. The participating director may not sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of these shares prior to distribution. With respect to shares of common stock issued or otherwise transferred to a participating director, the participating director will have the right to receive dividends or other distributions thereon. If a participating director resigns under certain circumstances, the director forfeits all of his or her shares which are risk premium shares. The total amount of unearned compensation cost related to non-vested risk premium shares was $35 thousand at December 31, 2011. During 2011, no risk premium shares were granted. Deferred fees are recognized as an expense in the year incurred and the grant date fair value of the risk premium shares is recognized as an expense ratably over the five-year vesting period.


NOTE 13: EARNINGS PER SHARE


The following table presents reconciliations of the calculations of basic and diluted earnings per share for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:


 

2011   

2010   

2009   

 

(In thousands except per share data)

Net Income

$14,620

$15,461

$12,479

Weighted average common shares outstanding

6,212

6,167

6,106

Dilutive effect of common stock equivalents

12

4

1

Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding

6,224

6,171

6,107

Basic earnings per share

$    2.35

$    2.51

$    2.04

Diluted earnings per share

$    2.35

$    2.51

$    2.04


Basic earnings per common share were computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the year. The computation of diluted earnings per share excludes the effect of assuming the exercise of certain outstanding stock options because the effect would be anti-dilutive. The average anti-dilutive options outstanding for 2011, 2010 and 2009 were 7,500; 44,478 and 63,389, respectively.




77



NOTE 14: PARENT COMPANY


The Parent Company's investments in its subsidiaries are recorded using the equity method of accounting. Summarized financial information relative to the Parent Company only balance sheets at December 31, 2011 and 2010, and statements of income and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2011, are shown in the following table. The statement of changes in stockholders' equity for the Parent Company are not reported because they are identical to the consolidated financial statements.


Balance Sheets as of December 31,
(In thousands)

 

2011

2010

Assets:

 

 

 

  Investment in and advances to subsidiaries*

 

$  127,581

$  118,028

  Cash*

 

3,395

2,638

  Other assets

 

696

612

    Total assets

 

$  131,672

$  121,278

Liabilities and shareholders' equity:

 

 

 

  Other liabilities

 

$      1,516

$      1,328

  Long term debt

 

20,619

20,619

  Shareholders' equity

 

109,537

99,331

    Total liabilities and shareholders' equity

 

$  131,672

$  121,278


Statements of Income for the Years Ended December 31,

 

 

 

 

(In thousands)

 

2011   

2010   

2009   

Dividends from Merchants Bank*

 

$    7,953 

$    6,901 

$    7,727 

Equity in undistributed earnings of subsidiaries

 

7,832 

9,705 

5,829 

Other expense, net

 

(1,788)

(1,760)

(1,672)

Benefit from income taxes

 

623 

615 

595 

    Net income

 

$  14,620 

$  15,461 

$  12,479 


Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31,

(In thousands)

 

2011   

2010   

2009   

Cash flows from operating activities:

 

 

 

 

  Net income

 

$  14,620 

$  15,461 

$  12,479 

  Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided

 

 

 

 

   by operating activities:

 

 

 

 

    Increase in other assets

 

(84)

(187)

(59)

    Increase in other liabilities

 

66 

201 

    Equity in undistributed earnings of subsidiaries

 

(7,832)

(9,705)

(5,829)

  Net cash provided by operating activities

 

6,770 

5,770 

6,597 

Cash flows from financing activities:

 

 

 

 

  Sale of treasury stock

 

14 

10 

  Proceeds from exercise of stock options

 

(1)

59 

532 

  Tax benefit from exercises of stock options

 

51 

  Cash dividends paid

 

(6,233)

(6,139)

(6,059)

  Other, net

 

206 

208 

179 

Net cash used in financing activities

 

(6,013)

(5,860)

(5,293)

Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

757 

(90)

1,304 

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year

 

2,638 

2,728 

1,424 

Cash and cash equivalents at end of year

 

$    3,395 

$    2,638 

$    2,728 


*Account balances are partially or fully eliminated in consolidation.




78


NOTE 15: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES


Financial Instruments with Off-Balance Sheet Risk

Merchants is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments primarily include commitments to extend credit and financial guarantees. Such instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk that are not recognized in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.


Exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instruments for commitments to extend credit and financial guarantees written is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. We use the same credit policies in making commitments as we do for on-balance sheet instruments. The contractual amounts of these financial instruments at December 31, 2011 and 2010 are as follows:


(In thousands)

2011

2010

Financial instruments whose contract amounts
  represent credit risk:

 

 

    Commitments to originate loans

$  17,569

$    4,777

    Unused lines of credit

186,196

178,616

    Standby letters of credit

4,262

4,911

    Loans sold with recourse

22

31

Equity commitments to affordable housing
  limited partnerships

2,619

1,961


Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Since a portion of the commitment is expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amount does not necessarily represent a future cash requirement. We evaluate each customer's creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained by us upon extension of credit is based on Management's credit evaluation of the counterparty, and an appropriate amount of real and/or personal property is typically obtained as collateral.


Disclosures are required regarding liability-recognition for the fair value at issuance of certain guarantees. We do not issue any guarantees that would require liability-recognition or disclosure, other than our standby letters of credit. We have issued conditional commitments in the form of standby letters of credit to guarantee payment on behalf of a customer and guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. Standby letters of credit generally arise in connection with lending relationships. The credit risk involved in issuing these instruments is essentially the same as that involved in extending loans to customers. Contingent obligations under standby letters of credit totaled approximately $4.26 million and $4.91 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and represent the maximum potential future payments we could be required to make. Typically, these instruments have terms of 12 months or less and expire unused; therefore, the total amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Each customer is evaluated individually for creditworthiness under the same underwriting standards used for commitments to extend credit and on-balance sheet instruments. Our policies governing loan collateral apply to standby letters of credit at the time of credit extension. Loan-to-value ratios are generally consistent with loan-to-value requirements for other commercial loans secured by similar types of collateral.


We may enter into commitments to sell loans, which involve market and interest rate risk. There were no such commitments at December 31, 2011 or 2010.


Balances at the Federal Reserve Bank

At December 31, 2011 and 2010, amounts at the Federal Reserve Bank included $12.22 million and $5.99 million, respectively, held to satisfy certain reserve requirements of the Federal Reserve Bank.


Legal Proceedings

We have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings arising from our normal business activities. Although the amount of any ultimate liability with respect to such proceedings cannot be determined, in the opinion of Management, based upon the opinion of counsel on the outcome of such proceedings, any such liability will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position.




79


NOTE 16: FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS


Investments

Fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants and such fair value measurements are not adjusted for transaction costs. The fair value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:


Ø

Level 1 - Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities;

Ø

Level 2 - Quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices in markets that are not active, or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability;

Ø

Level 3 - Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (i.e., supported by little or no market activity).


A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.


The table below presents the balance of financial assets and liabilities at December 31, 2011 measured at fair value on a recurring basis:


 

 

Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using


(In thousands)
Description

Total

Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)

Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)

Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)

Assets:

 

 

 

 

U.S. Treasury Obligations

$       250

0

$       250

0

U.S. Agency Obligations

90,419

0

90,419

0

FHLB Obligations

16,676

0

16,676

0

Agency MBSs

183,838

0

183,838

0

Agency CMOs

214,480

0

214,480

0

Non-Agency CMOs

4,855

0

4,855

0

ABSs

1,233

0

1,233

0

Interest rate swaps agreements

207

0

207

0

    Total assets

$511,958

0

$511,958

0

Liabilities:

 

 

 

 

Interest rate swaps agreements

$    1,613

0

$    1,613

0

    Total liabilities

$    1,613

0

$    1,613

0




80


The table below presents the balance of financial assets and liabilities at December 31, 2010 measured at fair value on a recurring basis:


 

 

Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using:


(In thousands)
Description

Total

Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)

Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)

Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)

U.S. Treasury Obligations

$       250 

$     0

$       250 

$     0

U.S. Agency Obligations

47,788 

0

47,788 

0

FHLB Obligations

11,457 

0

11,457 

0

Agency MBSs

174,907 

0

174,907 

0

Agency CMOs

224,268 

0

224,268 

0

Non-Agency CMOs

5,852 

0

5,852 

0

ABSs

1,440 

0

1,440 

0

Interest rate swap agreements

(1,218)

0

(1,218)

0

    Total

$464,744 

$     0

$464,744 

$     0


Investment securities are reported at fair value utilizing Level 2 inputs. The prices for these instruments are obtained through an independent pricing service or dealer market participant with whom we have historically transacted both purchases and sales of investment securities. Prices obtained from these sources include market quotations and matrix pricing. The fair value measurements consider observable data that may include dealer quotes, market spreads, cash flows, the U.S. Treasury yield curve, live trading levels, trade execution data, market consensus prepayment speeds, credit information and the bond’s terms and conditions, among other things.


The interest rate swaps are reported at their fair value utilizing Level 2 inputs from third parties. The fair value of our interest rate swaps are determined using prices obtained from a third party advisor. The fair value measurement of the interest rate swap is determined by netting the discounted future fixed cash payments and the discounted expected variable cash receipts. The variable cash receipts are based on the expectation of future interest rates derived from observed market interest rate curves.


Certain assets are also measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. These other financial assets include impaired loans and OREO. The table below presents the balance of financial assets at December 31, 2011 measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis:


 

 

Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using:


(In thousands)
Description

Total

Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)

Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)

Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)

OREO

$   358

$    0

$    0

$   358

Impaired loans

2,511

0

0

2,511

        Total

$2,869

$    0

$    0

$2,869


The table below presents the balance of financial assets at December 31, 2010 measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis:


 

 

Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using:


(In thousands)
Description

Total

Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets
(Level 1)

Significant Other
Observable Inputs
(Level 2)

Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3)

OREO

$   191

$    0

$    0

$   191

Impaired loans

4,104

0

0

4,104

        Total

$4,295

$    0

$    0

$4,295




81


In accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Subtopic 310-10-35, “Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan – an amendment of FASB Statements No. 5 and 15,” we had collateral dependent impaired loans with a carrying value of approximately $2.51 million, which had specific reserves included in the allowance for loan losses of $227 thousand at December 31, 2011.


We use the fair value of underlying collateral to estimate the specific reserves for collateral dependent impaired loans. Collateral may be real estate and/or business assets including equipment, inventory and accounts receivable. Real estate values are determined based on appraisals by qualified licensed appraisers we have hired. These appraisals may utilize a single valuation approach or a combination of approaches including comparable sales and the income approach. Management’s ongoing review of appraisal information may result in additional discounts or adjustments to valuation based upon more recent market sales activity or more current appraisal information derived from properties of similar type and/or locale. Other business assets are valued using a variety of approaches including appraisals, depreciated book value, purchase price and independent confirmation of accounts receivable. OREO in the table above consists of property acquired through foreclosures and settlements of loans. Property acquired is carried at the lower of cost or the estimated fair value of the property, determined by an independent appraisal, and is adjusted for estimated disposal costs. Certain inputs used in appraisals, and possible subsequent adjustments, are not always observable, and therefore, collateral dependent impaired loans and OREO are categorized as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy.


FASB ASC Subtopic 820-10-50, “Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments,” as amended, requires disclosure of the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities, including those financial assets and financial liabilities that are not measured and reported at fair value on a recurring or nonrecurring basis. The methodologies for estimating the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring or non-recurring basis are discussed above. The carrying amounts reported in the consolidated balance sheets for cash and cash equivalents and the FHLBB stock approximate fair value. The methodologies for other financial assets and financial liabilities are discussed below.


Loans - The fair value for loans is estimated using discounted cash flow analyses, using interest rates and spreads currently being offered for loans with similar terms to borrowers of similar credit quality. The fair value estimates, methods and assumptions set forth below for our financial instruments, including those financial instruments carried at cost, are made solely to comply with disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles in the United States and do not always incorporate the exit-price concept of fair value proscribed by ASC 820-10 and should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and associated footnotes.


Deposits - The fair value of demand deposits approximates the amount reported in the consolidated balance sheets. The fair value of variable rate, fixed term certificates of deposit also approximates the carrying amount reported in the consolidated balance sheets. The fair value of fixed rate and fixed term certificates of deposit is estimated using a discounted cash flow method which applies interest rates currently being offered for deposits of similar remaining maturities.


Debt - The fair value of debt is estimated using current market rates for borrowings of similar remaining maturity.


Commitments to Extend Credit and Standby Letters of Credit - The fair value of commitments to extend credit is estimated using the fees currently charged to enter into similar agreements, taking into account the remaining terms of the agreements and the present creditworthiness of the counterparties. For fixed rate loan commitments, fair value also considers the difference between current levels of interest rates and the committed rates. The fair value of financial standby letters of credit is based on fees currently charged for similar agreements or on the estimated cost to terminate them or otherwise settle the obligations with the counterparties. The fair value of commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit is approximately $42 thousand at December 31, 2011 and $49 thousand as of December 31, 2010, respectively.




82


The fair value of Merchants’ financial instruments as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 are summarized in the table below:


 

December 31, 2011

December 31, 2010

(In thousands)

Carrying
Amount

Fair Value

Carrying
Amount

Fair Value

Securities available for sale

$   511,751

$   511,751

$   465,962

$   465,962

Securities held to maturity

558

624

794

882

FHLB stock

8,630

8,630

8,630

8,630

Loans, net of allowance for loan losses

1,017,007

1,035,131

900,659

913,882

Accrued interest receivable

5,121

5,121

4,992

4,992

    Total assets

$1,543,067

$1,561,257

$1,381,037

$1,394,348

Deposits

$1,177,880

$1,181,066

$1,092,196

$1,094,455

Securities sold under agreement to repurchase
  and other short-term borrowings

262,527

263,062

227,657

228,109

Securities sold under agreement to repurchase
  and other long-term borrowings

22,562

23,594

38,639

39,574

Junior subordinated debentures issued to
  unconsolidated subsidiary trust

20,619

15,268

20,619

14,413

Accrued interest payable

282

282

377

377

    Total liabilities

$1,483,870

$1,483,272

$1,379,488

$1,376,928




83


NOTE 17: COMPREHENSIVE INCOME


The accumulated balances for each classification of other comprehensive income are as follows:


(In thousands)

Unrealized
(gains)/losses
on securities

Pension and
postretirement
benefit plans

Interest
rate
swaps

Unrealized
gains
(losses) on
securities
deemed other
than
temporarily
impaired

Accumulated
other
comprehensive
income (loss)

Balance January 1, 2009

$  2,182 

$(2,914)

$(453)

$     0 

$ (1,185)

Net current period change

4,373 

456 

28 

4,857 

Cumulative effect adjustment upon
  adoption of ASC 320-10-65

(213)

(213)

Reclassification adjustments for
  (gains) losses reclassified into
  income

(792)

(792)

Balance December 31, 2009

$  5,763 

$(2,458)

$(425)

$(213)

$2,667 

Net current period change

266 

172 

(366)

292 

364 

Reclassification adjustments for
  (gains) losses reclassified into
  income

(1,354)

(1,354)

Balance December 31, 2010

$  4,675 

$(2,286)

$(791)

$   79 

$  1,677 

Net current period change

2,583 

(396)

(123)

2,071 

Reclassification adjustments for
  (gains) losses reclassified into
  income

(646)

(646)

Balance December 31, 2011

$  6,612 

$(2,682)

$(914)

$   86 

$  3,102 


Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”) at December 31, 2011 consisted of a net unrealized actuarial loss on our defined benefit plan in the amount of $2.68 million and the unrealized gain on securities available for sale of $6.72 million, all net of taxes. Also included in AOCI as of December 31, 2011 is $914 thousand in net unrealized losses on interest rate swaps, net of taxes. None of these losses are expected to be reclassified to earnings.


NOTE 18: REGULATORY CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS


We are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by federal banking agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory, and possibly additional discretionary, actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on our financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines, we must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of our assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. It is the policy of the FRB that banks and bank holding companies, respectively, should pay dividends only out of current earnings and only if, after paying such dividends, the bank or bank holding company would remain adequately capitalized. We are also subject to the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action that requires it to meet specific capital guidelines to be considered well capitalized. Our capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors.


Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require us to maintain minimum ratios (set forth in the table below) of total and Tier 1 capital (as defined in the regulations) to risk-weighted assets (as defined) and of Tier 1 capital (as defined) to average assets (as defined). Management believes, as of December 31, 2011, that Merchants met all capital adequacy requirements to which it is subject.




84


As of December 31, 2011, the most recent notification from the FDIC categorized Merchants Bank as well capitalized under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. There are no conditions or events since that notification that Management believes have changed Merchants Bank’s category. To be considered well capitalized under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, Merchants Bank must maintain minimum Tier 1 Leverage, Tier 1 Risk-Based, and Total Risk-Based Capital ratios. Set forth in the table below are those ratios as well as those for Merchants Bancshares, Inc.


 

 

 

 

 

To Be Well-

 

 

 

 

 

Capitalized Under

 

 

 

For Capital

Prompt Corrective

 

Actual

Adequacy Purposes

Action Provisions

(In thousands)

Amount

Percent

Amount

Percent

Amount

Percent

As of December 31, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

Merchants Bancshares, Inc.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Tier 1 Leverage Capital

$126,435

8.08%

$62,573

4.00%

N/A

N/A

    Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital

126,435

14.66%

34,490

4.00%

N/A

N/A

    Total Risk-Based Capital

137,255

15.92%

68,981

8.00%

N/A

N/A

Merchants Bank:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Tier 1 Leverage Capital

$122,946

7.84%

$62,740

4.00%

$78,425

5.00%

    Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital

122,946

14.16%

34,723

4.00%

52,084

6.00%

    Total Risk-Based Capital

133,837

15.42%

69,446

8.00%

86,807

10.00%

As of December 31, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

Merchants Bancshares, Inc.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Tier 1 Leverage Capital

$117,654

7.90%

$59,550

4.00%

N/A

N/A

    Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital

117,654

14.85%

31,688

4.00%

N/A

N/A

    Total Risk-Based Capital

127,576

16.10%

63,376

8.00%

N/A

N/A

Merchants Bank:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Tier 1 Leverage Capital

$114,940

7.70%

$59,695

4.00%

$74,619

5.00%

    Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital

114,940

14.41%

31,913

4.00%

47,869

6.00%

    Total Risk-Based Capital

124,922

15.66%

63,826

8.00%

79,782

10.00%

Capital amounts for Merchants Bancshares, Inc. include $20 million in trust preferred securities issued in December 2004. These hybrid securities qualify as regulatory capital up to certain regulatory limits.


NOTE 19: DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS


At December 31, 2011 we held interest rate swaps with a combined notional amount of $20 million that were designated as cash flow hedges. The swaps were used to convert the floating rate interest on our trust preferred issuance to a fixed rate of interest. The purpose of the hedge was to protect us from the risk of variability arising from the floating rate interest on the debentures. The effective portion of unrealized changes in the fair value of derivatives accounted for as cash flow hedges are reported in other comprehensive income and reclassified to earnings if gains or losses are realized. Each quarter we assess the effectiveness of the hedging relationships by comparing the changes in cash flows of the derivative hedging instruments with the changes in cash flows of the designated hedged item. The ineffective portion of changes in the fair value of the derivatives is recognized directly in earnings. There was no ineffective portion recognized in earnings during 2011, 2010 or 2009. The fair value of ($1.41) million and ($1.22) million was reflected in Other Comprehensive Income in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.


At December 31, 2011 we had one interest rate derivative position, with a notional amount of $14.80 million that was not designated as a hedging instrument. This derivative position related to a transaction in which we entered into an interest rate swap with a customer while at the same time entering into an offsetting rate swap with another financial institution. In connection with the transaction, we agreed to pay interest to the customer on a notional amount at a variable interest rate and receive interest from the customer on the same notional amount at a fixed interest rate. At the same time, we agreed to pay another financial institution the same fixed interest rate on the same notional amount and receive the same variable interest rate on the same notional amount. The transaction allows our customers to effectively convert a variable rate loan to a fixed rate loan. Because the terms of the swap with our customer and the other financial institution offset each other, with the only difference being counterparty credit risk, changes in the fair value of the underlying derivative contracts are not materially different and do no significantly impact our results of operations. There were no non-hedging derivative financial instruments outstanding at December 31, 2010. The fair value of $206 thousand was reflected in other assets and other liabilities in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011. We assessed our counterparty risk at December 31, 2011 and determined any credit risk inherent in our derivative contracts was insignificant. Information about the fair value of derivative financial instruments can be found in Footnote 16 to these Consolidated Financial Statements.




85


[d78071_mer10k003.gif]


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors and Shareholders

Merchants Bancshares, Inc.:


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity, comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.


We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.


In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.


We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Merchants Bancshares, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report dated March 8, 2012, expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of Merchants Bancshares, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting.


/s/  KPMG LLP


Albany, New York

March 8, 2012




86


[d78071_mer10k005.gif]


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors and Shareholders

Merchants Bancshares, Inc.:


We have audited Merchants Bancshares, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Merchants Bancshares, Inc.’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying “Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.” Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.


We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.


A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.


Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.


In our opinion, Merchants Bancshares, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.


We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity, comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011, and our report dated March 8, 2012, expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.


/s/  KPMG LLP


Albany, New York

March 8, 2012




87


ITEM 9—CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

None.


ITEM 9A—CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES


Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures – Our principal executive officer and principal financial officer have evaluated our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) or 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of December 31, 2011. Based on this evaluation, the principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures effectively ensure that information required to be disclosed in our filings and submissions with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission.


Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting – Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) or 15d-15(f). Our internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurances to our Management and board of directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published financial statements. Under the supervision and with the participation of our Management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting was conducted, based on the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on the evaluation under the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework, Management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2011.


KPMG LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm that reported on our consolidated financial statements, has issued an audit report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011. This report can be found on page 86.


Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting – There have been no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal controls over financial reporting in 2011.


ITEM 9B—OTHER INFORMATION


None.


PART III


ITEM 10—DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE


ITEM 11—EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION


ITEM 12—SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS


ITEM 13—CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR
INDEPENDENCE


ITEM 14PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES


Information required by Items 10 through 14 will be included in our Proxy Statement to be filed relating to our 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and is incorporated herein by reference.


Pursuant to Rule 12b-23 and Instruction G to Form 10-K, our Proxy Statement will be filed within 120 days subsequent to the end of our fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.



88


PART IV

ITEM 15 - EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES


(1)

The following consolidated financial statements are included:


Consolidated Balance Sheets, December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010


Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009


Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009


Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009


Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009


Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements


(2)

The following exhibits are either filed or attached as part of this report, or are incorporated herein by reference:


 

Exhibit

 

Description

 

 

 

 

 

  3.1.1

 

Certificate of Incorporation, filed on April 20, 1987*

 

 

 

 

 

  3.1.2

 

Certificate of Merger, filed on June 5, 1987 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1.2 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2006)

 

 

 

 

 

  3.1.3

 

Certificate of Amendment, filed on May 11, 1988 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1.3 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 16, 2007)

 

 

 

 

 

  3.1.4

 

Certificate of Amendment, filed on April 29, 1991 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1.4 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 16, 2007)

 

 

 

 

 

  3.1.5

 

Certificate of Amendment, filed on August 29, 2006 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1.5 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 16, 2007)

 

 

 

 

 

  3.1.6

 

Certificate of Amendment, filed August 29, 2006 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1.6 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 16, 2007)

 

 

 

 

 

  3.2

 

Amended and Restated Bylaws of Merchants (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to Merchants’ Report on Form 8-K filed on April 16, 2009)

 

 

 

 

 

  4

 

Specimen of Merchants’ Common Stock Certificate (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 13, 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

10.1

 

Merchants Bancshares, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Merchants’ Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-151572) filed on June 11, 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

10.2

 

Amended and Restated Merchants Bancshares, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Merchants’ Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 6, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.3

 

First Amendment to Amended and Restated Merchants Bancshares, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan *+

 

 

 

 

 

10.4

 

Form of Restricted Stock Agreement*+



89



 

10.5

 

The Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries Amended and Restated 1996 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 15, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.6

 

The Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries Amended and Restated 2008 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors and Trustees (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 15, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.7

 

Merchants Bancshares, Inc. Executive Annual Incentive Plan (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Merchants’ Report on Form 8-K filed on March 2, 2011)+

 

 

 

 

 

10.8

 

Employment Agreement by and among Merchants, Merchants Bank and Michael R. Tuttle, dated March 17, 2011 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Merchants’ Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 23, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.9

 

Employment Agreement by and among Merchants, Merchants Bank and

Janet P. Spitler, dated March 17, 2011 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Merchants’ Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 23, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.10

 

The Merchants Bank Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 15, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.11

 

Trust under the Merchants Bank Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 15, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.12

 

Agreement among the Merchants Bank and Kathryn T. Boardman, Thomas R. Havers and Susan D. Struble dated as of December 20, 1995 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 15, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.13

 

Trust under the Agreement among the Merchants Bank and Kathryn T. Boardman, Thomas R. Havers and Susan D. Struble dated as of December 20, 1995 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 15, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.14

 

Employment Agreement by and between Merchants Bank and Thomas R. Leavitt, dated March 17, 2011 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Merchants’ Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 23, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.15

 

Employment Agreement by and between Merchants Bank and Thomas R. Havers, dated March 17, 2011 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Merchants’ Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 23, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.16

 

Employment Agreement by and between Merchants Bank and Geoffrey R. Hesslink, dated March 17, 2011 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Merchants’ Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 23, 2011) +

 

 

 

 

 

10.17

 

Indenture, dated December 15, 2004, by and between Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and Wilmington Trust Company, as trustee (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 9, 2005)

 

 

 

 

 

10.18

 

Guarantee Agreement, dated December 15, 2004, by and between Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and Wilmington Trust Company dated December 15, 2004 for the benefit of the holders from time to time of the Capital Securities of MBVT Statutory Trust I (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5.3 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 9, 2005)

 

 

 

 

 

10.19

 

Declaration of Trust of MBVT Statutory Trust I, dated December 2, 2004 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5.2 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 9, 2005)



90



 

10.20

 

Subscription Agreement, dated December 15, 2004, by and among MBVT Statutory Trust I, Merchants and Preferred Term Securities XVI, Ltd. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5.1 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 9, 2005)

 

 

 

 

 

10.21

 

Placement Agreement, dated December 7, 2004, by and among Merchants Bancshares, Inc., FTN Financial Capital Markets and Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5.4 to Merchants’ Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 9, 2005)

 

 

 

 

 

10.22

 

Purchase and Sale Agreement between Merchants Bank and Eastern Avenue Properties, L.L.C., dated as of June 27, 2008 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.18.1 to Merchants’ Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

10.23

 

Leaseback Agreement between Merchants Bank and Farrell Exchange, L.L.C., dated as of June 27, 2008 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.18.2 to Merchants’ Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

21

 

Subsidiaries of Merchants*

 

 

 

 

 

23

 

Consent of KPMG LLP*

 

 

 

 

 

31.1

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended*

 

 

 

 

 

31.2

 

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended*

 

 

 

 

 

32.1

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

 

 

32.2

 

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

 

 

101

 

The following materials from Merchants Bancshares, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 formatted in XBRL: (i) Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010; (ii) Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009; (iii) Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009; (iv) Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009; (v) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009; and (vi) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements**


+

Management contract or compensatory plan or agreement

*

Filed herewith

**

Furnished herewith



91


SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirement of Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Merchants Bancshares, Inc.


Date:

March 8, 2012

 

By:

/s/  Michael R. Tuttle

 

 

 

 

Michael R. Tuttle, President & CEO


Pursuant to the requirement of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of MERCHANTS BANCSHARES, INC., and in the capacities and on the date as indicated.


/s/  Michael R. Tuttle

 

March 8, 2012

Michael R. Tuttle, Director,

 

Date

President & CEO of Merchants

 

 

 

 

 

/s/  Scott F. Boardman

 

March 8, 2012

Scott F. Boardman, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Peter A. Bouyea

 

March 8, 2012

Peter A. Bouyea, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Karen J. Danaher

 

March 8, 2012

Karen J. Danaher, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Jeffrey L. Davis

 

March 8, 2012

Jeffrey L. Davis, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Michael G. Furlong

 

March 8, 2012

Michael G. Furlong, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  John A. Kane

 

March 8, 2012

John A. Kane, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Lorilee A. Lawton

 

March 8, 2012

Lorilee A. Lawton, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Bruce M. Lisman

 

March 8, 2012

Bruce M. Lisman, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Raymond C. Pecor, Jr.

 

March 8, 2012

Raymond C. Pecor, Jr., Director

 

Date

Chairman of the Board of Directors

 

 

 

 

 

/s/  Patrick S. Robins

 

March 8, 2012

Patrick S. Robins, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Robert A. Skiff

 

March 8, 2012

Robert A. Skiff, Director

 

Date

 

 

 

/s/  Janet P. Spitler

 

March 8, 2012

Janet P. Spitler,

Treasurer, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer of
Merchants

 

Date




92