Financial Institutions - 10-K annual report

 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (585) 786-1100

Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:

Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act: NONE

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

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 o No þ

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 past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

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). Yes o No o

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 the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

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

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

The aggregate market value of common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, as computed by reference to the June 30, 2010 closing price reported by NASDAQ, was approximately $177,182,000.

As of March 1, 2011, there were issued and outstanding, exclusive of treasury shares, 10,979,715 shares of the registrant’s common stock.

Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K that are based on other than historical data are forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements provide current expectations or forecasts of future events and include, among others:

These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance, nor should they be relied upon as representing management’s views as of any subsequent date. Forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties and actual results may differ materially from those presented, either expressed or implied, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including, but not limited to, those presented in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation. Factors that might cause such differences include, but are not limited to:

We caution readers not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made, and advises readers that various factors, including those described above, could affect our financial performance and could cause our actual results or circumstances for future periods to differ materially from those anticipated or projected. See also Item 1A, Risk Factors, in this Form 10-K.

Except as required by law, we do not undertake, and specifically disclaim any obligation to publicly release any revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events or circumstances after the date of such statements.

Financial Institutions, Inc. is a financial holding company organized in 1931 under the laws of New York State (“New York” or “NYS”). Through its subsidiaries, including its wholly-owned, New York State chartered banking subsidiary, Five Star Bank, Financial Institutions, Inc. provides a broad array of deposit, lending and other financial services to retail, commercial, and municipal customers in Western and Central New York. All references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the parent company are to Financial Institutions, Inc. (“FII”). Unless otherwise indicated or unless the context requires otherwise, all references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “the Company,” “we,” “our” or “us” means Financial Institutions, Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. Five Star Bank is referred to as Five Star Bank, “FSB” or “the Bank”. The parent company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries, assisting those subsidiaries by providing financial resources and management. Our executive offices are located at 220 Liberty Street, Warsaw, New York.

We conduct business primarily through our banking subsidiary, Five Star Bank, which adopted its current name in 2005 when we merged three of our bank subsidiaries, Wyoming County Bank, National Bank of Geneva and Bath National Bank into our New York chartered bank subsidiary, First Tier Bank & Trust, which was renamed Five Star Bank. In addition, our business operations include a wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiary, Five Star Investment Services, Inc. (“FSIS”).

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the exhibits and schedules filed as part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K, may be inspected at the public reference facility maintained by the SEC at its public reference room at 100 F. Street, N.E., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549 and copies of all or any part thereof may be obtained from that office upon payment of the prescribed fees. You may call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the operation of the public reference room and you can request copies of the documents upon payment of a duplicating fee, by writing to the SEC. In addition, the SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding registrants, including us, that file electronically with the SEC which can be accessed at www.sec.gov.

We also make available, free of charge through our website at www.fiiwarsaw.com, all reports filed with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, as well as any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after those documents are filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Information available on our website is not a part of, and is not incorporated into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We provide a wide range of consumer and commercial banking and financial services to individuals, municipalities and businesses through a network of over 50 offices and more than 70 ATMs in fourteen contiguous counties of Western and Central New York: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Cayuga, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Seneca, Steuben, Wyoming and Yates Counties.

Our market area is economically diversified in that we serve both rural markets and the larger more affluent markets of suburban Rochester and suburban Buffalo. Rochester and Buffalo are the two largest metropolitan areas in New York outside of New York City, with combined metropolitan area populations of over two million people. We anticipate increasing our presence in and around these metropolitan statistical areas in the coming years.

We face significant competition in both making loans and attracting deposits, as Western and Central New York have a high density of financial institutions. Our competition for loans comes principally from commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, mortgage banking companies, credit unions, insurance companies and other financial service companies. Our most direct competition for deposits has historically come from commercial banks, savings banks and credit unions. We face additional competition for deposits from non-depository competitors such as the mutual fund industry, securities and brokerage firms and insurance companies. We generally compete with other financial service providers on factors such as; level of customer service, responsiveness to customer needs, availability and pricing of products, and geographic location.

We offer a broad range of loans including commercial business and revolving lines of credit, commercial mortgages, equipment loans, residential mortgage loans and home equity loans and lines of credit, home improvement loans, automobile loans and personal loans. Newly originated and refinanced fixed rate residential mortgage loans are either retained in our portfolio or sold to the secondary market with servicing rights retained.

We continually evaluate and update our lending policy. The key elements of our lending philosophy include the following:

We originate commercial business loans in our primary market areas and underwrite them based on the borrower’s ability to service the loan from operating income. We offer a broad range of commercial lending products, including term loans and lines of credit. Short and medium-term commercial loans, primarily collateralized, are made available to businesses for working capital (including inventory and receivables), business expansion (including acquisition of real estate, expansion and improvements) and the purchase of equipment. Commercial business loans are offered to the agricultural industry for short-term crop production, farm equipment and livestock financing. As a general practice, where possible, a collateral lien is placed on any available real estate, equipment or other assets owned by the borrower and a personal guarantee of the owner is obtained. As of December 31, 2010, $70.0 million, or 33%, of the aggregate commercial business loan portfolio were at fixed rates, while $141.0 million, or 67%, were at variable rates.

We also offer commercial mortgage loans to finance the purchase of real property, which generally consists of real estate with completed structures and, to a smaller extent, agricultural real estate financing. Commercial mortgage loans are secured by first liens on the real estate and are typically amortized over a 10 to 20 year period. The underwriting analysis includes credit verification, appraisals and a review of the borrower’s financial condition and repayment capacity. As of December 31, 2010, $100.0 million, or 28%, of the aggregate commercial mortgage portfolio were at fixed rates, while $252.9 million, or 72%, were at variable rates.

We utilize government loan guarantee programs where available and appropriate. See “Government Guarantee Programs” below.

We participate in government loan guarantee programs offered by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Economic and Community Development and Farm Service Agency, among others. As of December 31, 2010, we had loans with an aggregate principal balance of $55.1 million that were covered by guarantees under these programs. The guarantees typically only cover a certain percentage of these loans. By participating in these programs, we are able to broaden our base of borrowers while minimizing credit risk.

We originate fixed and variable rate one-to-four family residential mortgages collateralized by owner-occupied properties located in our market areas. We offer a variety of real estate loan products, which are generally amortized over periods of up to 30 years. Loans collateralized by one-to-four family residential real estate generally have been originated in amounts of no more than 80% of appraised value or have mortgage insurance. Mortgage title insurance and hazard insurance are normally required. We sell certain one-to-four family residential mortgages to the secondary mortgage market and typically retain the right to service the mortgages. To assure maximum salability of the residential loan products for possible resale, we have formally adopted the underwriting, appraisal, and servicing guidelines of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) as part of our standard loan policy. As of December 31, 2010, the residential mortgage servicing portfolio totaled $328.9 million, the majority of which have been sold to FHLMC. As of December 31, 2010, our residential mortgage loan portfolio totaled $129.6 million, or 10% of our total loan portfolio. We do not engage in sub-prime or other high-risk residential mortgage lending as a line-of-business.

We offer a variety of loan products to our consumer customers, including home equity loans and lines of credit, automobile loans, secured installment loans and various other types of secured and unsecured personal loans. At December 31, 2010, outstanding consumer loan balances were concentrated in indirect automobile loans and home equity products.

We indirectly originate, through franchised new car dealers, indirect consumer loans. The consumer indirect loan portfolio is primarily comprised of new and used automobile loans with terms that typically range from 36 to 84 months. We have expanded our relationships with franchised new car dealers in Western, Central and, most recently, into the Capital District of New York, and have selectively originated a mix of new and used automobile loans from those dealers. In the latter part of 2010, we began efforts to expand our dealer network into Northern Pennsylvania and anticipate indirectly originating loans there in the first half of 2011. As of December 31, 2010, the consumer indirect portfolio totaled $418.0 million, or 31% of our total loan portfolio.

We also originate, independently of the indirect loans described above, consumer automobile loans, recreational vehicle loans, boat loans, home improvement loans, closed-end home equity loans, home equity lines of credit, personal loans (collateralized and uncollateralized) and deposit account collateralized loans. The terms of these loans typically range from 12 to 180 months and vary based upon the nature of the collateral and the size of loan. The majority of the consumer lending program is underwritten on a secured basis using the customer’s home or the financed automobile, mobile home, boat or recreational vehicle as collateral. As of December 31, 2010, $97.2 million, or 47%, of the home equity portfolio was at fixed rates, while $111.2 million, or 53%, was at variable rates. The other consumer portfolio totaled $26.1 million as of December 31, 2010, all of which were fixed loans.

Our loan policy establishes standardized underwriting guidelines, as well as the loan approval process and the committee structures necessary to facilitate and ensure the highest possible loan quality decision-making in a timely and businesslike manner. The policy establishes requirements for extending credit based on the size, risk rating and type of credit involved. The policy also sets limits on individual loan officer lending authority and various forms of joint lending authority, while designating which loans are required to be approved at the committee level.

Our credit objectives are as follows:

Our policy includes loan reviews, under the supervision of the Audit and Risk Oversight committees of the Board of Directors and directed by the Chief Risk Officer, in order to render an independent and objective evaluation of our asset quality and credit administration process.

Risk ratings are assigned to loans in the commercial business and commercial mortgage portfolios. The risk ratings are specifically used as follows:

Through the loan approval process, loan administration and loan review program, management seeks to continuously monitor our credit risk profile and assesses the overall quality of the loan portfolio and adequacy of the allowance for loan losses.

We have several procedures in place to assist in maintaining the overall quality of our loan portfolio. Delinquent loan reports are monitored by credit administration to identify adverse levels and trends. Loans, including impaired loans, are generally classified as non-accruing if they are past due as to maturity or payment of principal or interest for a period of more than 90 days, unless such loans are well-collateralized and in the process of collection. Loans that are on a current payment status or past due less than 90 days may also be classified as non-accruing if repayment in full of principal and/or interest is uncertain.

The allowance for loan losses is established through charges to earnings in the form of a provision for loan losses. The allowance reflects management’s estimate of the amount of probable loan losses in the portfolio, based on factors such as:

Our methodology in the estimation of the allowance for loan losses includes the following broad areas:

Management presents a quarterly review of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses to our Board of Directors based on the methodology described above. See also the section titled “Allowance for Loan Losses” Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Our investment policy is contained within our overall Asset-Liability Management and Investment Policy. This policy dictates that investment decisions will be made based on the safety of the investment, liquidity requirements, potential returns, cash flow targets, need for collateral and desired risk parameters. In pursuing these objectives, we consider the ability of an investment to provide earnings consistent with factors of quality, maturity, marketability, pledgeable nature and risk diversification. Our Treasurer, guided by the Asset-Liability Committee (“ALCO”), is responsible for investment portfolio decisions within the established policies.

Our investment securities strategy centers on providing liquidity to meet loan demand and redeeming liabilities, meeting pledging requirements, managing credit risks, managing overall interest rate risks and maximizing portfolio yield. Our current policy generally limits security purchases to the following:

Our primary sources of funds are deposits, borrowed funds and repurchase agreements, scheduled amortization and prepayments of principal from loans and mortgage-backed securities, maturities and calls of investment securities and funds provided by operations.

We offer a variety of deposit account products with a range of interest rates and terms. The deposit accounts consist of noninterest-bearing demand, interest-bearing demand, savings, money market, club accounts and certificates of deposit. We also offer certificates of deposit with balances in excess of $100,000 to local municipalities, businesses, and individuals as well as Individual Retirement Accounts and other qualified plan accounts. The flow of deposits is influenced significantly by general economic conditions, prevailing interest rates and competition. Our deposits are obtained predominantly from the areas in which our branch offices are located. We rely primarily on competitive pricing of our deposit products, customer service and long-standing relationships with customers to attract and retain these deposits. We have also utilized certificate of deposit sales in the national brokered market (“brokered deposits”) as a wholesale funding source; however, we had no brokered deposits at December 31, 2010. Our borrowings consist mainly of advances entered into with the FHLB, federal funds purchased and securities sold under repurchase agreements.

Our primary operating segment is our subsidiary bank, FSB. Our brokerage subsidiary, FSIS, is also deemed an operating segment; however, it does not meet the applicable thresholds for separation.

The Company and our subsidiaries are subject to an extensive system of laws and regulations that are intended primarily for the protection of customers and depositors and not for the protection of security holders. These laws and regulations govern such areas as capital, permissible activities, allowance for loan losses, loans and investments, and rates of interest that can be charged on loans. Described below are elements of selected laws and regulations. The descriptions are not intended to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes and regulations described.

Holding Company Regulation. As a bank holding company and financial holding company, we are subject to comprehensive regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, frequently referred to as the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”), under the Bank Holding Company Act, as amended by, among other laws, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act”), and by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), enacted on July 21, 2010. We must file reports with the FRB and such additional information as the FRB may require, and our holding company and non-banking affiliates are subject to examination by the FRB. Under FRB policy, a bank holding company must serve as a source of strength for its subsidiary banks. Under this policy, the FRB may require, and has required in the past, a holding company to contribute additional capital to an undercapitalized subsidiary bank. The Bank Holding Company Act provides that a bank holding company must obtain FRB approval before:

The Bank Holding Company Act generally prohibits a bank holding company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company which is not a bank or bank holding company, or from engaging directly or indirectly in activities other than those of banking, managing or controlling banks, or providing services for its subsidiaries. The principal exceptions to these prohibitions involve certain non-bank activities which, by statute or by FRB regulation or order, have been identified as activities closely related to the business of banking or managing or controlling banks. The list of activities permitted by the FRB includes, among other things: lending; operating a savings institution, mortgage company, finance company, credit card company or factoring company; performing certain data processing operations; providing certain investment and financial advice; underwriting and acting as an insurance agent for certain types of credit related insurance; leasing property on a full-payout, non-operating basis; selling money orders, travelers’ checks and United States Savings Bonds; real estate and personal property appraising; providing tax planning and preparation services; and, subject to certain limitations, providing securities brokerage services for customers. These activities may also be affected by federal legislation.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amended portions of the Bank Holding Company Act to authorize bank holding companies, such as us, directly or through non-bank subsidiaries to engage in securities, insurance and other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity. In order to undertake these activities, a bank holding company must become a “financial holding company” by submitting to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank a declaration that the company elects to be a financial holding company and a certification that all of the depository institutions controlled by the company are well capitalized and well managed. During the second quarter of 2008, we received FRB approval for an election to reinstate our status as a financial holding company under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Depository Institution Regulation. Our bank subsidiary is subject to regulation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). This regulatory structure includes:

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The FRB and FDIC have issued substantially similar risk-based and leverage capital guidelines applicable to bank holding companies and banks. In addition, these regulatory agencies may from time to time require that a bank holding company or bank maintain capital above the minimum levels, based on its financial condition or actual or anticipated growth.

The FRB’s risk-based guidelines establish a two-tier capital framework. Tier 1 capital generally consists of common shareholders’ equity, retained earnings, a limited amount of qualifying perpetual preferred stock, qualifying trust preferred securities and non-controlling interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, less goodwill and certain intangibles. Tier 2 capital generally consists of certain hybrid capital instruments and perpetual debt, mandatory convertible debt securities and a limited amount of subordinated debt, qualifying preferred stock, loan loss allowance, and unrealized holding gains on certain equity securities. The sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital represents qualifying total capital, at least 50% of which must consist of Tier 1 capital.

Risk-based capital ratios are calculated by dividing Tier 1 and total capital by risk-weighted assets. Assets and off-balance sheet exposures are assigned to one of four categories of risk-weights, based primarily on relative credit risk. For bank holding companies, generally the minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is 4% and the minimum total risk-based capital ratio is 8%. Our Tier 1 and total risk-based capital ratios under these guidelines at December 31, 2010 were 12.34% and 13.60%, respectively.

The FRB’s leverage capital guidelines establish a minimum leverage ratio determined by dividing Tier 1 capital by adjusted average total assets. The minimum leverage ratio is 3% for bank holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating. All other bank holding companies generally are required to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 4%. At December 31, 2010, we had a leverage ratio of 8.31%. See also the section titled “Capital Resources” in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 10, Regulatory Matters, of the notes to consolidated financial statements.

The federal regulatory authorities’ risk-based capital guidelines are based upon the 1988 capital accord (“Basel I”) of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”). The Basel Committee is a committee of central banks and bank supervisors/regulators from the major industrialized countries that develops broad policy guidelines for use by each country’s supervisors in determining the supervisory policies and regulations to which they apply. Actions of the Committee have no direct effect on banks in participating countries. In 2004, the Basel Committee published a new capital accord (“Basel II”) to replace Basel I. Basel II provides two approaches for setting capital standards for credit risk — an internal ratings-based approach tailored to individual institutions’ circumstances and a standardized approach that bases risk weightings on external credit assessments to a much greater extent than permitted in existing risk-based capital guidelines. Basel II also would set capital requirements for operational risk and refine the existing capital requirements for market risk exposures.

A final rule implementing the advanced approaches of Basel II in the United States would apply only to certain large or internationally active banking organizations, or “core banks” — defined as those with consolidated total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposures of $10 billion or more, became effective as of April 1, 2008. Certain other U.S. banking organizations would have the option to adopt the requirements of this rule. We are not required to comply with the advanced approaches of Basel II.

In July 2008, the agencies issued a proposed rule that would give banking organizations that do not use the advanced approaches the option to implement a new risk-based capital framework that generally parallels the relevant approaches under Basel II, but recognizes that U.S. markets have unique characteristics and risk profiles, most notably with respect to risk weighting residential mortgage exposures. To date, no final rule has been adopted.

In 2009, the United States Department of Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued a policy statement (the “Treasury Policy Statement”) entitled “Principles for Reforming the U.S. and International Regulatory Capital Framework for Banking Firms,” which contemplates changes to the existing regulatory capital regime involving substantial revisions to major parts of the Basel I and Basel II capital frameworks and affecting all regulated banking organizations and other systemically important institutions. The Treasury Policy Statement calls for, among other things, higher and stronger capital requirements for all banking firms, with changes to the regulatory capital framework to be phased in over a period of several years.

On December 17, 2009, the Basel Committee issued a set of proposals (the “2009 Capital Proposals”) that would significantly revise the definitions of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. Among other things, the 2009 Capital Proposals would re-emphasize that common equity is the predominant component of Tier 1 capital. Concurrently with the release of the 2009 Capital Proposals, the Basel Committee also released a set of proposals related to liquidity risk exposure (the “2009 Liquidity Proposals”). The 2009 Liquidity Proposals include the implementation of (i) a “liquidity coverage ratio” or LCR, designed to ensure that a bank maintains an adequate level of unencumbered, high-quality assets sufficient to meet the bank’s liquidity needs over a 30-day time horizon under an acute liquidity stress scenario and (ii) a “net stable funding ratio” or NSFR, designed to promote more medium and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banks over a one-year time horizon.

The Dodd-Frank Act includes certain provisions concerning the capital regulations of the U.S. banking regulators, which are often referred to as the “Collins Amendment.” These provisions are intended to subject bank holding companies to the same capital requirements as their bank subsidiaries and to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of hybrid capital instruments, especially trust preferred securities, as regulatory capital. Under the Collins Amendment, trust preferred securities issued by a company, such as our company, with total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion before May 19, 2010 and treated as regulatory capital are grandfathered, but any such securities issued later are not eligible as regulatory capital. The banking regulators must develop regulations setting minimum risk-based and leverage capital requirements for holding companies and banks on a consolidated basis that are no less stringent than the generally applicable requirements in effect for depository institutions under the prompt corrective action regulations discussed below. The banking regulators also must seek to make capital standards countercyclical so that the required levels of capital increase in times of economic expansion and decrease in times of economic contraction. The Dodd-Frank Act requires these new capital regulations to be adopted by the FRB in final form 18 months after its date of enactment (July 21, 2010). To date, no proposed regulations have been issued.

In December 2010 and January 2011, the Basel Committee published the final texts of reforms on capital and liquidity generally referred to as “Basel III.” Although Basel III is intended to be implemented by participating countries for large, internationally active banks, its provisions are likely to be considered by U.S. banking regulators in developing new regulations applicable to other banks in the United States, including Five Star Bank.

For banks in the United States, among the most significant provisions of Basel III concerning capital are the following:

The Basel III provisions on liquidity include complex criteria establishing the LCR and NSFR. The purpose of the LCR is to ensure that a bank maintains adequate unencumbered, high quality liquid assets to meet its liquidity needs for 30 days under a severe liquidity stress scenario. The purpose of the NSFR is to promote more medium and long-term funding of assets and activities, using a one-year horizon. Although Basel III is described as a “final text,” it is subject to the resolution of certain issues and to further guidance and modification, as well as to adoption by U.S. banking regulators, including decisions as to whether and to what extent it will apply to U.S. banks that are not large, internationally active banks.

Prompt Corrective Action. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, among other things, identifies five capital categories for insured depository institutions (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized) and requires the respective federal bank regulatory agencies to implement systems for “prompt corrective action” for insured depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements within these categories. This act imposes progressively more restrictive constraints on operations, management and capital distributions, depending on the category in which an institution is classified. Failure to meet the capital guidelines could also subject a banking institution to capital raising requirements. An “undercapitalized” bank must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that bank’s compliance with the plan. The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the bank’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to comply with the plan. Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors. In addition, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act requires the various regulatory agencies to prescribe certain non-capital standards for safety and soundness relating generally to operations and management, asset quality and executive compensation and permits regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet these standards.

The various federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted substantially similar regulations that define the five capital categories identified by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act, using the total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital and leverage capital ratios as the relevant capital measures. These regulations establish various degrees of corrective action to be taken when an institution is considered undercapitalized. Under the regulations, a “well capitalized” institution must have a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6%, a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10% and a leverage ratio of at least 5% and not be subject to a capital directive or order. An institution is “adequately capitalized” if it has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 4%, a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8% and a leverage ratio of at least 4% (3% in certain circumstances). An institution is “undercapitalized” if it has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4%, a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8% or a leverage ratio of less than 4% (3% in certain circumstances). An institution is “significantly undercapitalized” if it has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3%, a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6% or a leverage ratio of less than 3%. An institution is “critically undercapitalized” if its tangible equity is equal to or less than 2% of total assets. Generally, an institution may be reclassified in a lower capitalization category if it is determined that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice.

As of December 31, 2010, our subsidiary bank met the requirements to be classified as “well-capitalized.”

Dividends. The FRB policy is that a bank holding company should pay cash dividends only to the extent that its net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the holding company’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition, and that it is inappropriate for a bank holding company experiencing serious financial problems to borrow funds to pay dividends. Furthermore, a bank that is classified under the prompt corrective action regulations as “undercapitalized” will be prohibited from paying any dividends.

On December 23, 2008, as part of the TARP Capital Purchase Program of the Treasury, we sold to the Treasury 7,503 shares of our fixed rate cumulative perpetual preferred stock, Series A preferred stock (“Series A”), having a liquidation preference amount of $5,000 per share, for a purchase price of $37.5 million in cash and issued to Treasury a ten-year warrant to purchase 378,175 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $14.88 per share (the “Warrant”).

We may redeem the Series A preferred stock at any time by repaying the Treasury, without penalty, subject to Treasury’s consultation with our appropriate regulatory agency and approval. Additionally, upon redemption of the Series A preferred stock, the Warrant generally may be repurchased from the Treasury at its fair market value as agreed-upon by us and the Treasury. In February 2011, the Company repaid one-third or $12.5 million of its obligation.

The securities purchase agreement between us and the Treasury provides that prior to the earlier of (i) December 23, 2011 and (ii) the date on which all of the shares of the Series A preferred stock have been redeemed by us or transferred by the Treasury to third parties, we may not, without the consent of the Treasury, (a) pay a quarterly cash dividend on our common stock of more than $0.10 per share or (b) subject to limited exceptions, redeem, repurchase or otherwise acquire shares of our common stock, preferred stock (other than the Series A preferred stock) or trust preferred securities. In addition, under the terms of the Series A preferred stock, we may not pay dividends on our common stock at any time we are in arrears on the dividends payable on the Series A preferred stock. Dividends on the Series A preferred stock are payable quarterly at a rate of 5% per annum for the first five years and a rate of 9% per annum thereafter if not redeemed prior to that time.

Our primary source for cash dividends is the dividends we receive from our subsidiary bank. Our bank is subject to various regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including requirements to maintain capital above regulatory minimums. Approval of the New York State Banking Department is required prior to paying a dividend if the dividends declared by the Bank exceed the sum of the Bank’s net profits for that year and its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years.

Federal Deposit Insurance Assessments. The Bank’s deposits are insured to the maximum extent permitted by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”). Upon enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 on October 3, 2008, federal deposit insurance coverage levels under the DIF temporarily increased from $100,000 to $250,000 per deposit category, per depositor, per institution, through December 31, 2009. On May 20, 2009, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act extended the temporary increase through December 31, 2013. The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increases the maximum amount of deposit insurance to $250,000 per deposit category, per depositor, per institution retroactive to January 1, 2008, and noninterest-bearing transaction accounts have unlimited deposit insurance through December 31, 2013.

As the insurer, the FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of, and to require reporting by, FDIC-insured institutions. The FDIC also may prohibit any FDIC-insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious threat to the DIF. The FDIC also has the authority to initiate enforcement actions against banks. Insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that the institution has engaged or is engaging 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 or written agreement entered into with the FDIC. The management of the Bank does not know of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of deposit insurance.

The FDIC maintains the DIF by assessing depository institutions an insurance premium on a quarterly basis under a risk-based assessment system. The amount of the assessment is a function of the institution’s risk category, of which there are four, and assessment base. An institution’s risk category is determined according to its supervisory ratings and capital levels and is used to determine the institution’s assessment rate. The assessment rate for risk categories are calculated according to a formula, which relies on supervisory ratings and either certain financial ratios or long-term debt ratings. An insured bank’s assessment base is currently determined by its level of deposits. Because the system is risk-based, it allows banks to pay lower assessments to the FDIC as their capital level and supervisory ratings improve. By the same token, if these indicators deteriorate, the institution will have to pay higher assessments to the FDIC.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the FDIC Board has the authority to set the annual assessment rate range for the various risk categories within certain regulatory limits and to impose special assessments upon insured depository institutions when deemed necessary by the FDIC’s Board. As part of the Deposit Insurance Fund Restoration Plan adopted by the FDIC in October 2008, on February 27, 2009, the FDIC adopted the final rule modifying the risk-based assessment system, which set initial base assessment rates between 12 and 45 basis points, beginning April 1, 2009. The FDIC imposed an emergency special assessment on June 30, 2009, which totaled $923 thousand for our Bank. In addition, in September 2009, the FDIC extended the Restoration Plan period to eight years. In November 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule requiring prepayment of 13 quarters of FDIC premiums. The Bank’s required prepayment amounted to $9.9 million and was collected in December 2009.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new Restoration Plan for the DIF to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the Restoration Plan, the FDIC did not institute the uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates scheduled to take place on January 1, 2011 and maintained the current schedule of assessment rates for all depository institutions. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, will increase or decrease assessment rates, following notice-and-comment rulemaking, if required.

In November 2010, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the deposit insurance assessment base from total domestic deposits to average total assets minus average tangible equity, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, effective April 1, 2011. The FDIC also issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the deposit insurance assessment system for large institutions. The FDIC proposed to create a two tier system — one for most large institutions that have more than $10 billion in assets, and another for “highly complex” institutions that have over $50 billion in assets and are fully owned by a parent with over $500 billion in assets. These proposals did not apply to us or the Bank.

On February 9, 2011, the FDIC adopted a final rule which redefines the deposit insurance assessment base as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rule sets the deposit insurance assessment base as average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. It also sets a new assessment rate schedule which reflects assessment rate adjustments including potentially reduced rates tied to unsecured debt and potentially increased rates for brokered deposits. The final rule generally becomes effective on April 1, 2011. Under the new rule, our FDIC insurance premiums are expected to decline in 2011. However, there can be no assurances that such premium reductions will be realized in 2011.

Transactions with Affiliates. FII and FSB are affiliates within the meaning of the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve Act imposes limitations on a bank with respect to extensions of credit to, investments in, and certain other transactions with, its parent bank holding company and the holding company’s other subsidiaries. Furthermore, bank loans and extensions of credit to affiliates also are subject to various collateral requirements.

Community Reinvestment Act. Under the Community Reinvestment Act, every FDIC-insured institution is obligated, consistent with safe and sound banking practices, to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. The Community Reinvestment Act requires the appropriate federal banking regulator, in connection with the examination of an insured institution, to assess the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to consider this record in its evaluation of certain applications, such as a merger or the establishment of a branch. An unsatisfactory rating may be used as the basis for the denial of an application and will prevent a bank holding company of the institution from making an election to become a financial holding company.

As of its last Community Reinvestment Act examination, Five Star Bank received a rating of “outstanding.”

Interstate Banking and Branching. The FRB may approve an application of a bank holding company to acquire control of, or acquire all or substantially all of the assets of, a bank located in a state other than the bank holding company’s home state, without regard to whether the transaction is prohibited by the laws of any state. The FRB may not approve the acquisition of a bank that has not been in existence for the minimum time period (not exceeding five years) specified by the law of the target bank’s home state. The FRB also may not approve an application if the bank holding company (and its bank affiliates) controls or would control more than ten percent of the insured deposits in the U.S. or, generally, 30% or more of the deposits in the target bank’s home state or in any state in which the target bank maintains a branch. Individual states may waive the 30% statewide concentration limit. Each state may limit the percentage of total insured deposits in the state that may be held or controlled by a bank or bank holding company to the extent the limitation does not discriminate against out-of-state banks or bank holding companies.

The federal banking agencies are authorized to approve interstate bank merger transactions without regard to whether these transactions are prohibited by the law of any state, unless the home state of one of the banks opted out of interstate mergers prior to June 1, 1997. Interstate acquisitions of branches are permitted only if the law of the state in which the branch is located permits these acquisitions. Interstate mergers and branch acquisitions are subject to the nationwide and statewide-insured deposit concentration limits described above.

Privacy Rules. Federal banking regulators, as required under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, have adopted rules limiting the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose nonpublic information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties. The rules require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to non-affiliated third parties. The privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial services companies and conveyed to outside vendors.

International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. The President signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001 into law in October 2001. This act contains the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “IMLAFA”). The IMLAFA substantially broadens existing anti-money laundering legislation and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the U.S., imposes new compliance and due diligence obligations, creates new crimes and penalties, compels the production of documents located both inside and outside the U.S., including those of foreign institutions that have a correspondent relationship in the U.S., and clarifies the safe harbor from civil liability to customers. The Treasury Department has issued a number of regulations implementing the USA Patriot Act that apply certain of its requirements to financial institutions such as our banking and broker-dealer subsidiaries. The regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing. The increased obligations of financial institutions, including us, to identify their customers, watch for and report suspicious transactions, respond to requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies, and share information with other financial institutions, requires the implementation and maintenance of internal procedures, practices and controls which have increased, and may continue to increase, our costs and may subject us to liability.

As noted above, enforcement and compliance-related activity by government agencies has increased. Money laundering and anti-terrorism compliance is among the areas receiving a high level of focus in the present environment.

Regulatory Reform. On July 21 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act (as amended) implements far-reaching changes across the financial regulatory landscape, including provisions that, among other things, will:

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on us and the financial services industry more generally. Provisions in the legislation that affect deposit insurance assessments, and payment of interest on demand deposits could increase the costs associated with deposits. Provisions in the legislation that require revisions to the capital requirements of the Company and Five Star Bank could require the Company and the Bank to seek additional sources of capital in the future.

TARP-Related Compensation and Corporate Governance Requirements. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) was signed into law on October 3, 2008 and authorized the Treasury to provide funds to be used to restore liquidity and stability to the U.S. financial system pursuant to the TARP. Under the authority of EESA, Treasury instituted the TARP Capital Purchase Program to encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support the U.S. economy. As noted above, on December 23, 2008, we participated in this program by issuing 7,503 shares of our Series A preferred stock to the Treasury for a purchase price of $37.5 million in cash and issued the Warrant to the Treasury. In February 2011, the Company repaid one-third or $12.5 million of its obligation.

In addition to the restrictions on the Company’s ability to pay dividends on and repurchase its stock, as described above under “Dividends,” participation in the TARP Capital Purchase Program also includes certain requirements and restrictions regarding compensation that were expanded significantly by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), as implemented by the Treasury’s Interim Final Rule on TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance. These requirements and restrictions include, among others, the following: (i) a prohibition on paying or accruing bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation, other than qualifying long-term restricted stock or pursuant to certain preexisting employment contracts, to our five most highly-compensated employees; (ii) a general prohibition on providing severance benefits, or other benefits due to a change in control of the Company, to our senior executive officers (“SEOs”) and next five most highly compensated employees; (iii) a requirement to make subject to clawback any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation paid to any of the SEOs and any of the next twenty most highly compensated employees if such compensation was based on materially inaccurate financial statements or any other materially inaccurate performance metric criteria; (iv) a requirement to establish a policy on luxury or excessive expenditures; (v) a requirement to annually provide shareholders with a non-binding advisory “say on pay” vote on executive compensation; (vi) a prohibition on deducting more than $500,000 in annual compensation, including performance-based compensation, to the executives covered under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m); (vii) a requirement that the compensation committee of the board of directors evaluate and review on a semi-annual basis the risks involved in employee compensation plans; and (viii) a prohibition on providing tax “gross-ups” to our SEOs and the next 20 most highly compensated employees. These requirements and restrictions will remain applicable to us until we have redeemed the Series A preferred stock in full.

Incentive Compensation. On October 22, 2009, the Federal Reserve issued a comprehensive proposal on incentive compensation policies (the “Incentive Compensation Proposal”) intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The Incentive Compensation Proposal, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. Banking organizations are instructed to begin an immediate review of their incentive compensation policies to ensure that they do not encourage excessive risk-taking and implement corrective programs as needed. Where there are deficiencies in the incentive compensation arrangements, they must be immediately addressed.

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

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

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 implemented a broad range of corporate governance, accounting and reporting measures for companies that have securities registered under the Exchange Act, including publicly-held bank holding companies such as Financial Institutions. Specifically, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the various regulations promulgated thereunder, established, among other things: (i) requirements for audit committees, including independence, expertise, and responsibilities; (ii) responsibilities regarding financial statements for the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the reporting company; (iii) the forfeiture of bonuses or other incentive-based compensation and profits from the sale of the reporting company’s securities by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the twelve-month period following the initial publication of any financial statements that later require restatement; (iv) the creation of an independent accounting oversight board; (v) standards for auditors and regulation of audits, including independence provisions that restrict non-audit services that accountants may provide to their audit clients; (vi) disclosure and reporting obligations for the reporting company and their directors and executive officers, including accelerated reporting of stock transactions and a prohibition on trading during pension blackout periods; (vii) a prohibition on personal loans to directors and officers, except certain loans made by insured financial institutions on non-preferential terms and in compliance with other bank regulatory requirements; and (viii) a range of civil and criminal penalties for fraud and other violations of the securities laws.

Consumer Laws and Regulations. In addition to the laws and regulations discussed herein, the Bank is also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the list set forth herein is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include, among others, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits or making loans to such customers. The Bank must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of its ongoing customer relations. The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (the “Check 21 Act”), which became effective on October 28, 2004, creates a new negotiable instrument, called a “substitute check”, which banks are required to accept as the legal equivalent of a paper check if it meets the requirements of the Check 21 Act. The Check 21 Act is designed to facilitate check truncation, to foster innovation in the check payment system, and to improve the payment system by shortening processing times and reducing the volume of paper checks.

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

Our financial statements included herein have been prepared in accordance with GAAP, which requires us to measure financial position and operating results principally using historic dollars. Changes in the relative value of money due to inflation or recession are generally not considered. The primary effect of inflation on our operations is reflected in increased operating costs. In our view, changes in interest rates affect the financial condition of a financial institution to a far greater degree than changes in the inflation rate. While interest rates are generally influenced by changes in the inflation rate, they do not necessarily change at the same rate or in the same magnitude. Interest rates are sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including changes in the expected rate of inflation, general and local economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States government, its agencies and various other governmental regulatory authorities.

Our business and earnings are affected by general and local economic conditions and by the monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, its agencies and various other governmental regulatory authorities. The FRB regulates the supply of money in order to influence general economic conditions. Among the instruments of monetary policy available to the FRB are (i) conducting open market operations in U.S. government obligations, (ii) changing the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, (iii) imposing or changing reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and (iv) restricting certain borrowings and imposing or changing reserve requirements against certain borrowings by financial institutions and their affiliates. These methods are used in varying degrees and combinations to directly affect the availability of bank loans and deposits, as well as the interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits. For that reason, the policies of the FRB could have a material effect on our earnings.

At December 31, 2010, we had 616 employees. None of the employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement and management believes its relations with employees are good.

The following table sets forth current information regarding our executive officers and certain other significant employees (ages are as of May 4, 2011, the date of the 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders).

An investment in our common stock is subject to risks inherent to our business. The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect us are described below. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information included or incorporated by reference herein. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or focused on or that management currently deems immaterial may also impair our business operations. This Annual Report on Form 10-K is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors. Further, to the extent that any of the information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K constitutes forward-looking statements, the risk factors set forth below also are cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of us.

If any of the following risks actually occur, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of our common stock could decline significantly, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that customers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms and that any collateral securing the payment of their loans may not be sufficient to assure repayment. Credit losses are inherent in the business of making loans and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

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, and we provide an allowance for estimated loan losses based on a number of factors. We believe that the allowance for loan losses is adequate. However, if our assumptions or judgments are wrong, the allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover the actual credit losses. We may have to increase the allowance in the future in response to the request of one of our primary banking regulators, to adjust for changing conditions and assumptions, or as a result of any deterioration in the quality of our loan portfolio. The actual amount of future provisions for credit losses may vary from the amount of past provisions.

Substantially all of our business and operations are concentrated in the Western and Central New York region. As a result of this geographic concentration, our results depend largely on economic conditions in these and surrounding areas. Deterioration in economic conditions in our market could:

Generally, we make loans to small to mid-sized businesses whose success depends on the regional economy. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities. Adverse economic and business conditions in our market areas could reduce our growth rate, affect our borrowers’ ability to repay their loans and, consequently, adversely affect our business, financial condition and performance. For example, we place substantial reliance on real estate as collateral for our loan portfolio. A sharp downturn in real estate values in our market area could leave many of these loans inadequately collateralized. If we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt during a period of reduced real estate values, the impact on our results of operations could be materially adverse.

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions, we may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties, including financial statements, credit reports, and other financial information. We may also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties, or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports, or other financial information could cause us to enter into unfavorable transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

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

We are subject to extensive supervision, regulation and examination. This regulatory structure gives the regulatory authorities extensive discretion in connection with their supervisory and enforcement activities and examination policies to address not only compliance with applicable laws and regulations (including laws and regulations governing consumer credit, and anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws), but also capital adequacy, asset quality and risk, management ability and performance, earnings, liquidity, and various other factors. As part of this regulatory structure, we are subject to policies and other guidance developed by the regulatory agencies with respect to capital levels, the timing and amount of dividend payments, the classification of assets and the establishment of adequate loan loss reserves for regulatory purposes. Under this structure the regulatory agencies have broad discretion to impose restrictions and limitations on our operations if they determine, among other things, that our operations are unsafe or unsound, fail to comply with applicable law or are otherwise inconsistent with laws and regulations or with the supervisory policies of these agencies.

This supervisory framework could materially impact the conduct, growth and profitability of our operations. Any failure on our part to comply with current laws, regulations, other regulatory requirements or safe and sound banking practices or concerns about our financial condition, or any related regulatory sanctions or adverse actions against us, could increase our costs or restrict our ability to expand our business and result in damage to our reputation.

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law. This new law will significantly change the current bank regulatory structure and affect the lending, deposit, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new implementing rules and regulations, and to prepare numerous studies and reports for Congress. The federal agencies are given significant discretion in drafting the implementing rules and regulations, and consequently, many of the details and much of the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act may not be known for many months or years.

Among the many requirements in the Dodd-Frank Act for new banking regulations is a requirement for new capital regulations to be adopted within 18 months. These regulations must be at least as stringent as, and may call for higher levels of capital, than current regulations. Generally, trust preferred securities will no longer be eligible as Tier 1 capital, but our currently outstanding trust preferred securities will be grandfathered and our currently outstanding TARP preferred securities will continue to qualify as Tier 1 capital.

Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are expected to have a near-term impact on us. For example, one year after the date of its enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminates the federal prohibitions on paying interest on demand deposits, thus allowing businesses to have interest bearing checking accounts. Depending on competitive responses, this significant change to existing law could have an adverse impact on our interest expense.

The Dodd-Frank Act also permanently increases the maximum amount of deposit insurance for banks, savings institutions and credit unions to $250,000 per depositor, retroactive to January 1, 2008, and non-interest bearing transaction accounts and interest on lawyers trust accounts have unlimited deposit insurance through December 31, 2013.

The Dodd-Frank Act creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with broad powers to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The Bureau will have broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all banks, including the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices.

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on us. However, compliance with this new law and its implementing regulations will result in additional operating costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to restrictions on dividends, repurchases of common stock, and executive compensation as a TARP participant. Compliance with these restrictions and other restrictions may increase our costs, impact our ability to retain executive officers and limit our ability to pursue business opportunities. Additionally, any reduction of, or the elimination of, our common stock dividend in the future could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. The current restrictions, as well as any possible future restrictions, associated with participation in TARP could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

The financial services industry is extensively regulated. Federal and state banking regulations are designed primarily to protect the deposit insurance funds and consumers, not to benefit a company’s stockholders. These regulations may sometimes impose significant limitations on operations. The significant federal and state banking regulations that affect us are described in the section captioned “Supervision and Regulation” included in Part I, Item 1, “Business”. These regulations, along with the currently existing tax, accounting, securities, insurance, and monetary laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies, and interpretations control the methods by which financial institutions conduct business, implement strategic initiatives and tax compliance, and govern financial reporting and disclosures. These laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies, and interpretations are constantly evolving and may change significantly over time.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed merging the State Departments of Banking, Insurance and Consumer Protection into a single Department of Financial Regulation, or DFR. The bill provides that the Superintendent of the DFR may, beginning April 1, 2012, assess expenses in such proportion as he or she deems just and reasonable against banks and insurers. The bill also establishes a special account called the “consumer protection account,” which will consist of fees and penalties received by the department of state and DFR, as well as other monies received in the form of penalties. These monies will be available to the DFR to pay for costs related to its consumer and investor protection activities. If the consumer protection account is insufficient to cover those costs, the balance would be recoverable through assessments against the industry.

The bill makes New York’s “wild card” authority (that was set to expire September 10, 2011) permanent. Under this authority, the Banking Board has the power to grant to New York chartered banking organizations, as well as licensed foreign bank branches and agencies, powers possessed by a counterpart federally-chartered banking institution.

If this bill is adopted as proposed, it could adversely affect us.

As part of our business, we collect, process and retain sensitive and confidential client and customer information on our behalf and on behalf of other third parties. Customer data also may be stored on systems of third-party service providers and merchants that may have inadequate security systems. Third-party carriers regularly transport customer data, and may lose sensitive customer information. Unauthorized access to our networks or any of our other information systems potentially could jeopardize the security of confidential information stored in our computer systems or transmitted by our customers or others. If our security systems or those of merchants, processors or other third-party service providers are compromised such that this confidential information is disclosed to unauthorized parties, we may be subject to liability. For example, in the event of a security breach, we may incur losses related to fraudulent use of debit cards issued by us as well as the operational costs associated with reissuing cards. Although we take preventive measures to address these factors, such measures are costly and may become more costly in the future. Moreover, these measures may not protect us from liability, which may not be adequately covered by insurance, or from damage to our reputation.

Third party vendors provide key components of our business infrastructure such as internet connections, network access and core application processing. While we have selected these third party vendors carefully, we do not control their actions. Any problems caused by these third parties, including as a result of their not providing us their services for any reason or their performing their services poorly, could adversely affect our ability to deliver products and services to our customers or otherwise conduct our business efficiently and effectively. Replacing these third party vendors could also entail significant delay and expense.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract and retain skilled people. Competition for the best people in most activities engaged in by us can be intense, and we may not be able to hire sufficiently skilled people or to retain them. Further, the rural location of our principal executive offices and many of our bank branches make it difficult for us to attract skilled people to such locations. 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 our markets, years of industry experience, and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel.

Integral to our performance is the continued efficacy of our technical systems, operational infrastructure, relationships with third parties and the vast array of associates and key executives in our day-to-day and ongoing operations. Failure by any or all of these resources subjects us to risks that may vary in size, scale and scope. This includes, but is not limited to, operational or technical failures, ineffectiveness or exposure due to interruption in third party support as expected, as well as the loss of key individuals or failure on the part of key individuals to perform properly. Although management has established policies and procedures, including implementation and testing of a comprehensive contingency plan, to address such failures, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our earnings and cash flows are largely dependent upon our net interest income. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including general economic conditions and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies and, in particular, the Federal Reserve. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence not only the interest we receive on loans and investments and the amount of interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect (i) our ability to originate loans and obtain deposits; (ii) the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities; and (iii) the average duration of our mortgage-backed securities portfolio and other interest-earning assets. If the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster rate than the interest rates received on loans and other investments, our net interest income, and therefore earnings, could be adversely affected. Earnings could also be adversely affected if the interest rates received on loans and other investments fall more quickly than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings.

Although management believes it has implemented effective asset and liability management strategies to reduce the potential effects of changes in interest rates on our results of operations, any substantial, unexpected, prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Also, our interest rate risk modeling techniques and assumptions likely may not fully predict or capture the impact of actual interest rate changes on our balance sheet.

From December 2007 through June 2009, the U.S. economy was in recession. Business activity across a wide range of industries and regions in the U. S. was greatly reduced. Although economic conditions have begun to improve, certain sectors, such as real estate, remain weak and unemployment remains high. Local governments and many businesses are still in serious difficulty due to lower consumer spending and reduced tax collections.

Market conditions also led to the failure or merger of several prominent financial institutions and numerous regional and community-based financial institutions. These failures, as well as projected future failures, have had a significant negative impact on the capitalization level of the deposit insurance fund of the FDIC, which, in turn, has led to past increases in deposit insurance premiums paid by financial institutions.

Our financial performance generally, and in particular the ability of borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, as well as demand for loans and other products and services we offer, is highly dependent on the business environment in the markets where we operate, in the State of New York and in the United States as a whole. A favorable business environment is generally characterized by, among other factors, economic growth, efficient capital markets, low inflation, low unemployment, high business and investor confidence, and strong business earnings. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence; limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital; increases in inflation or interest rates; high unemployment, natural disasters; or a combination of these or other factors.

Approximately 20% of our investment securities portfolio at December 31, 2010 is comprised of municipal securities issued by or on behalf of New York and its political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, the interest on which is exempt from regular federal income tax. Risks associated with investing in municipal securities include political, economic and regulatory factors which may affect the issuers. The concerns facing the State of New York may lead nationally recognized rating agencies to downgrade its debt obligations. It is uncertain how the financial markets may react to any potential future ratings downgrade in New York’s debt obligations. However, the fallout from continued budgetary concerns and a possible ratings downgrade could adversely affect the value of New York’s obligations and those of its political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities.

Overall, during 2010, the business environment has been adverse for many households and businesses in the United States and worldwide. While economic conditions in the State of New York, the United States and worldwide have begun to improve, there can be no assurance that this improvement will continue. Such conditions could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The policies of the Federal Reserve impact us significantly. The Federal Reserve regulates the supply of money and credit in the United States. Its policies directly and indirectly influence the rate of interest earned on loans and paid on borrowings and interest-bearing deposits and can also affect the value of financial instruments we hold. Those policies determine to a significant extent our cost of funds for lending and investing. Changes in those policies are beyond our control and are difficult to predict. Federal Reserve policies can also affect our borrowers, potentially increasing the risk that they may fail to repay their loans. For example, a tightening of the money supply by the Federal Reserve could reduce the demand for a borrower’s products and services. This could adversely affect the borrower’s earnings and ability to repay its loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operation.

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

We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, regional and internet banks within the various markets in which we operate. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. Banks, securities firms and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting), and merchant banking. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than we can.

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

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

Our goodwill is evaluated for impairment on an annual basis or when triggering events or circumstances indicate impairment may exist. Significant and sustained declines in our stock price and market capitalization, significant declines in our expected future cash flows, significant adverse changes in the business climate or slower growth rates could result in impairment of goodwill. At December 31, 2010, we had goodwill of $37.4 million, representing approximately 18% of shareholders’ equity. If impairment of goodwill was determined to exist, we would be required to write down our goodwill as a charge to earnings, which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial condition. For further discussion, see Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, and Note 6, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Our liquidity could be impaired by an inability to access the capital markets or unforeseen outflows of cash. This situation may arise due to circumstances that we may be unable to control, such as a general market disruption or an operational problem that affects third parties or us. Our efforts to monitor and manage liquidity risk may not be successful or sufficient to deal with dramatic or unanticipated reductions in our liquidity. In such events, our cost of funds may increase, thereby reducing our net interest revenue, or we may need to sell a portion of our investment and/or loan portfolio, which, depending upon market conditions, could result in our realizing a loss.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future to provide sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet our commitments and business needs. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control, and our financial performance.

In addition, we are highly regulated, and our regulators could require us to raise additional common equity in the future. Both we and our regulators perform a variety of analyses of our assets, including the preparation of stress case scenarios, and as a result of those assessments we could determine, or our regulators could require us, to raise additional capital.

We cannot assure that such capital will be available on acceptable terms or at all. Any occurrence that may limit our access to the capital markets, such as a decline in the confidence of debt purchasers, depositors of the Bank or counterparties participating in the capital markets, or a downgrade of our debt rating, may adversely affect our capital costs and ability to raise capital and, in turn, our liquidity. An inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

We are a separate and distinct legal entity from our subsidiaries. A substantial portion of our revenue comes from dividends from our Bank subsidiary. These dividends are the principal source of funds to pay dividends on our common and preferred stock, and to pay interest and principal on our debt. Various federal and/or state laws and regulations limit the amount of dividends that our Bank subsidiary and nonbank subsidiary may pay to us. Also, 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. In the event our bank subsidiary is unable to pay dividends to us, we may not be able to service debt, pay obligations, or pay dividends on our common and preferred stock. The inability to receive dividends from our bank subsidiary could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Although our common stock is currently traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, we cannot assure you that there will, at any time in the future, be an active trading market for our common stock. Even if there is an active trading market for our common stock, we cannot assure you that you will be able to sell all of your shares of common stock at one time or at a favorable price, if at all. As a result, you should purchase shares of common stock described herein only if you are capable of, and seeking, to make a long-term investment in our common stock.

We are not restricted from issuing additional shares of common stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock. We are currently authorized to issue up to 50,000,000 shares of common stock and up to 210,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $100 per share, which is designated into two classes, Class A of which 10,000 shares are authorized, and Class B of which 200,000 shares are authorized.

As of December 31, 2010, 10,937,506 shares of common stock and 183,259 shares of our preferred stock were issued and outstanding including (i) 7,503 shares of our fixed rate cumulative perpetual Series A preferred stock, par value $100 per share, having a liquidation preference of $5,000 per share, which we refer to as the TARP preferred stock, (ii) 1,533 shares of our Series A 3% cumulative preferred stock, which we refer to as the 3% preferred stock, and (iii) 174,223 shares of Series B-1 8.48% cumulative preferred stock, which we refer to as the 8.48% preferred stock. We refer to our TARP preferred stock, our 3% preferred stock and our 8.48% preferred stock collectively as the preferred stock. Our Board of Directors has authority, without action or vote of the shareholders, to issue all or part of the authorized but unissued shares. These authorized but unissued shares could be issued on terms or in circumstances that could dilute the interests of the holders of our common stock.

Pursuant to the Letter Agreement, dated December 23, 2008, and the Securities Purchase Agreement - Standard Terms attached thereto, which we refer to collectively as the Securities Purchase Agreement, that we entered into with the Treasury, in connection with our participation in TARP, the Treasury received a warrant to purchase up to 378,175 shares of our common stock, which we refer to as the warrant, at an exercise price of $14.88 per share, and we have provided the Treasury with registration rights covering the warrant and the underlying shares of common stock. We may seek the approval of our regulators to repurchase the warrant with the proceeds from any offering. The issuance of additional shares of common stock as a result of exercise of the warrant or otherwise or the issuance of securities convertible or exercisable into shares of common stock would dilute the ownership interest of existing holders of our common stock. Although the Treasury has agreed to not vote any of the shares of common stock it receives upon exercise of the warrant, a transferee of any portion of the warrant or of any shares of common stock acquired upon exercise of the warrant is not bound by this restriction. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of any offering as well as other sales of a large block of common stock in the market after an offering, or the perception that such sales could occur.

The terms of the warrant include an anti-dilution adjustment, which provides that (except in certain permitted transactions, including registered offerings), if we issue shares of common stock at a price that is less than 90% of the market price of such shares on the last trading day preceding the date of the agreement to sell such shares, the number of shares of common stock to be issued under the warrant would increase and the per share price of common stock to be purchased pursuant to the warrant would decrease.

Our shares of common stock are equity interests in us and do not constitute indebtedness. Accordingly, our common stock will rank junior to all of our indebtedness and to other non-equity claims on us with respect to assets available to satisfy claims on us. Additionally, holders of our common stock are subject to the prior dividend and liquidation rights of holders of our outstanding preferred stock. See Note 11, Shareholders’ Equity, in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The terms of our preferred stock currently prohibit us from paying dividends with respect to our common stock unless all accrued and unpaid dividends for all completed dividend periods with respect to the preferred stock have been paid with our TARP preferred stock and 3% preferred stock receiving payments first.

In addition, our right to participate in any distribution of assets of any of our subsidiaries upon the subsidiary’s liquidation or otherwise, and thus your ability as a holder of our common stock to benefit indirectly from such distribution, will be subject to the prior claims of creditors of that subsidiary and holders of any of that subsidiary’s preferred stock, except to the extent that any of our claims as a creditor of such subsidiary may be recognized. As a result, our common stock will effectively be subordinated to all existing and future liabilities and obligations of our subsidiaries.

Holders of our common stock are only entitled to receive such dividends as our Board of Directors may declare out of funds legally available for such payments. Although we have historically declared cash dividends on our common stock, we are not required to do so and may reduce or eliminate our common stock dividend in the future. This could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Also, participation in TARP limits our ability to increase our dividend or to repurchase our common stock, for so long as any securities issued under such program remain outstanding, as discussed in greater detail below.

Provisions of our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws, and federal and state banking laws, including regulatory approval requirements, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would be perceived to be beneficial to our shareholders. The combination of these provisions may discourage others from initiating a potential merger, takeover or other change of control transaction, which, in turn, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Not applicable.

We own a 27,400 square foot building in Warsaw, New York that serves as our headquarters, and principal executive and administrative offices. Additionally, we are obligated under a lease commitment through 2017 for a regional administrative facility in Pittsford, New York.

We are engaged in the banking business through 50 branch offices, of which 34 are owned and 16 are leased, in fourteen contiguous counties of Western and Central New York: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Cayuga, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Seneca, Steuben, Wyoming and Yates Counties. The operating leases for our branch offices expire at various dates through the year 2023 and generally include options to renew.

We believe that our properties have been adequately maintained, are in good operating condition and are suitable for our business as presently conducted, including meeting the prescribed security requirements. For additional information, see Note 5, Premises and Equipment, Net, and Note 9, Commitments and Contingencies, in the accompanying financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”, all of which are included elsewhere in this report and incorporated herein by reference thereto.

From time to time we are a party to or otherwise involved in legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Management does not believe that there is any pending or threatened proceeding against us, which, if determined adversely, would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol “FISI.” At December 31, 2010, 10,937,506 shares of our common stock were outstanding and held by approximately 1,300 shareholders of record. During 2010, the high sales price of our common stock was $20.74 and the low sales price was $10.91. The closing price per share of common stock on December 31, 2010, the last trading day of the Company’s fiscal year, was $18.97. We declared dividends of $0.40 per common share during the year ended December 31, 2010. See additional information regarding the market price and dividends paid in Part II, Item 6, “Selected Financial Data.”

We have paid regular quarterly cash dividends on our common stock and our Board of Directors presently intends to continue this practice, subject to our results of operations and the need for those funds for debt service and other purposes. However, the payment of dividends is subject to continued compliance with minimum regulatory capital requirements and TARP restrictions. See the discussions in the section captioned “Supervision and Regulation” included in Part I, Item 1, “Business”, in the section captioned “Liquidity and Capital Resources” included in Part II, Item 7, in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and in Note 10, Regulatory Matters, in the accompanying financial statements included in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”, all of which are included elsewhere in this report and incorporated herein by reference thereto.

The following table sets forth, as of December 31, 2010, information about our equity compensation plans that have been approved by our shareholders, including the number of shares of our common stock exercisable under all outstanding options, warrants and rights, the weighted average exercise price of all outstanding options, warrants and rights and the number of shares available for future issuance under our equity compensation plans. We have no equity compensation plans that have not been approved by our shareholders.

On May 6, 2009, our shareholders approved our 2009 Management Stock Incentive Plan. Pursuant to the terms of the 2009 Management Stock Incentive Plan, we have the ability to grant incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options and restricted stock to members of our management team. Between May 6, 2009 and December 31, 2010, we granted shares of restricted stock to members of our management team under the 2009 Management Stock Incentive Plan as described in the table below.

These shares of restricted stock were issued without registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) in reliance on the exemption from registration in Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. These shares of restricted stock are subject to the resale prohibitions under the Securities Act and may not be sold or transferred without registration except in accordance with Rule 144 of the Securities Act.

On May 6, 2009, our shareholders approved our 2009 Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan. Pursuant to the terms of the 2009 Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan, we have the ability to grant non-qualified stock options and restricted stock to our non-employee directors. On May 6, 2009, we granted a total of 8,000 shares of restricted stock to ten of our non-employee directors and on May 6, 2010, we granted a total of 7,200 shares of restricted stock to nine of our non-employee directors.

These shares of restricted stock were issued without registration under the Securities Act in reliance on the exemption from registration in Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. These shares of restricted stock are subject to the resale prohibitions under the Securities Act and may not be sold or transferred without registration except in accordance with Rule 144 of the Securities Act.

The stock performance graph below compares (a) the cumulative total return on our common stock for the period beginning December 31, 2005 as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market, through December 31, 2010, (b) the cumulative total return on stocks included in the NASDAQ Composite Index over the same period, and (c) the cumulative total return, as compiled by SNL Financial L.C., of Major Exchange (NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ) Banks with $1 billion to $5 billion in assets over the same period. Cumulative return assumes the reinvestment of dividends. The graph was prepared by SNL Financial, LC and is expressed in dollars based on an assumed investment of $100.

Financial Institutions, Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in New York State, providing banking and nonbanking financial services to individuals and businesses primarily in our Western and Central New York footprint. Through our wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Five Star Bank, we provide a wide range of services, including business and consumer loan and depository services, as well as other traditional banking services. Through our nonbanking subsidiary, Five Star Investment Services, we provide brokerage services to supplement our banking business.

Our primary sources of revenue, are net interest income (predominantly from interest earned on our loans and securities, net of interest paid on deposits and other funding sources), and noninterest income, particularly fees and other revenue from financial services provided to customers or ancillary services tied to loans and deposits. Business volumes and pricing drive revenue potential, and tend to be influenced by overall economic factors, including market interest rates, business spending, consumer confidence, economic growth, and competitive conditions within the marketplace. We are not able to predict market interest rate fluctuations with certainty and our asset/liability management strategy may not prevent interest rate changes from having a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The general state of the U.S. economy and, in particular, economic and market conditions in Western and Central New York have a significant impact on loan demand, the ability of borrowers to repay loans and the value of any collateral securing loans and may also affect deposit levels. Accordingly, future general economic conditions and the impact on credit risk are key uncertainties that may materially affect our results of operations.

Approximately 20% of our investment securities portfolio at December 31, 2010 is comprised of municipal securities issued by or on behalf of New York and its political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, the interest on which is exempt from federal income tax. Risks associated with investing in municipal securities include political, economic and regulatory factors which may affect the issuers. The concerns facing the State of New York may lead nationally recognized rating agencies to downgrade its debt obligations. It is uncertain how the financial markets may react to any potential future ratings downgrade in New York’s debt obligations. However, the fallout from continued budgetary concerns and a possible ratings downgrade could adversely affect the value of New York’s obligations.

Our interest rate spread affects our profitability. Our interest rate spread is the difference between the interest rate we receive on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and the interest rate we pay on deposits and other borrowings. If the interest rates we pay on our deposits and other borrowings were to increase at a faster rate than the interest rates we receive on our loans and investments securities, our interest rate spread will decline, which could adversely affect our profitability.

Legislative and regulatory reforms continue to be adopted which impose additional restrictions on current business practices including passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act is complex and we continue to assess how this legislation and subsequent rule-making will affect us. As hundreds of regulations are promulgated, we will continue to evaluate impacts such as changes in regulatory costs and fees, modifications to consumer products or disclosures required by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the requirements of the enhanced supervision provisions, among others.

On February 23, 2011, the Company was granted approval from the Treasury and redeemed $12.5 million of the $37.5 million in Series A preferred stock issued by the Company in December 2008. The redemption will result in a reduction of the associated Series A preferred stock dividends and Tier 1 Capital in future periods. Upon issuance in December 2008, the discount associated with the Series A preferred stock was $2.0 million, which is being accreted to retained earnings as an adjustment to dividends using the effective yield method. At December 31, 2010, the Series A preferred stock discount totaled $1.3 million. As a result of the redemption, the Company will accelerate the accretion of the remaining discount in proportion to the Series A preferred stock redeemed in the first quarter of 2011. This transaction has no effect on the outstanding warrant to purchase common stock issued to the Treasury as part of the original issuance of the Series A preferred stock. The Company may apply for approval to repay the remaining balance of the Series A preferred stock in future periods.

Our reported net income was $21.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to a net income of $14.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009. For 2010, net income available to common shareholders was $17.6 million, or $1.61 per diluted common share. Net income available to common shareholders was $10.7 million for 2009, or $0.99 per diluted common share. Cash dividends of $0.40 per common share were paid in 2010 and 2009.

We had total assets of $2.214 billion at December 31, 2010 compared to $2.062 billion at December 31, 2009. At December 31, 2010, shareholders’ equity totaled $212.1 million with book value per common share at $14.48, compared to $198.3 million with book value per share at $13.39 at the end of 2009. Tangible common equity to tangible common assets improved to 5.65% during 2010 from 5.19% in 2009. The Tier 1 capital ratio was 12.34% as of December 31, 2010 compared to 11.95% at December 31, 2009.

Key factors behind these results are discussed below.

Net interest income is the primary source of our revenue. Net interest income is the difference between interest income on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and the interest expense on interest-bearing deposits and other borrowings used to fund interest-earning and other assets or activities. Net interest income is affected by changes in interest rates and by the amount and composition of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, as well as the sensitivity of the balance sheet to changes in interest rates, including characteristics such as the fixed or variable nature of the financial instruments, contractual maturities and repricing frequencies.

Interest rate spread and net interest margin are utilized to measure and explain changes in net interest income. Interest rate spread is the difference between the yield on earning assets and the rate paid for interest-bearing liabilities that fund those assets. The net interest margin is expressed as the percentage of net interest income to average earning assets. The net interest margin exceeds the interest rate spread because noninterest-bearing sources of funds (“net free funds”), principally noninterest-bearing demand deposits and stockholders’ equity, also support earning assets. To compare tax-exempt asset yields to taxable yields, the yield on tax-exempt investment securities is computed on a taxable equivalent basis. Net interest income, interest rate spread, and net interest margin are discussed on a taxable equivalent basis.

The following table reconciles interest income per the consolidated statements of operations to interest income adjusted to a fully taxable equivalent basis for the years ended December 31 (in thousands):

Taxable equivalent net interest income of $80.7 million for 2010 was $5.7 million or 8% higher than 2009. While the average yields on our loans and assets declined, the impact was far exceeded by the benefit of substantial loan production and asset growth. The average balance of loans rose $85.4 million to $1.295 billion, reflecting growth in the commercial and consumer indirect loan portfolios, as we have focused business development efforts in those areas, and the average balance of interest-earning assets rose $124.3 million to $1.981 billion, both increases of 7%. We will continue to pursue loan development efforts in the commercial and consumer indirect lending portfolios in accordance with our prudent underwriting standards.

The increase in taxable equivalent net interest income was a function of a favorable volume variance (as balance sheet changes in both volume and mix increased taxable equivalent net interest income by $6.3 million), partially offset by an unfavorable rate variance (decreasing taxable equivalent net interest income by $573 thousand). The change in mix and volume of earning assets increased taxable equivalent interest income by $6.8 million, while the change in volume and composition of interest-bearing liabilities increased interest expense by $499 thousand, for a net favorable volume impact of $6.3 million on taxable equivalent net interest income. Rate changes on earning assets reduced interest income by $5.6 million, while changes in rates on interest-bearing liabilities lowered interest expense by $5.0 million, for a net unfavorable rate impact of $573 thousand.

The net interest margin for 2010 was 4.07% compared to 4.04% in 2009. The 3 basis point improvement in net interest margin was attributable to a 10 basis point increase in interest rate spread (the net of a 36 basis point decrease in the cost of interest-bearing liabilities and a 26 basis decrease in the yield on earning assets), partially offset by a 7 basis point lower contribution from net free funds (primarily attributable to lower rates on interest-bearing liabilities reducing the relative value of noninterest-bearing deposits and other net free funds).

The Federal Reserve left the Federal funds rate unchanged at 0.25% during 2010 and 2009.

For 2010, the yield on average earning assets of 4.97% was 26 basis points lower than 2009. Loan yields decreased 15 basis points to 5.86%. Commercial mortgage and consumer indirect loans in particular, down 26 and 34 basis points, respectively, experienced lower yields given the competitive pricing pressures in a low interest rate environment. The yield on investment securities dropped 69 basis points to 3.31%, also impacted by the lower interest rate environment and prepayments of mortgage-related investment securities. Overall, earning asset rate changes reduced interest income by $5.6 million.

The cost of average interest-bearing liabilities of 1.10% in 2010 was 36 basis points lower than 2009. The average cost of interest-bearing deposits was 0.97% in 2010, 36 basis points lower than 2009, reflecting the lower rate environment, mitigated by a focus on product pricing to retain balances. The cost of wholesale funding (comprised of short-term borrowings and long-term borrowings) decreased 14 basis points to 3.33% for 2010. The interest-bearing liability rate changes resulted in $5.0 million lower interest expense.

Average interest-earning assets of $1.981 billion in 2010 were $124.3 million or 7% higher than 2009. Average investment securities increased $71.2 million, mostly in high quality U.S. Government agency securities. Average loans increased $85.4 million or 7%, with a $33.3 million increase in commercial loans and a $74.2 million increase in consumer loans, offset by a $22.1 million decrease in residential mortgage loans.

Average interest-bearing liabilities of $1.610 billion in 2010 were up $85.1 million or 6% versus 2009, mainly attributable to higher average retail deposit balances. The impacts of the recent recession have had a positive impact on our deposit balances, as consumers tend to save more conservatively when consumer confidence is low. On average, interest-bearing deposits grew $89.0 million, while average noninterest-bearing demand deposits (a principal component of net free funds) increased by $36.0 million. Average wholesale funding decreased $3.9 million, net of the $6.0 million increase and $9.9 million decrease in short-term and long-term borrowings, respectively.

The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Act repealed the federal prohibitions on the payment of interest on demand deposits for commercial accounts, thereby permitting depository institutions to pay interest on business transaction and other accounts beginning July 21, 2011. Although the ultimate impact of this legislation on us has not yet been determined, we expect interest costs associated with demand deposits to increase as a result of competitor responses to this change. See Part I, Item 1, Section “Supervision and Regulation” for a detailed discussion of this legislation.

The following tables present, for the periods indicated, information regarding: (i) the average balance sheet; (ii) the amount of interest income from interest-earning assets and the resulting annualized yields (tax-exempt yields have been adjusted to a tax-equivalent basis using the applicable Federal tax rate in each year); (iii) the amount of interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities and the resulting annualized rates; (iv) net interest income; (v) net interest rate spread; (vi) net interest income as a percentage of average interest-earning assets (“net interest margin”); and (vii) the ratio of average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities. Investment securities are at amortized cost for both held to maturity and available for sale securities. Loans include net unearned income, net deferred loan fees and costs and non-accruing loans. Dollar amounts are shown in thousands.