Primis Financial - 10-K annual report 2013

 

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013

 

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

For the transition period from                        to

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                    

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes x No 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 registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o

 

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

 

Large accelerated filer   o            Accelerated filer  x            Smaller reporting company  o

 

Non-accelerated filer     o  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

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

 

 

The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2013 was approximately $101,692,668 based on the closing price of the common stock on such date.

 

The number of shares of common stock outstanding as of March 3, 2014 was 11,590,612.

 

 

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in conjunction with the registrant’s 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated into Part III, Items 10-14 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance or results and should not be relied upon as representing management’s views as of any subsequent date. A forward-looking statement may include a statement of the assumptions or bases underlying the forward-looking statement. We believe we have chosen these assumptions or bases in good faith and that they are reasonable. We caution you, however, that assumptions or bases almost always vary from actual results, and the differences between assumptions or bases and actual results can be material. When considering forward-looking statements, you should keep in mind the risk factors and other cautionary statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K (or an earlier date to the extent applicable). Except as required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to update publicly these statements in light of new information or future events.

 

 

 

 

Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (“Southern National”‘, “SNBV”, ‘we“ or ”our“) is the bank holding company for Sonabank (”Sonabank“ or the ”Bank“) a Virginia state chartered bank which commenced operations on April 14, 2005. Sonabank conducts full-service community banking operations from locations in Fairfax County (Reston, McLean and Fairfax), as well as in Charlottesville, Warrenton (2), Loudoun County (Middleburg, Leesburg (2), and South Riding), Front Royal, New Market, Richmond, Haymarket and Clifton Forge, Virginia, and five branches in Maryland (four in Montgomery County and one in Frederick County) and maintains loan production offices in Richmond, Charlottesville, Warrenton and Fredericksburg. As of December 31, 2013, we reported, on a consolidated basis, total assets of $716.2 million, total loans, net of deferred fees, of $546.1 million, total deposits of $540.4 million and shareholders’ equity of $106.6 million.

 

 

Effective December 4, 2009, Sonabank assumed certain deposits and liabilities and acquired certain assets of Greater Atlantic Bank from the FDIC, as receiver for Greater Atlantic Bank, pursuant to the terms of a purchase and assumption agreement entered into by the Bank and the FDIC on December 4, 2009 (the “Agreement”).  On December 5, 2009, the former Greater Atlantic Bank offices, located in Reston, New Market, Front Royal and South Riding, Virginia and Rockville, Maryland opened as Sonabank branches.

 

The Bank paid no cash or other consideration to acquire Greater Atlantic Bank.  The Bank and the FDIC entered into a loss sharing agreement (the “loss sharing agreement”) on approximately $143.4 million (cost basis) of Greater Atlantic Bank’s assets.  The Bank will share in the losses on the loans and foreclosed loan collateral with the FDIC, as specified in the loss sharing agreement; we refer to these assets collectively as “covered assets.” Pursuant to the terms of the loss sharing agreement, the FDIC is obligated to reimburse the Bank for 80% of losses of up to $19 million with respect to the covered assets.  The FDIC will reimburse the Bank for 95% of losses in excess of $19 million with respect to the covered assets.  The Bank will reimburse the FDIC for 80% of recoveries with respect to losses for which the FDIC paid the Bank 80% reimbursement under the loss sharing agreement, and for 95% of recoveries with respect to losses for which the FDIC paid the Bank 95% reimbursement under the loss sharing agreement.

 

On October 1, 2011, we completed the acquisition of the Midlothian branch of the Bank of Hampton Roads in Richmond, Virginia.  We assumed deposits in the amount of $42.2 million.

 

 

Effective April 27, 2012, Sonabank assumed substantially all of the deposits and liabilities and acquired substantially all of the assets of the HarVest Bank of Maryland from the FDIC as receiver. The acquisition included HarVest Bank’s branches in Bethesda, North Rockville, Germantown and Frederick, Maryland. Adding these new branches to our existing branch in Rockville brought Sonabank’s total number of branches in Maryland to five, four of which are in Montgomery County. This was a strategic acquisition for Sonabank in order to expand into an affluent market.

Full details on each of these acquisitions are contained in Form 8-Ks or 8-K/As filed with the SEC on December 10, 2009, October 4, 2011 and July 13, 2012, respectively.

 

We primarily market our products and services to small and medium-sized businesses and to retail consumers. Our strategy is to provide superior service through our employees, who are relationship-oriented and committed to their respective customers. Through this strategy, we intend to grow our business, expand our customer base and improve our profitability. The key elements of our strategy are to:

 

 

Our principal business is the acquisition of deposits from the general public through our branch offices and deposit intermediaries and the use of these deposits to fund our loan and investment portfolios. We seek to be a full service community bank that provides a wide variety of financial services to our middle market corporate clients as well as to our retail clients. We are an active commercial lender, have been designated as a “Preferred SBA Lender” and participate in the Virginia Small Business Financing Authority lending program. In addition, we are an active commercial real estate lender. We also invest funds in mortgage-backed securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, securities issued by agencies of the federal government, obligations of states and political subdivisions and pooled trust preferred securities.

 

The principal sources of funds for our lending and investment activities are deposits, repayment of loans, prepayments from mortgage-backed securities, repayments of maturing investment securities, Federal Home Loan Bank advances and other borrowed money.

 

Principal sources of revenue are interest and fees on loans and investment securities, as well as fee income derived from the maintenance of deposit accounts and income from bank-owned life insurance policies. Our principal expenses include interest paid on deposits and advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (“FHLB”) and other borrowings, and operating expenses.

 

 

Southern National files annual, quarterly and other reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with the SEC.  These reports are posted and are available at no cost on our website, www.sonabank.com, through the Investor Relations link, as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such documents with the SEC.  Our filings are also available through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

 

 

Our primary strategic objective is to serve small to medium-sized businesses in our market with a variety of unique and useful services, including a full array of commercial mortgage and non-mortgage loans. These loans include commercial real estate loans, construction to permanent loans, development and builder loans, accounts receivable financing, lines of credit, equipment and vehicle loans, leasing, and commercial overdraft protection. We strive to do business in the areas served by our branches, which is also where our marketing is focused, and the vast majority of our loan customers are located in existing market areas. Virtually all of our loans are with borrowers in Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, or Washington D.C. The Small Business Administration may from time to time come to us because of our reputation and expertise as an SBA lender and ask us to review a loan outside of our core counties but within our market area. Prior to making a loan, we obtain loan applications to determine a borrower’s ability to repay, and the more significant items on these applications are verified through the use of credit reports, financial statements and confirmations.

 

 

The following is a discussion of each of the major types of lending:

 

 

 

Our underwriting guidelines for commercial real estate loans reflect all relevant credit factors, including, among other things, the income generated from the underlying property to adequately service the debt, the availability of secondary sources of repayment and the overall creditworthiness of the borrower. In addition, we look to the value of the collateral, while maintaining the level of equity invested by the borrower.

All valuations on property which will secure loans over $250 thousand are performed by independent outside appraisers who are reviewed by our executive vice president of risk management and/or our appraisal reviewer. We retain a valid lien on real estate and obtain a title insurance policy (on first trust loans only) that insures the property is free of encumbrances.  In addition, we do title searches on all loans secured by real estate.

 

 

Income producing property loans are supported by evidence of the borrower’s capacity to service the debt. All of our commercial construction loans are guaranteed by the principals or general partners. At December 31, 2013, we had $39.1 million of construction, land and development loans, of which $5.9 million was acquired in the HarVest transaction and $1 thousand was acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction.

 

Construction loan borrowers are generally pre-qualified for the permanent loan by us or a third party. We obtain a copy of the contract with the general contractor who must be acceptable to us. All plans, specifications and surveys must include proposed improvements. We review feasibility studies and risk analyses showing sensitivity of the project to variables such as interest rates, vacancy rates, lease rates and operating expenses.

 

 

These loans consist of lines of credit, revolving credit facilities, demand loans, term loans, equipment loans, SBA loans, stand-by letters of credit and unsecured loans. Commercial business loans are generally secured by accounts receivable, equipment, inventory and other collateral, such as readily marketable stocks and bonds with adequate margins, cash value in life insurance policies and savings and time deposits at Sonabank. At December 31, 2013, our commercial business loans totaled $105.4 million, of which $4.4 million was acquired in the HarVest transaction and $1.1 million was acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction.

 

 

In general, commercial business loans involve more credit risk than residential mortgage loans and real estate-backed commercial loans and, therefore, usually yield a higher return to us. The increased risk for commercial business loans is due to the type of collateral securing these loans. The increased risk also derives from the expectation that commercial loans will be serviced principally from the operations of the business, and that those operations may not be successful. Historical trends have shown that these types of loans do have higher delinquencies than mortgage loans. Because of this, we often utilize the SBA 7(a) program (which guarantees the repayment of up to 90% of the principal and accrued interest to us) to reduce the inherent risk associated with commercial business lending.

 

Another way that we reduce risk in the commercial loan portfolio is by taking accounts receivable as collateral using our SABL system. Our accounts receivable financing facilities, which provide a relatively high yield with considerable collateral control, are lines of credit under which a company can borrow up to the amount of a borrowing base which covers a certain percentage of the company’s receivables. From our customer’s point of view, accounts receivable financing is an efficient way to finance expanding operations because borrowing capacity expands as sales increase. Customers can borrow from 75% to 90% of qualified receivables. In most cases, the borrower’s customers pay us directly. For borrowers with a good track record for earnings and quality receivables, we will consider pricing based on an increment above the prime rate for transactions in which we lend up to a percentage of qualified outstanding receivables based on reported aging of the receivables portfolio.

 

We also actively pursue for our customers equipment lease financing opportunities. We provide financing and use a third party to service the leases. Payment is derived from the cash flow of the borrower, so credit quality may not be any lower than it would be in the case of an unsecured loan for a similar amount and term.

 

We have developed an expertise in the federally guaranteed SBA program. The SBA program is an economic development program which finances the expansion of small businesses. We are a Preferred Lender in the Washington D.C. and Richmond Districts of the SBA. As an SBA Preferred Lender, our pre-approved status allows us to quickly respond to customers’ needs. Under the SBA program, we originate and fund SBA 7(a) loans which qualify for guarantees up to 90% of principal and accrued interest. We also originate 504 chapter loans in which we generally provide 50% of the financing, taking a first lien on the real property as collateral.

 

We provide SBA loans to potential borrowers who are proposing a business venture, often with existing cash flow and a reasonable chance of success. We do not treat the SBA guarantee as a substitute for a borrower meeting our credit standards, and, except for minimum capital levels or maximum loan terms, the borrower must meet our other credit standards as applicable to loans outside the SBA process.

 

 

 

We retain a valid lien on real estate and obtain a title insurance policy that ensures that the property is free of encumbrances. We also require hazard insurance and flood insurance for all loans secured by real property if the real property is in a flood plain as designated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We also require most borrowers to advance funds on a monthly basis from which we make disbursements for items such as real estate taxes, private mortgage insurance and hazard insurance.

 

 

 

To a limited extent, we offer various types of secured and unsecured consumer loans. We make consumer loans primarily for personal, family or household purposes as a convenience to our customer base since these loans are not the focus of our lending activities. As a general guideline, a consumer’s debt service should not exceed 40% of his gross income or 45% of net income. For purposes of this calculation, debt includes house payment or rent, fixed installment payments, the estimated payment for the loan being requested and the minimum required payment on any revolving debt. At December 31, 2013, we had $1.4 million of consumer loans outstanding.

 

 

Because future loan losses are so closely intertwined with our underwriting policy, we have instituted what management believes is a stringent loan underwriting policy. Our underwriting guidelines are tailored for particular credit types, including lines of credit, revolving credit facilities, demand loans, term loans, equipment loans, real estate loans, SBA loans, stand-by letters of credit and unsecured loans. We will make extensions of credit based, among other factors, on the potential borrower’s creditworthiness, likelihood of repayment and proximity to market areas served.

 

We have a standing Credit Committee comprised of certain officers, each of whom has a defined lending authority in combination with other officers. These individual lending authorities are determined by our Chief Executive Officer and certain directors and are based on the individual’s technical ability and experience. These authorities must be approved by our board of directors and our Credit Committee. Our Credit Committee is comprised of four levels of members: junior, regular, senior, and executive, based on experience. Our executive members are Ms. Derrico and Messrs. Porter and Baker. Mr. Stevens, Chief Risk Officer, must approve risk ratings for loans over $1.5 million, as well as exceptions to the Credit Policy.  Loans over a certain size must be approved by the full Board of Directors or the Credit Committee plus two outside directors. Under our loan approval process, the sponsoring loan officer’s approval is required on all credit submissions. This approval must be included in or added to the individual and joining authorities outlined below. The sponsoring loan officer is primarily responsible for the customer’s relationship with us, including, among other things, obtaining and maintaining adequate credit file information. We require each loan officer to maintain loan files in an order and detail that would enable a disinterested third party to review the file and determine the current status and quality of the credit.

 

 

The following collection actions are the minimal procedures which management believes are necessary to properly monitor past due loans and leases. When a borrower fails to make a payment, we contact the borrower in person, in writing or on the telephone. At a minimum, all borrowers are notified by mail when payments of principal and/or interest are 10 days past due. Real estate and commercial loan borrowers are assessed a late charge when payments are 10-15 days past due. Customers are contacted by a loan officer before the loan becomes 60 days delinquent. After 90 days, if the loan has not been brought current or an acceptable arrangement is not worked out with the borrower, we will institute measures to remedy the default, including commencing foreclosure action with respect to mortgage loans and repossessions of collateral in the case of consumer loans.

 

If foreclosure is effected, the property is sold at a public auction in which we may participate as a bidder. If we are the successful bidder, we include the acquired real estate property in our real estate owned account until it is sold. These assets are initially recorded at fair value net of estimated selling costs. To the extent there is a subsequent decline in fair value, that amount is charged to operating expense. At December 31, 2013, we had other real estate owned totaling $11.8 million, of which $2.2 million, net of discount, resulted from foreclosures on loans that were acquired in the Greater Atlantic transaction.

 

 

To complement our array of loans, we also provide the following special products and services to our commercial customers:

 

Cash Management services are offered that enable the Bank’s business customer to maximize the efficiency of their cash management. Specific products offered in our cash management services program include the following:

 

 

Some of the products listed above are described in-depth below.

 

●           SONA 24/7/Check 21: SONA 24/7 is ideal for landlords, property managers, medical professionals, and any other businesses that accept checks. Now the customers of Sonabank can have total control over how, when, and where their checks will be deposited. SONA 24/7 uses the Check Truncation technology outlined by the “Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act”, passed in October 2004 (Check 21).  With Check Truncation, paper checks can now be converted to electronic images and processed between participating banks, vastly speeding up the check clearing process. SONA In-House passes on the benefits of Check Truncation directly to Sonabank’s business customers.

 

●           Lockbox Services: Sonabank will open a lockbox, retrieve and scan incoming checks, and deposit them directly into the customer’s account. The images of the checks will then be available to view online. This makes bookkeeping for the customer fast and easy, and because Sonabank is checking the lockbox daily, funds will often be available sooner. Big businesses have been using lockboxes for decades as a cash management tool. Sonabank makes this service cost effective for all small and medium sized businesses as well.

●           Employer Services: Sonabank will provide its business clients with software that allows them to generate ACH payroll transactions to their employees’ accounts.

 

●           SABL: Asset Based Lending is a form of “collateral-based” lending. It is a combination of secured lending and short-term business lending. It is a specialized form of financing that allows a bank’s commercial customers to pledge their working assets, typically accounts receivable and, to a lesser extent, inventory, as collateral to secure financing. Asset Based Lending borrowers are typically in the service, manufacturing or distribution fields.

SABL is an Asset Based Lending software system built by Sonabank that allows the bank to monitor the collateral of its commercial borrowers who have pledged their working assets (accounts receivables and other qualifying assets such as inventory) as collateral. SABL has the ability to track other offsets (liabilities, e.g. other loans the customer has with the bank) to the line of credit. SABL serves to provide the more stringent controls and supervision that this type of lending requires.

 

One control that is typical of Asset Based Lending is that the commercial borrower is required to have its customers remit invoice payments to a bank controlled lockbox. The bank retrieves these payments and the bank applies them directly to any outstanding balance on the line. SABL allows for this and can combine that service with remote capture (Check 21) if warranted.

 

Most Asset Based Lending systems are manual processes or software that certifies the borrowing base periodically. These certifications are usually provided in the form of manually created borrowing bases backed up with field exams. SABL provides a real time capability to analyze and adjust borrowing availability based on the levels of collateral at the moment.

 

SABL also offers an automated collateral upload, taking receivable information directly from the clients accounting system. SABL also offers discretionary borrowings and pay offs, allowing clients to borrow on or pay down their line at their discretion, as long as they are compliant with the SABL system. Lastly, SABL offers superior reporting, offering reports to bank officers that provide all the information they need to monitor risk. Customized reports can also be built for clients.

 

 

 

 

The banking business is highly competitive, and our profitability depends principally on our ability to compete in the market areas in which our banking operations are located. We experience substantial competition in attracting and retaining savings deposits and in lending funds. The primary factors we encounter in competing for savings deposits are convenient office locations and rates offered. Direct competition for savings deposits comes from other commercial bank and thrift institutions, money market mutual funds and corporate and government securities which may offer more attractive rates than insured depository institutions are willing to pay. The primary factors we encounter in competing for loans include, among others, interest rate and loan origination fees and the range of services offered. Competition for origination of loans normally comes from other commercial banks, thrift institutions, mortgage bankers, mortgage brokers and insurance companies. We have been able to compete effectively with other financial institutions by:

 

 

 

At December 31, 2013, we had 140 full-time equivalent employees, five of whom were executive officers. Management considers its relations with its employees to be good. Neither we nor Sonabank are a party to any collective bargaining agreement.

 

The business of Southern National and the Bank are subject to extensive regulation and supervision under federal banking laws and other federal and state laws and regulations, including primary oversight by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and secondary oversight by Virginia and possibly other authorities. In general, these laws and regulations are intended for the protection of the customers and depositors of the Bank and not for the protection of Southern National or its shareholders. Set forth below are brief descriptions of selected laws and regulations applicable to Southern National and the Bank. These descriptions are not intended to be a comprehensive description of all laws and regulations to which Southern National and the Bank are subject or to be complete descriptions of the laws and regulations discussed. The descriptions of statutory and regulatory provisions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular statutes and regulations. Changes in applicable statutes, regulations or regulatory policy may have a material effect on Southern National, the Bank and their business.

 

 

In addition to the system of regulation and supervision referenced above, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which is discussed in greater detail below, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “Bureau”), a new federal regulatory body with broad authority to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products.  The Bureau officially came into being on July 21, 2011, and rulemaking authority for a range of consumer financial protection laws (such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, among others) transferred from the federal prudential banking regulators to the Bureau on that date.  The Dodd-Frank Act gave the Bureau authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets for compliance with these federal consumer laws.  The authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with $10 billion or less in assets for compliance with federal consumer laws remains largely with those institutions’ primary regulators.  However, the Bureau may participate in examinations of these smaller institutions on a “sampling basis” and may refer potential enforcement actions against such institutions to their primary regulators.  The Bureau also has supervisory and examination authority over certain nonbank institutions that offer consumer financial products.  The Dodd-Frank Act identified a number of covered nonbank institutions, and also authorizes the Bureau to identify additional institutions that will be subject to its jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the Bureau may participate in examinations of the Bank, and could supervise and examine other direct or indirect subsidiaries of Southern National that offer consumer financial products.

 

The earnings of the Bank and therefore of Southern National are affected by general economic conditions, changes in federal and state laws and regulations and actions of various regulatory authorities, including those referenced above.  Additional changes to the laws and regulations applicable to us are frequently proposed at both the federal and state levels.  The regulatory framework under which we operate has and will continue to change substantially over the next several years as the result of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, which calls for a variety of mandatory and permissive rulemakings to implement its requirements.  The Dodd-Frank Act represents a significant overhaul of many aspects of the regulation of the financial services industry, addressing, among other things, systemic risk, capital adequacy, deposit insurance assessments, consumer financial protection, interchange fees, derivatives, lending limits, mortgage lending practices, registration of investment advisors and changes among the bank regulatory agencies.

 

 

Some of the activities that the FRB has determined by regulation to be proper incidents to the business of a bank holding company include making or servicing loans and specific types of leases, performing specific data processing services and acting in some circumstances as a fiduciary or investment or financial adviser. In approving acquisitions of banking or nonbanking organizations or the addition of nonbanking activities, the FRB considers, among other things, whether the acquisition or the additional activities can reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh such possible adverse effects as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest or unsound banking practices. Southern National does not currently plan to perform any of these activities, but may do so in the future.

 

 

With some limited exceptions, the BHCA requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the FRB before: (i) acquiring substantially all the assets of any bank; (ii) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank if after such acquisition it would own or control more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank (unless it already owns or controls the majority of such shares); or (iii) merging or consolidating with another bank holding company. In approving bank acquisitions by bank holding companies, the FRB is required to consider, among other things, the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding company and the banks concerned, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, and various competitive factors.

 

In addition, and subject to some exceptions, the BHCA and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with their regulations, require FRB approval prior to any person or company acquiring “control” of a bank holding company. Control is conclusively presumed to exist if an individual or company acquires 25% (5% in the case of an acquirer that is a bank holding company) or more of any class of voting securities of the bank holding company. Control is rebuttably presumed to exist if a person acquires 10% or more, of any class of voting securities and either has registered securities under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or no other person owns a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the transaction. The regulations provide a procedure for challenging this rebuttable control presumption.  On September 22, 2008, the FRB issued a policy statement on equity investments in bank holding companies and banks, which allows the FRB to generally be able to conclude that an entity’s investment is not “controlling” if the entity does not own in excess of 15% of the voting power and 33% of the total equity of the bank holding company or bank.  Depending on the nature of the overall investment and the capital structure of the banking organization, based on the policy statement, the FRB will permit noncontrolling investments in the form of voting and nonvoting shares that represent in the aggregate (i) less than one-third of the total equity of the banking organization (and less than one-third of any class of voting securities, assuming conversion of all convertible nonvoting securities held by the entity) and (ii) less than 15% of any class of voting securities of the banking organization.

 

In November 1999, Congress enacted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), which made substantial revisions to the statutory restrictions separating banking activities from other financial activities. Under the GLBA, bank holding companies that are well-capitalized under the prompt-corrective-action provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act of 1991 and well-managed under applicable FRB regulations and meet other conditions can elect to become “financial holding companies” and engage in certain activities that are not permissible for a bank holding company. As financial holding companies, they and their subsidiaries are permitted to acquire or engage in previously impermissible activities such as insurance underwriting, securities underwriting and distribution, travel agency activities, insurance agency activities, merchant banking and other activities that the FRB determines to be financial in nature or complementary to these activities. Financial holding companies continue to be subject to the overall oversight and supervision of the FRB, but the GLBA applies the concept of functional regulation to the activities conducted by subsidiaries. For example, insurance activities would be subject to supervision and regulation by state insurance authorities. Furthermore, if after becoming a financial holding company and undertaking activities not permissible for a bank holding company, the company fails to continue to meet any of the prerequisites for financial holding company status, the company must enter into an agreement with the FRB to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements. If the company does not return to compliance within 180 days, the FRB may order the company to divest its subsidiary bank or the company may discontinue or divest investments in companies engaged in, activities permissible only for a bank holding company that has elected to be treated as a financial holding company. Although Southern National has not elected to become a financial holding company in order to exercise the broader activity powers provided by the GLBA, we may elect to do so in the future.

 

 

In addition, as a Federal Reserve Member bank, the Bank is also subject to primary oversight by the FRB, as well as secondary oversight by the Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Notably, the discussions below are relevant to both Southern National and the Bank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of these and other major changes could materially impact the profitability of our business, the value of assets we hold or the collateral available for our loans, require changes to business practices, or force us to discontinue businesses and expose us to additional costs, taxes, liabilities, enforcement actions and reputational risk. Many of these provisions became effective upon enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, while others are subject to further study, rule- making, and the discretion of regulatory bodies. In light of these significant changes and the discretion afforded to federal regulators, we cannot fully predict the effect that compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act or any implementing regulations will have on our businesses or ability to pursue future business opportunities. Additional regulations resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The likelihood, timing, and scope of any such change and the impact any such change may have on us are impossible to determine with any certainty.  Also, additional changes to the laws and regulations applicable to us are frequently proposed at both the federal and state levels.  We cannot predict whether new legislation or regulations will be enacted and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any regulations, would have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.  Set forth below is a brief description of the significant federal and state laws and regulations to which we are currently subject.  These descriptions do not purport to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular statutory or regulatory provision.

 

 

The Dodd-Frank Act amended the statutory regime governing the DIF. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act established a minimum designated reserve ratio (“DRR”) of 1.35 percent of estimated insured deposits, required that the fund reserve ratio reach 1.35 percent by September 30, 2020 and directed the FDIC to amend its regulations to redefine the assessment base used for calculating deposit insurance assessments.  Specifically, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the assessment base to be an amount equal to the average consolidated total assets of the insured depository institution during the assessment period, minus the sum of the average tangible equity of the insured depository institution during the assessment period and an amount the FDIC determines is necessary to establish assessments consistent with the risk-based assessment system found in the FDIA.

 

 

On February 7, 2011, the FDIC approved a final rule that amended its existing DIF restoration plan and implemented certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  This rule, which took effect April 1, 2011, changed the FDIC’s assessment system from one based on domestic deposits to one based on the average consolidated total assets of a bank minus its average tangible equity during each quarter. Under the February 7, 2011 final rule, the total base assessment rates will vary depending on the DIF reserve ratio.  For example, for banks in the best risk category, the total base assessment rate will be between 2.5 -and 9 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is below 1.15 percent, between 1.5 and- 7 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is between 1.15 percent and 2 percent, between 1 and- 6 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is between 2 percent and 2.5 percent and between 0.5 and- 5 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is 2.5 percent or higher.

 

 

Regulators may pursue an administrative action against any bank holding company or national bank which violates the law, engages in an unsafe or unsound banking practice or which is about to engage in an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The administrative action could take the form of a cease and desist proceeding, a removal action against the responsible individuals or, in the case of a violation of law or unsafe and unsound banking practice, a civil penalty action. A cease and desist order, in addition to prohibiting certain action, could also require that certain action be undertaken. Under the policies of the FRB, Southern National is required to serve as a source of financial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances where Southern National might not do so otherwise. Notably, the Dodd-Frank Act codified the FRB’s “source of strength” doctrine; this statutory change became effective in July 21, 2011. In addition to the foregoing requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act’s new provisions authorize the FRB to require a company that directly or indirectly controls a bank to submit reports that are designed both to assess the ability of such company to comply with its “source of strength” obligations and to enforce the company’s compliance with these obligations. As of February 26, 2014, the FRB and other federal banking regulators have not yet issued rules implementing this requirement, though it is understood that regulators are engaged in a joint effort to produce these rules.

 

 

 

Under the current risk-based capital requirements, Southern National and the Bank are each generally required to maintain a minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets (including specific off-balance sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) of 8%. At least half of the total capital must be composed of “Tier 1 Capital,” which generally consists of common shareholders’ equity, retained earnings, a limited amount of qualifying perpetual preferred stock, qualifying trust preferred securities and noncontrolling 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. In addition, each of the federal banking regulatory agencies has established minimum leverage capital requirements for banking organizations. Under these requirements, banking organizations must maintain a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to adjusted average quarterly assets equal to not less than 3% to not less than 4%, subject to federal bank regulatory evaluation of an organization’s overall safety and soundness. In sum, the capital measures used by the federal banking regulators are:

 

 

The risk-based capital standards of each of the FRB and the FDIC explicitly identify concentrations of credit risk and the risk arising from non-traditional activities, as well as an institution’s ability to manage these risks, as important factors to be taken into account by the agency in assessing an institution’s overall capital adequacy. The capital guidelines also provide that an institution’s exposure to a decline in the economic value of its capital due to changes in interest rates be considered by the agency as a factor in evaluating a banking organization’s capital adequacy.

 

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

 

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

 

As an institution’s capital decreases, the FDIC’s enforcement powers become more severe. A significantly undercapitalized institution is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management and other restrictions. The FDIC has only very limited discretion in dealing with a critically undercapitalized institution and is virtually required to appoint a receiver or conservator.

 

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

 

 

 

The Revised Capital Rules, among other things, (i) introduce as a new capital measure “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), (ii) specify that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) define CET1 narrowly by requiring that most adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital and (iv) expand the scope of the adjustments as compared to existing regulations. Further, the Revised Capital Rules set forth the following minimum capital ratios, which will be phased in for certain banking organizations, including Southern National, beginning January 1, 2015:

 

 

The Revised Capital Rules also introduce a minimum “capital conservation buffer” equal to 2.5% of an organization’s total risk-weighted assets, which exists in addition to the required minimum CET1, Tier 1, and Total Capital ratios identified above. The “capital conservation buffer” must consist entirely of CET1 and is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Thus, when fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the Revised Capital Rules will require us to maintain (i)  a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer” (resulting in an effective minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7%), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in an effective minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%), (iii) a minimum ratio of total (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2) capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (resulting in an effective minimum total capital ratio of 10.5%) and (iv) a minimum leverage ratio of 4%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average assets.

 

Under the Revised Capital Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of Additional Tier 1 capital will be non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, and the most common form of Tier 2 capital will be subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for loan losses, in each case, subject to certain specific requirements set forth in the regulation. Under existing capital standards, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income items included in shareholders’ equity under U.S. GAAP are excluded for the purposes of determining capital ratios. Under the Revised Capital Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive items are not excluded. However, the Revised Capital Rules permit most banking organizations to make a one-time election to continue to exclude these items. This election must be made when we file the first of certain periodic regulatory reports after January 1, 2015.

 

In addition, under the Revised Capital Rules, certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities, do not qualify as Tier 1 capital.  However for bank holding companies that had assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009, trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010 can be treated as Tier 1 capital to the extent that they do not exceed 25% of Tier 1 capital after the application of capital deductions and adjustments.

 

 Prompt Corrective Action. Under Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), each federal banking agency is required to implement a system of prompt corrective action for institutions that it regulates. The federal banking agencies (including the FRB and the FDIC) have adopted substantially similar regulations to implement Section 38 of the FDIA. Section 38 of the FDIA and the regulations promulgated thereunder also specify circumstances under which the FDIC may reclassify a well-capitalized bank as adequately capitalized and may require an adequately capitalized bank or an undercapitalized bank to comply with supervisory actions as if it were in the next lower category (except that the FDIC may not reclassify a significantly undercapitalized bank as critically undercapitalized). . The thresholds for each of these categories were recently revised pursuant to the Revised Capital Rules, which are discussed above. These revised categories will apply to the Bank beginning on January 1, 2015. Both the existing and the revised standards are discussed below.

 

 

 

The FRB and the FDIC may take various corrective actions against any undercapitalized bank and any bank that fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fails to implement a plan accepted by the FRB or the FDIC. These powers include, but are not limited to, requiring the institution to be recapitalized, prohibiting asset growth, restricting interest rates paid, requiring prior approval of capital distributions by any bank holding company that controls the institution, requiring divestiture by the institution of its subsidiaries or by the holding company of the institution itself, requiring a new election of directors, and requiring the dismissal of directors and officers.

 

The aggregate liability of the holding company of an undercapitalized bank is limited to the lesser of 5% of the institution’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized or the amount necessary to cause the institution to be "adequately capitalized." The bank regulators have greater power in situations where an institution becomes "significantly" or "critically" undercapitalized or fails to submit a capital restoration plan. For example, a bank holding company controlling such an institution can be required to obtain prior FRB approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

 

 

 

 

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

 

Under FRB policy, a bank holding company has historically been required to act as a source of financial strength to each of its banking subsidiaries. As described above in the discussion of “Safety and Soundness” requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act codifies this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement, Southern National is expected to commit resources to support Sonabank, including at times when we may not be in a financial position to provide such resources. Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary banks. As discussed below, a bank holding company, in certain circumstances, could be required to guarantee the capital plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary.

 

Capital adequacy requirements serve to limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by Sonabank. Under federal law, the Bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the bank will be “undercapitalized.” The bank regulatory agencies may declare a dividend payment to be unsafe and unsound even though the Bank would continue to meet its capital requirements after the dividend.

 

The ability of Southern National to pay dividends is also subject to the provisions of Virginia law. The payment of dividends by Southern National and Sonabank may also be affected by other factors, such as the requirement to maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. The federal banking agencies have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a depository institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under the FDICIA, a depository institution may not pay any dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized. Moreover, the federal agencies have issued policy statements that provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings.

 

In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the trustee will be deemed to have assumed and to cure immediately any deficit under any commitment by the debtor holding company to any of the federal banking agencies to maintain the capital of an insured depository institution. Any claim for breach of such obligation will generally have priority over most other unsecured claims.

 

 

Because we are a legal entity separate and distinct from our subsidiary Sonabank, our right to participate in the distribution of assets of any subsidiary upon the subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization will be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. In the event of a liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors and other general or subordinated creditors are entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of holders of any obligation of the institution to its shareholders, arising as a result of their status as shareholders, including any depository institution holding company (such as us) or any shareholder or creditor thereof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia Code Sections 13.1-725 – 727.1 govern “Affiliated Transactions.” These provisions, with several exceptions discussed below, require approval by the holders of at least two-thirds of the remaining voting shares of material acquisition transactions between a Virginia corporation and any holder of more than 10% of any class of its outstanding voting shares. Affiliated Transactions include mergers, share exchanges, material dispositions of corporate assets not in the ordinary course of business, any dissolution of the corporation proposed by or on behalf of an interested shareholder, or any reclassification, including a reverse stock split, recapitalization, or merger of the corporation with its subsidiaries which increases the percentage of voting shares owned beneficially by any 10% shareholder by more than 5%.

 

For three years following the time that a shareholder becomes an owner of 10% of the outstanding voting shares, a Virginia corporation cannot engage in an Affiliated Transaction with that shareholder without approval of two-thirds of the voting shares other than those shares beneficially owned by that shareholder, and majority approval of the disinterested directors. A disinterested director is a member of the company’s board of directors who was (i) a member on the date the shareholder acquired more than 10%, and (ii) recommended for election by, or was elected to fill a vacancy and received the affirmative vote of, a majority of the disinterested directors then on the board. At the expiration of the three-year period, the statute requires approval of Affiliated Transactions by two-thirds of the voting shares other than those beneficially owned by the 10% shareholder.

 

The principal exceptions to the special voting requirement apply to transactions proposed after the three-year period has expired and require either that the transaction be approved by a majority of the corporation’s disinterested directors or that the transaction satisfies the fair-price requirement of the statute. In general, the fair-price requirement provides that in a two-step acquisition transaction, the 10% shareholder must pay the shareholders in the second step either the same amount of cash or the same amount and type of consideration paid to acquire the Virginia corporation’s shares in the first step.

 

 

None of the foregoing limitations and special voting requirements applies to a transaction with any 10% shareholder whose acquisition of shares taking him or her over 10% was approved by a majority of the corporation’s disinterested directors.

 

These provisions were designed to deter certain takeovers of Virginia corporations. In addition, the statute provides that, by affirmative vote of a majority of the voting shares other than shares owned by any 10% shareholder, a corporation can adopt an amendment to its articles of incorporation or bylaws providing that the Affiliated Transactions provisions shall not apply to the corporation. Southern National “opted out” of the Affiliated Transactions provisions when it incorporated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affiliate transactions are also subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which generally requires that certain transactions between Sonabank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to Sonabank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other nonaffiliated persons. The FRB has also issued Regulation W, which codifies prior regulations under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and interpretive guidance with respect to affiliate transactions.

 

The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests (collectively referred to herein as “insiders”) contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured institutions and their subsidiaries and holding companies. These restrictions include limits on loans to one borrower and conditions that must be met before such a loan can be made. There is also an aggregate limitation on all loans to insiders and their related interests. These loans cannot exceed the institution’s total unimpaired capital and surplus, and the FDIC may determine that a lesser amount is appropriate. Insiders are subject to enforcement actions for knowingly accepting loans in violation of applicable restrictions.

 

 

In October 2009, the federal banking agencies issued additional guidance on commercial real estate lending that emphasizes these considerations and also supports prudent loan workouts for financial institutions working with commercial real estate borrowers who are experiencing diminished operating cash flows, depreciated collateral values, or prolonged delays in selling or renting commercial properties.

 

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act contains provisions that may impact the Bank’s business by reducing the amount of our commercial real estate lending and increasing the cost of borrowing, including rules relating to risk retention of securitized assets. Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires, among other things, that a loan originator or a securitizer of asset-backed securities retain a percentage of the credit risk of securitized assets. The banking agencies have jointly issued a proposed rule to implement these requirements, as well as a subsequent revision to this proposal, but have yet to issue final rules.

 

 

 

 

The GLBA and federal bank regulators have made various changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. Among other changes, Community Reinvestment Act agreements with private parties must be disclosed and annual reports must be made to a bank’s primary federal regulatory. A bank holding company will not be permitted to become a financial holding company and no new activities authorized under the GLBA may be commenced by a holding company or by a bank financial subsidiary if any of its bank subsidiaries received less than a “satisfactory” rating in its latest Community Reinvestment Act examination. The Bank received a “satisfactory” rating in the most recent examination for Community Reinvestment Act compliance in August 2013.

 

 

These governmental agencies have clarified what they consider to be lending discrimination and have specified various factors that they will use to determine the existence of lending discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act, including evidence that a lender discriminated on a prohibited basis, evidence that a lender treated applicants differently based on prohibited factors in the absence of evidence that the treatment was the result of prejudice or a conscious intention to discriminate, and evidence that a lender applied an otherwise neutral non-discriminatory policy uniformly to all applicants, but the practice had a discriminatory effect, unless the practice could be justified as a business necessity.

 

Banks and other depository institutions also are subject to numerous consumer-oriented laws and regulations. These laws, which include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Expedited Funds Availability Act require compliance by depository institutions with various disclosure requirements and requirements regulating the availability of funds after deposit or the making of some loans to customers.

 

 

Many of the foregoing laws and regulations are subject to change resulting from the provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, which in many cases calls for revisions to implementing regulations. In addition, oversight responsibility for these and other consumer protection laws and regulations has, in large measure, transferred to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“Bureau”). The Bureau has republished the transferred regulations in a new section of the Code of Federal Regulations and has begun to issue rules to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, the Bureau recently issued rules that are likely to impact our residential mortgage lending practices, and the residential mortgage market generally, including rules that implement the “ability-to-repay” requirement and provide protection from liability for “qualified mortgages,” as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The ability-to-repay rule, which took effect on January 10, 2014, requires lenders to consider, among other things, income, employment status, assets, employment, payment amounts, and credit history before approving a mortgage, and provides a compliance “safe harbor” for lenders that issue certain “qualified mortgages.” In addition, it is anticipated that the Bureau will engage in numerous other rulemakings in the near term that may impact our business, as the Bureau has indicated that, in addition to specific statutory mandates, it is working on a wide range of initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services. The Bureau also has broad authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices (“UDAAP”) and to investigate and penalize financial institutions that violate this prohibition. While the statutory language of the Dodd-Frank Act sets forth the standards for acts and practices that violate this prohibition, certain aspects of these standards are untested, which has created some uncertainty regarding how the Bureau will exercise this authority.

 

The foregoing is only a brief summary of certain statutes, rules, and regulations that may affect Southern National and the Bank. Numerous other statutes and regulations also will have an impact on the operations of Southern National and the Bank. Supervision, regulation and examination of banks by the regulatory agencies are intended primarily for the protection of depositors, not shareholders.

 

 

 

The FRB will 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.

 

 

 

 

An investment in our common stock involves risks. The following is a description of the material risks and uncertainties that Southern National believes affect its business and should be considered before making an investment in our common stock. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently deem immaterial, also may become important factors that affect us and our business. If any of the risks described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K were to actually occur, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of the common stock could decline significantly and you could lose all or part of your investment.

 

 

We are operating in a challenging and uncertain economic environment, including generally uncertain conditions nationally and locally in our markets. Financial institutions continue to be affected by real estate market conditions that have negatively impacted the credit performance of mortgage, construction and commercial real estate loans and resulted in significant write-downs of assets by many financial institutions. Concerns over the stability of the financial markets and the economy have resulted in decreased lending by financial institutions to their customers and to each other. We retain direct exposure to the residential and commercial real estate markets, and we are affected by these events. Our ability to assess the creditworthiness of customers and to estimate the losses inherent in our credit portfolio is made more complex by these difficult market and economic conditions.

 

If the U.S. economy is unable to steadily emerge from the recession that began in 2007 or if we experience worsening economic conditions, such as a so-called, “double-dip” recession, our losses could exceed that which is provided for in our allowance for loan losses and result in the following consequences:

 

 

 

 

 

While economic conditions in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. are showing signs of recovery, there can be no assurance that the economy will continue to improve. Although there are signs that the real estate market is recovering, depressed home sales volumes and financial stress on borrowers as a result of the weak economic environment, including job losses, could have an adverse effect on our borrowers and/or their customers, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

Liquidity is essential to our business. Our ability to implement our business strategy will depend on our ability to obtain funding for loan originations, working capital, possible acquisitions and other general corporate purposes. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, securities sold under repurchase agreements, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. We do not anticipate that our retail and commercial deposits will be sufficient to meet our funding needs in the foreseeable future. We therefore rely on deposits obtained through intermediaries, FHLB advances, securities sold under agreements to repurchase and other wholesale funding sources to obtain the funds necessary to implement our growth strategy.

 

 

Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities or on terms which are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry or economy in general, including a decrease in the level of our business activity as a result of a downturn in the markets in which our loans are concentrated or adverse regulatory action against us. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as a disruption in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry in light of the recent turmoil faced by banking organizations and the continued instability in the credit markets. To the extent we are not successful in obtaining such funding, we will be unable to implement our strategy as planned which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

 

 

We maintain an investment portfolio that includes, but is not limited to, collateralized mortgage obligations, agency mortgage-backed securities and pooled trust preferred securities. The market value of investments may be affected by factors other than the underlying performance of the issuer or composition of the bonds themselves, such as ratings downgrades, adverse changes in the business climate and a lack of liquidity for resales of certain investment securities. At each reporting period, we evaluate investments and other assets for impairment indicators. We may be required to record additional impairment charges if our investments suffer a decline in value that is considered other-than-temporary. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we incurred other-than-temporary impairment charges of $3 thousand pre-tax on one of our trust preferred securities holdings.  During the year ended December 31, 2012, we incurred other-than-temporary impairment charges of $717 thousand pre-tax on three of our trust preferred securities holdings. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we incurred other-than-temporary impairment charges of $329 thousand pre-tax on two of our trust preferred securities holdings. If in future periods we determine that a significant impairment has occurred, we would be required to charge against earnings the credit-related portion of the other-than-temporary impairment, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the periods in which the write-offs occur.

 

Our pooled trust preferred securities are particularly vulnerable to the performance of the issuer of the subordinated debentures that are collateral for the trust preferred securities. Deterioration of these trust preferred securities can occur because of defaults by the issuer of the collateral or because of deferrals of dividend payments on the securities. Numerous financial institutions have failed and their parent bank holding companies have filed for bankruptcy, which has led to defaults in the subordinated debentures that collateralize the trust preferred securities. Further, increased regulatory pressure has been placed on financial institutions to maintain capital ratios above the required minimum to be well-capitalized, which often results in restrictions on dividends, and leads to deferrals of dividend payments on the trust preferred securities. More specifically, the Federal Reserve has stated that a bank holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce dividends if (i) its net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends paid, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends, (ii) its prospective rate of earnings retention is not consistent with its capital needs or (iii) it is in danger of not meeting its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios. . In addition, although interest deferrals are permitted under the terms of the instruments governing the trust preferred securities, such deferrals are typically limited to 20 consecutive quarterly periods.  As a result, many financial institutions that commenced deferral periods in 2009 will no longer be permitted to defer interest payments this year, which could result in increased defaults on trust preferred securities.  Additional defaults in the underlying collateral or deferrals of dividend payments for these securities could lead to additional charges on these securities and/or other-than-temporary impairment charges on other trust preferred securities we own. Finally, proposed or future changes in the regulatory treatment of both issuers and holders of trust preferred securities could have a negative impact on the value of the pooled trust preferred securities held in our portfolio.

 

 

 

The current uncertainty over U.S. fiscal policy could lead to future or further downgrades of the U.S. sovereign credit rating by one or more of the major credit rating agencies. The impact of any future or further downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating or negative perception of the U.S. government’s creditworthiness could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions, which may, directly or indirectly, have adverse effects on our operations, earnings and financial condition Among other things, a credit rating downgrade could adversely impact the value of the agency mortgage backed securities held in our investment portfolio and may trigger requirements that we post additional collateral for trades relative to these securities.

 

 

In addition to the risk to our pooled trust preferred securities discussed above, our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and potential failures of other financial institutions. Financial institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty and other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and we routinely execute transactions with a variety of counterparties in the financial services industry. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or concerns about, the viability of one or more financial institutions with whom we do business, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of our counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated if the collateral we hold cannot be sold at prices that are sufficient for us to recover the full amount of our exposure. Any such losses could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

Goodwill represents the amount of acquisition cost over the fair value of net assets we acquire in the purchase of another entity. We review goodwill for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of the asset might be impaired. Examples of those events or circumstances include the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2013, our goodwill totaled $9.2 million. While we have recorded no such impairment charges since we initially recorded the goodwill, there can be no assurance that our future evaluations of goodwill will not result in findings of impairment and related write-downs, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

At December 31, 2013, our non-covered nonperforming assets (which consist of nonaccrual loans, loans past due 90 days and accruing and other real estate owned (“OREO”)) totaled $17.4 million, or 3.45% of total non-covered loans and OREO, which is an decrease of $3.4 million or 16.5% compared with non-covered nonperforming assets of $20.8 million, or 4.41%, of total non-covered loans and OREO at December 31, 2012. At December 31, 2011, our non-covered non-performing assets were $18.2 million, or 4.30% of non-covered loans and OREO.

 

Although economic and market conditions have improved, we may incur losses if there is an increase in nonperforming assets in the future. Our nonperforming assets adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans or OREO, thereby adversely affecting our net interest income, and increasing loan administration costs. When we take collateral in foreclosures and similar proceedings, we are required to mark the related loan to the then fair value of the collateral, which may ultimately result in a loss.  We must reserve for probable losses, which is established through a current period charge to the provision for loan losses as well as from time to time, as appropriate, write down the value of properties in our OREO portfolio to reflect changing market values. Additionally, there are legal fees associated the resolution of problem assets as well as carrying costs such as taxes, insurance and maintenance related to our OREO.  Further, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires the active involvement of management, which can distract them from more profitable activity. Finally, an increase in the level of nonperforming assets increases our regulatory risk profile.  There can be no assurance that we will not experience future increases in nonperforming assets.

 

 

 Real estate lending (including commercial, construction, land development, and residential loans) is a large portion of our loan portfolio, constituting $440.7 million, or approximately 80.7% of our total loan portfolio, as of December 31, 2013. Total real estate loans covered under the FDIC loss sharing agreement amount to $50.5 million. The residential and commercial real estate sectors of the U.S. economy experienced an economic slowdown that continued into 2010 and remains weak. Specifically, the values of residential and commercial real estate located in our market areas declined significantly in recent years.  Although such real estate values have shown modest improvement recently such improved values may not continue. If the loans that are collateralized by real estate become troubled during a time when market conditions are declining or have declined, then we may not be able to realize the full value of the collateral that we anticipated at the time of originating the loan, which could require us to increase our provision for loan losses and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Current market conditions include an over-supply of land, lots, and finished homes in many markets, including those where we do business. As of December 31, 2013, $115.3 million, or approximately 21.1% of our total loans, were secured by single-family residential real estate. This includes $83.1 million in residential 1-4 family loans and $32.2 million in home equity lines of credit. Total single-family residential real estate loans covered under the FDIC loss sharing agreement amount to $42.4 million. If housing markets in our market areas do not steadily improve or deteriorate, we may experience an increase in nonperforming loans, provisions for loan losses and charge-offs.

 

 

 

 As of December 31, 2013, a significant portion of our loan portfolio was comprised of loans secured by commercial real estate. In the majority of these loans, real estate was the primary collateral component. In some cases, and out of an abundance of caution, we take real estate as security for a loan even when it is not the primary component of collateral. The real estate collateral that provides the primary or an alternate source of repayment in the event of default may deteriorate in value during the term of the loan as a result of changes in economic conditions, fluctuations in interest rates and the availability of loans to potential purchasers, changes in tax and other laws and acts of nature. If we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt during a period of reduced real estate values, as in recent years, our earnings and capital could be adversely affected. We are subject to increased lending risks in the form of loan defaults as a result of the high concentration of real estate lending in our loan portfolio in the event the real estate market in Virginia and our market area does not exhibit sustained improvement. A weak real estate market in our primary market areas could have an adverse effect on the demand for new loans, the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, the value of real estate and other collateral securing the loans and the value of real estate owned by us. If real estate values do not continue to improve or decline, it is also more likely that we would be required to increase our allowance for loan losses, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

As of December 31, 2013, we had $39.1 million of construction loans. Construction loans are subject to risks during the construction phase that are not present in standard residential real estate and commercial real estate loans. These risks include:

 

 

 

 

 

Real estate construction loans may involve the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project rather than the ability of a borrower or guarantor to repay the loan and also present risks of default in the event of declines in property values or volatility in the real estate market during the construction phase. Our practice, in the majority of instances, is to secure the personal guaranty of individuals in support of our real estate construction loans which provides us with an additional source of repayment. As of December 31, 2013, we had non-covered nonperforming construction and development loans in the amount of $2.1 million and $6.1 million of non-covered assets that have been foreclosed. If one or more of our larger borrowers were to default on their construction and development loans, and we did not have alternative sources of repayment through personal guarantees or other sources, or if any of the aforementioned risks were to occur, we could incur significant losses.

 

 

As of December 31, 2013, we had $286.4 million of commercial real estate loans, including multi-family residential loans and loans secured by farmland, of which $8.1 million is covered by the FDIC loss sharing agreement. Commercial real estate lending typically involves higher loan principal amounts and the repayment is dependent, in large part, on sufficient income from the properties securing the loan to cover operating expenses and debt service. Federal bank regulatory authorities issued the Interagency Guidance on Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending in December of 2006 to provide guidance regarding significant concentrations of commercial real estate loans within bank loan portfolios. The FDIC reiterated this guidance in a letter to financial institutions dated March 17, 2008 (FIL-22-2008) titled “Managing Commercial Real Estate Concentrations in a Challenging Environment” to remind banks that their risk management practices and capital levels should be commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentration risk.

 

In October 2009, the federal banking agencies issued additional guidance on commercial real estate lending that emphasizes these considerations and also supports prudent loan workouts for financial institutions working with commercial real estate borrowers who are experiencing diminished operating cash flows, depreciated collateral values, or prolonged delays in selling or renting commercial properties. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act contains provisions that may impact the Bank’s business by reducing the amount of our commercial real estate lending and increasing the cost of borrowing, including rules relating to risk retention of securitized assets. Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires, among other things, that a loan originator or a securitizer of asset-backed securities retain a percentage of the credit risk of securitized assets. The banking agencies have jointly issued a proposed rule to implement these requirements but have yet to issue final rules.  Banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans are expected to implement improved underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as higher levels of allowances for loan losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures. Sonabank’s commercial real estate loans are below the thresholds identified as significant by the regulatory guidance. If there is deterioration in our commercial real estate portfolio or if regulatory authorities conclude that we have not implemented appropriate risk management policies and practices, it could adversely affect our business and result in a requirement of increased capital levels, and such capital may not be available at that time.

 

 

In connection with Sonabank’s assumption of the banking operations of Greater Atlantic Bank, the Bank entered into the Agreement, which contains loss-sharing provisions. Our decisions regarding the fair value of assets acquired, including the FDIC loss-sharing assets (referred to herein as the “covered assets”), could be inaccurate which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects. Management makes various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of the acquired loans, including the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of secured loans. In the Greater Atlantic Bank acquisition, we recorded a loss-sharing asset that reflects our estimate of the timing and amount of future losses we anticipate occurring in the acquired loan portfolio. In determining the size of the loss-sharing asset, we analyzed the loan portfolio based on historical loss experience, volume and classification of loans, volume and trends in delinquencies and nonaccruals, local economic conditions, and other pertinent information.

 

If our assumptions related to the timing or amount of expected losses are incorrect, there could be a negative impact on our operating results. Increases in the amount of future losses in response to different economic conditions or adverse developments in the acquired loan portfolio may result in increased credit loss provisions. Changes in our estimate of the timing of those losses, specifically if those losses are to occur beyond the applicable loss-sharing periods, may result in impairments of the FDIC indemnification asset.

 

 

Our ability to obtain reimbursement under the loss-sharing agreements on covered assets depends on our compliance with the terms of the loss-sharing agreements.

 

Management must certify to the FDIC on a quarterly basis our compliance with the terms of the FDIC loss-sharing agreements as a prerequisite to obtaining reimbursement from the FDIC for realized losses on covered assets. The agreements contain specific, detailed and cumbersome compliance, servicing, notification and reporting requirements, and failure to comply with any of the requirements and guidelines could result in a specific asset or group of assets permanently losing their loss-sharing coverage. Additionally, management may decide to forgo loss-share coverage on certain assets to allow greater flexibility over the management of such assets. As of December 31, 2013, $53.9 million, or 7.53%, of our assets were covered by the FDIC loss-sharing agreements.

Under the terms of the FDIC loss-sharing agreements, the assignment or transfer of a loss-sharing agreement to another entity generally requires the written consent of the FDIC. In addition, the Bank may not assign or otherwise transfer a loss-sharing agreement during its term without the prior written consent of the FDIC.  Our failure to comply with the terms of the loss-sharing agreements or to manage the covered assets in such a way as to maintain loss-share coverage on all such assets may cause individual loans or large pools of loans to lose eligibility for loss share payments from the FDIC.  This could result in material losses.

 

 

Sonabank relies on originating government guaranteed loans, in particular those guaranteed by the SBA. As of December 31, 2013, Sonabank had $55.6 million of SBA loans, $40.4 million of which is guaranteed and $15.2 million is non-guaranteed. Sonabank originated $25.4 million, $21.1 million and $34.9 million in SBA loans in the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Sonabank sold the guaranteed portions of some of its SBA loans in the secondary market in 2012 and 2011 and intends to continue such sales, which are a source of non-interest income for Sonabank, when market conditions are favorable. We can provide no assurance that Sonabank will be able to continue originating these loans, that it will be able to sell the loans in the secondary market or that it will continue to realize premiums upon any sale of SBA loans.

 

SBA lending is a federal government created and administered program. As such, legislative and regulatory developments can affect the availability and funding of the program. This dependence on legislative funding and regulatory restrictions from time to time causes limitations and uncertainties with regard to the continued funding of such loans, with a resulting potential adverse financial impact on our business. Currently, the maximum limit on individual 7(a) loans which the SBA will permit is $5.0 million. Any reduction in this level could adversely affect the volume of our business. As of December 31, 2013, our SBA business constitutes 10.2% of our total loans. The periodic uncertainty of the SBA program relative to availability, amounts of funding and the waiver of associated fees creates greater risk for our business than do more stable aspects of our business.

 

The federal government presently guarantees 75% to 90% of the principal amount of each qualifying SBA loan under the 7(a) program. We can provide no assurance that the federal government will maintain the SBA program, or if it does, that such guaranteed portion will remain at its current funding level. Furthermore, it is possible that Sonabank could lose its preferred lender status which, subject to certain limitations, allows it to approve and fund SBA loans without the necessity of having the loan approved in advance by the SBA. It is also possible the federal government could reduce the amount of loans which it guarantees. In addition, we are dependent on the expertise of our personnel who make SBA loans in order to continue to originate and service SBA loans. If we are unable to retain qualified employees in the future, our income from the origination of SBA loans could be substantially reduced.

 

 

 

We are subject to the risk of losses resulting from the failure of borrowers, guarantors and related parties to pay interest and principal amounts on their loans.  Although we maintain credit policies and credit underwriting and monitoring and collection procedures, these policies and procedures may not prevent losses, particularly during periods in which the local, regional or national economy suffers a general decline.  If borrowers fail to repay their loans, our financial condition and results of operations would be adversely affected.

 

 

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 have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

Failure to maintain an effective internal control environment could result in us not being able to accurately report our financial results, prevent or detect fraud, or provide timely and reliable financial information pursuant to our reporting obligations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Further, it could cause our investors to lose confidence in the financial information we report, which could affect the trading price of our common stock.

 

Management regularly reviews and updates our disclosure controls and procedures, including our internal control over financial reporting. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

 

 

As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that our borrowers may not repay their loans according to the terms of these loans, and the collateral securing the payment of these loans may be insufficient to ensure repayment. We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectibility of our loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of the borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of many of our loans. We maintain an allowance for loan losses to cover any probable inherent loan losses in the loan portfolio. In determining the size of the allowance, we rely on a periodic analysis of our loan portfolio, our historical loss experience and our evaluation of general economic conditions. If our assumptions prove to be incorrect or if we experience significant loan losses, our current allowance may not be sufficient to cover actual loan losses and adjustments may be necessary to allow for different economic conditions or adverse developments in our loan portfolio. A material addition to the allowance for loan losses could cause our earnings to decrease. Due to the relatively unseasoned nature of our loan portfolio, we cannot assure you that we will not experience an increase in delinquencies and losses as these loans continue to mature.

 

 

In addition, federal regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize further charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of our management. Any significant increase in our allowance for loan losses or charge-offs required by these regulatory agencies could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

 

 

We completed the acquisition of the HarVest Bank of Maryland on April 27, 2012, the Midlothian Branch in Richmond, Virginia on October 1, 2011, the acquisition and assumption of certain assets and liabilities of Greater Atlantic Bank from the FDIC on December 4, 2009, the acquisition of a branch of Millennium Bank in Warrenton, Virginia on September 28, 2009, the acquisition of the Leesburg branch location from Founders Corporation which opened on February 11, 2008, the acquisition of 1st Service Bank in December of 2006 and the acquisition of the Clifton Forge branch of First Community Bancorp, Inc. in December of 2005. In addition, on January 8, 2014, we announced our entry into an agreement to acquire Prince George’s FSB, which is headquartered in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.

 

We intend to continue pursuing a growth strategy for our business. Our prospects must be considered in light of the risks, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by growing companies such as the continuing need for infrastructure and personnel, the time and costs inherent in integrating a series of different operations and the ongoing expense of acquiring and staffing new banks or branches. We may not be able to expand our presence in our existing markets or successfully enter new markets and any expansion could adversely affect our results of operations. Failure to manage our growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, future prospects, financial condition or results of operations, and could adversely affect our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Our ability to grow successfully will depend on a variety of factors, including the continued availability of desirable business opportunities, the competitive responses from other financial institutions in our market areas and our ability to manage our growth. There can be no assurance of success or the availability of branch or bank acquisitions in the future.

 

 

The success our acquisition of Prince George’s FSB will depend on, among other things, our ability to combine the businesses of Sonabank and Prince George’s FSB in a manner that permits growth opportunities and does not materially disrupt the existing customer relationships of Prince George’s FSB or result in decreased revenues due to any loss of customers. If we are not able to successfully achieve these objectives, the anticipated benefits of the merger may not be realized fully or at all or may take longer to realize than expected. Further, it is possible that the integration process could result in the disruption of our ongoing businesses or cause inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with customers and employees or to achieve the anticipated benefits of the merger.

 

 

We must obtain approval to acquire Prince George’s FSB from bank regulatory and other governmental authorities. These governmental entities may impose conditions on the granting of such approvals. Such conditions or changes and the process of obtaining regulatory approvals could have the effect of delaying completion of the merger or of imposing additional costs or limitations on us following the merger.

 

 

 

We and Sonabank are each required by the Federal Reserve to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. In the event that our future operating results erode capital, if Sonabank is required to maintain capital in excess of well-capitalized standards, or if we elect to expand through loan growth or acquisitions, we may be required to raise additional capital. Our ability to raise capital will depend on conditions in the capital markets, which are outside our control, and on our financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot be assured of our ability to raise capital on favorable terms when needed, or at all. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, we will be subject to increased regulatory supervision and the imposition of restrictions on our growth and business. These outcomes could negatively impact our ability to operate or further expand our operations through acquisitions or the establishment of additional branches and may result in increases in operating expenses and reductions in revenues that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, in order to raise additional capital, we may need to issue shares of our common stock that would dilute the book value of our common stock and reduce our current shareholders’ percentage ownership interest to the extent they do not participate in future offerings.

 

 

Our common stock is not a bank deposit and, therefore, is not insured against loss by the FDIC, any other deposit insurance fund or by any other public or private entity.  Investment in our common stock is inherently risky for the reasons described in this “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in this report and is subject to the same market forces that affect the price of common stock in any company.  As a result, if you acquire our common stock, you may lose some or all of your investment.

 

 

Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for you to resell your common stock when you want and at prices you find attractive.  Our stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors including, among other things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General market fluctuations, industry factors and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes or credit loss trends, could also cause our stock price to decrease regardless of operating results.

 

 

The majority of our assets and liabilities are monetary in nature and subject us to significant risk from changes in interest rates. Fluctuations in interest rates are not predictable or controllable. Like most financial institutions, changes in interest rates can impact our net interest income as well as the valuation of our assets and liabilities, which is the difference between interest earned from interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. We expect that we will periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-earning assets, or vice versa. In either event, if market interest rates should move contrary to our position, this “gap” will negatively impact our earnings. Many factors impact interest rates, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply, and international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets.

 

Based on our analysis of the interest rate sensitivity of our assets, an increase in the general level of interest rates may negatively affect the market value of the portfolio equity, but will positively affect our net interest income since most of our assets have floating rates of interest that adjust fairly quickly to changes in market rates of interest. Additionally, an increase in interest rates may, among other things, reduce the demand for loans and our ability to originate loans. A decrease in the general level of interest rates may affect us through, among other things, increased prepayments on our loan and mortgage-backed securities portfolios and increased competition for deposits. Accordingly, changes in the level of market interest rates affect our net yield on interest-earning assets, loan origination volume, loan and mortgage-backed securities portfolios, and our overall results. Although our asset liability management strategy is designed to control our risk from changes in market interest rates, it may not be able to prevent changes in interest rates from having a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

 

 

Recent insured depository institution failures, as well as deterioration in banking and economic conditions, have significantly depleted the FDIC’s DIF, resulting in a decline in the ratio of reserves to insured deposits to historical lows. The FDIC anticipates that additional insured depository institutions are likely to fail in the foreseeable future so the reserve ratio may continue to decline. In addition, the deposit insurance limit on FDIC deposit insurance coverage generally has increased to $250,000. These developments have caused the premiums assessed on us by the FDIC to increase and materially increase our noninterest expense.

 

 

On February 7, 2011, the FDIC approved a final rule that amended its existing DIF restoration plan and implemented certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This rule, which took effect April 1, 2011, changed the FDIC’s assessment system from one based on domestic deposits to one based on the average consolidated total assets of a bank minus its average tangible equity during each quarter. Under the February 7, 2011 final rule, the total base assessment rates will vary depending on the DIF reserve ratio.  For example, for banks in the best risk category, the total base assessment rate will be between 2.5 and 9 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is below 1.15 percent, between 1.5 and 7 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is between 1.15 percent and 2 percent, between 1 and 6 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is between 2 percent and 2.5 percent and between 0.5 and 5 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is 2.5 percent or higher.  The new assessment rates were calculated for the quarter beginning April 1, 2011 and reflected in invoices for assessments due September 30, 2011.

 

For the year ended December 31, 2013, our FDIC insurance related costs were $823 thousand compared with $565 thousand and $522 thousand for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. The FDIC insurance related costs for 2010 included special assessments.  We are unable to predict the impact in future periods, including whether and when additional special assessments will occur.

 

 

Many community banks attract customers based on the personal relationships that the banks’ officers and customers establish with each other and the confidence that the customers have in the officers. We depend on the performance of Ms. Georgia S. Derrico, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and R. Roderick Porter, President, of our company and Sonabank. Ms. Derrico is a well-known banker in our market areas, having operated a successful financial institution there for more than 18 years prior to founding our company and Sonabank. We do not have an employment agreement with either individual. The loss of the services of either of these officers or their failure to perform management functions in the manner anticipated by our Board of Directors could have a material adverse effect on our business. Our success will be dependent upon the Board’s ability to attract and retain quality personnel, including these officers.

 

 

Our profitability depends on the general economic conditions in our market areas of Northern Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C., Charlottesville and Clifton Forge (Alleghany County), Front Royal, New Market, Richmond and the surrounding areas. Unlike larger banks that are more geographically diversified, we provide banking and financial services to clients primarily in these market areas. As of December 31, 2013, substantially all of our commercial real estate, real estate construction and residential real estate loans were made to borrowers in our market area. The local economic conditions in this area have a significant impact on our commercial, real estate and construction and consumer loans, the ability of the borrowers to repay these loans and the value of the collateral securing these loans. In addition, if the population or income growth in this region slows, stops or declines, income levels, deposits and housing starts could be adversely affected and could result in the curtailment of our expansion, growth and profitability.

 

Additionally, political conditions could impact our earnings. For example, political debate over the budget, taxes and the potential for reduced government spending through national sequestration may adversely impact the economy, and more specifically local economic conditions given the concentration of Federal workers and government contractors in our market. Acts or threats of war, terrorism, an outbreak of hostilities or other international or domestic calamities, or other factors beyond our control could impact these local economic conditions and could negatively affect the financial results of our banking operations.

 

 

 

There is a risk that hazardous substances or wastes, contaminants, pollutants or other environmentally restricted substances could be discovered on our properties or our foreclosed assets (particularly in the case of real estate loans). In this event, we might be required to remove the substances from the affected properties or to engage in abatement procedures at our sole cost and expense. Besides being liable under applicable federal and state statutes for our own conduct, we may also be held liable under certain circumstances for actions of borrowers or other third parties on property that collateralizes one or more of our loans or on property that we own. Potential environmental liability could include the cost of remediation and also damages for any injuries caused to third-parties. We cannot assure you that the cost of removal or abatement would not substantially exceed the value of the affected properties or the loans secured by those properties, that we would have adequate remedies against prior owners or other responsible parties or that we would be able to resell the affected properties either prior to or following completion of any such removal or abatement procedures. Any environmental damages on a property would substantially reduce the value of such property as collateral and, as a result, we may suffer a loss upon collection of the loan.

 

 

We make loans to professional firms and privately owned businesses that are considered to be small to medium-sized businesses. Small to medium-sized businesses frequently have smaller market shares than their competition, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need substantial additional capital to expand or compete and may experience substantial volatility in operating results, any of which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small and medium-sized business often depends on the management talents and efforts of one or two persons or a small group of persons, and the death, disability or resignation of one or more of these persons could have a material adverse impact on the business and its ability to repay our loan. A weak economic recovery and other events that negatively impact our target markets could cause us to incur substantial loan losses that could materially harm our operating results.

 

 

We and Sonabank are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by federal and state banking authorities. Any change in applicable regulations or federal or state legislation could have a substantial impact on us and Sonabank, and our respective operations. Additional legislation and regulations may be enacted or adopted in the future that could significantly affect our powers, authority and operations or the powers, authority and operations of Sonabank, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Further, bank regulatory authorities have the authority to bring enforcement actions against banks and their holding companies for unsafe or unsound practices in the conduct of their businesses or for violations of any law, rule or regulation, any condition imposed in writing by the appropriate bank regulatory agency or any written agreement with the agency. Possible enforcement actions against us could include the issuance of a cease-and-desist order that could be judicially enforced, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, the issuance of directives to increase capital or enter into a strategic transaction, whether by merger or otherwise, with a third party, the appointment of a conservator or receiver, the termination of insurance of deposits, the issuance of removal and prohibition orders against institution-affiliated parties, and the enforcement of such actions through injunctions or restraining orders. The exercise of this regulatory discretion and power may have a negative impact on us.

 

 

 

We and Sonabank are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the Federal Reserve. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory, and possibly additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on Sonabank’s and our company’s consolidated financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, Sonabank must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of Sonabank’s assets, liabilities and certain off-balance sheet commitments as calculated under these regulations.

 

Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require Sonabank to maintain minimum amounts and defined ratios of total and Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets and of Tier 1 capital to adjusted total assets, also known as the leverage ratio. For Sonabank, Tier 1 capital consists of shareholders’ equity excluding unrealized gains and losses on certain securities, less a portion of its mortgage servicing asset and deferred tax asset that is disallowed for capital. For Sonabank, total capital consists of Tier 1 capital plus the allowance for loan and lease loss less a deduction for low level recourse obligations.

 

As of December 31, 2013, Sonabank exceeded the amounts required to be well capitalized with respect to all three required capital ratios. To be well capitalized, a bank must generally maintain a leverage ratio of at least 5%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10%. However, the Federal Reserve could require Sonabank to increase its capital levels. For example, regulators have recently required certain banking companies to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 8% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 12%. As of December 31, 2013, Sonabank’s leverage, Tier 1 risk-based capital and total risk-based capital ratios were 14.12%, 18.43% and 19.68%, respectively.

 

Many factors affect the calculation of Sonabank’s risk-based assets and its ability to maintain the level of capital required to achieve acceptable capital ratios. For example, changes in risk weightings of assets relative to capital and other factors may combine to increase the amount of risk-weighted assets in the Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and the total risk-based capital ratio. Any increases in its risk-weighted assets will require a corresponding increase in its capital to maintain the applicable ratios. In addition, recognized loan losses in excess of amounts reserved for such losses, loan impairments, impairment losses on securities and other factors will decrease Sonabank’s capital, thereby reducing the level of the applicable ratios.

 

Sonabank’s failure to remain well capitalized for bank regulatory purposes could affect customer confidence, our ability to grow, our costs of funds and FDIC insurance costs, our ability to pay dividends on our capital stock, our ability to make acquisitions, and on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Under FDIC rules, if Sonabank ceases to be a well capitalized institution for bank regulatory purposes, the interest rates that it pays on deposits and its ability to accept, renew or rollover brokered deposits may be restricted. As of December 31, 2013, we had $40.2 million of brokered deposits, which represented 7.4% of our total deposits.

 

 

The capital requirements applicable to Southern National and the Bank will change as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the international regulatory capital initiative known as Basel III and, could  be subject to further change as a result of additional government actions or regulatory interpretations. Regulators recently issued rules implementing these requirements (“Revised Capital Rules”). We will be required to begin complying with the Revised Capital Rules on January 1, 2015. Among other things, the Revised Capital Rules raise the minimum thresholds for required capital and revise certain aspects of the definitions and elements of the capital that can be used to satisfy these required minimum thresholds.  The Revised Capital Rules also introduce a minimum “capital conservation buffer” equal to 2.5% of an organization’s total risk-weighted assets, which exists in addition to the required minimum CET1, Tier 1, and Total Capital ratios that are discussed above in Capital Requirements -- Revisions to Capital Adequacy Requirements. Complying with these capital requirements may affect our operations, including our asset portfolios and financial performance.

 

 

 

The metropolitan statistical area in which we operate is considered highly attractive from an economic and demographic viewpoint, and is a highly competitive banking market. We compete for loans, deposits and investment dollars with numerous regional and national banks, online divisions of out-of-market banks and other community banking institutions, as well as other kinds of financial institutions and enterprises, such as securities firms, insurance companies, savings associations, credit unions, mortgage brokers and private lenders. Many competitors have substantially greater resources than us, and operate under less stringent regulatory environments. The differences in resources and regulations may make it harder for us to compete profitably, reduce the rates that we can earn on loans and investments, increase the rates we must offer on deposits and other funds and adversely affect our overall financial condition and earnings.

 

 

Our articles of incorporation and bylaws could delay, defer or prevent a third party from acquiring us, despite the possible benefit to our shareholders, or otherwise adversely affect the price of our common stock.

 

Any individual, acting alone or with other individuals, who are seeking to acquire, directly or indirectly, 10.0% or more of our outstanding common stock must comply with the Change in Bank Control Act, which requires prior notice to the Federal Reserve for any acquisition. Additionally, any entity that wants to acquire 5.0% or more of our outstanding common stock, or otherwise control us, may need to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve under the BHCA of 1956, as amended. As a result, prospective investors in our common stock need to be aware of and comply with those requirements, to the extent applicable.

 

 

We, like all businesses, are subject to transaction risk, which is the risk of loss resulting from human error, fraud or unauthorized transactions due to inadequate or failed internal processes and systems, and external events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (including, for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages). Transaction risk also encompasses compliance risk, which is the risk of loss from violations of, or noncompliance with, laws, rules, regulations, prescribed practices or ethical standards. Although we seek to mitigate transaction risk through a system of internal controls, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer losses from transaction risks in the future that may be material in amount. Any losses resulting from transaction risk could take the form of explicit charges, increased operational costs, litigation costs, harm to reputation or forgone opportunities, any and all of which could have a material adverse effect on business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

 

If competitors introduce new products and services embodying new technologies, or if new industry standards and practices emerge, our existing product and service offerings, technology and systems may become obsolete. Further, if we fail to adopt or develop new technologies or to adapt our products and services to emerging industry standards, we may lose current and future customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The financial services industry is changing rapidly and in order to remain competitive, we must continue to enhance and improve the functionality and features of our products, services and technologies. These changes may be more difficult or expensive than we anticipate.

 

 

The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act institutes a wide range of reforms that will have an impact on all financial institutions, including the creation of a new agency (the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) with centralized authority, including examination and enforcement authority, for consumer protection in the banking industry.  The Act also includes, among other things, changes to the deposit insurance and financial regulatory systems, enhanced bank capital requirements and new requirements designed to protect consumers in financial transactions.  Many of these provisions are subject to rule making procedures and studies that will be conducted in the future and the full effects of the legislation on Southern National cannot yet be determined.  For example, the Bureau has issued rules, effective January 10, 2014, that are likely to impact our residential mortgage lending practices, and the residential mortgage market generally, including rules that implement the “ability-to-repay” requirement and provide protection from liability for “qualified mortgages,” as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.  Regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act, or any other aspects of current proposed regulatory or legislative changes to laws applicable to the financial industry, if enacted or adopted, may impact the profitability of our business activities or change certain of our business practices, including our ability to offer new products, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans, and achieve satisfactory interest spreads, and could expose us to additional costs, including increased compliance costs.  These changes also may require Southern National to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes to our operations in order to comply, and could therefore also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

 

 

We declared the first cash dividend on our common stock in February 2012, and each quarter thereafter through 2013. We also declared a special dividend in the fourth quarter of 2012. There are a number of restrictions on our ability to pay dividends. It is the policy of the Federal Reserve that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. The policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.

 

Our principal source of funds to pay dividends on our common stock is cash dividends that we receive from Sonabank. The payment of dividends by Sonabank to us is subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal banking laws, regulations and authorities. The federal banking statutes prohibit federally insured banks from making any capital distributions (including a dividend payment) if, after making the distribution, the institution would be “under capitalized” as defined by statute. In addition, the relevant federal regulatory agencies have authority to prohibit an insured bank from engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice, as determined by the agency, in conducting an activity. The payment of dividends could be deemed to constitute such an unsafe or unsound practice, depending on the financial condition of Sonabank. Regulatory authorities could impose administratively stricter limitations on the ability of Sonabank to pay dividends to us if such limits were deemed appropriate to preserve certain capital adequacy requirements.

 

 

 

Although our common stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ Global Market, the trading volume is low, and you are not assured liquidity with respect to transactions in our common stock. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of our common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. Given the lower trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock, or the expectation of these sales, could cause our stock price to fall.

 

 

Severe weather, natural disasters, climate change, acts of war or terrorism and other adverse external events could have a significant impact on our ability to conduct business.  Such events could affect the stability of our deposit base, impair the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, impair the value of collateral securing loans, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue and/or cause us to incur additional expenses. Although management has established disaster recovery policies and procedures, there can be no assurance of the effectiveness of such policies and procedures, and the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

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

 

 

We rely heavily on communications and information systems provided both internally and externally to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems (such as a spike in transaction volume, a cyber-attack or other unforeseen events) could result in failures or disruptions in our customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan and other systems. While we have policies and procedures and service level agreements designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. While we maintain an insurance policy which we believe provides sufficient coverage at a manageable expense for an institution of our size and scope with similar technological systems, we cannot assure shareholders that this policy would be sufficient to cover all related financial losses and damages should we experience any one or more of our or a third party’s systems failing or experiencing a cyber-attack.  The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, including remediation costs and increased protection costs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

 

 

Southern National does not have any unresolved staff comments from the SEC to report for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

 

The following table sets forth the date opened or acquired, ownership status and the total deposits, not including brokered deposits, for each of our banking locations, as of December 31, 2013:

 

 

Southern National and Sonabank may, from time to time, be a party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.  There are no other proceedings pending, or to management’s knowledge, threatened, against Southern National or Sonabank as of December 31, 2013.

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

On November 6, 2006, Southern National closed on the initial public offering of its common stock, $0.01 par value.  The shares of common stock sold in the offering were registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on a Registration Statement (Registration No. 333-136285) that was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2006.  The shares of common stock were sold at a price to the public of $14.00 per share (equivalent to $12.73 after the stock dividend declared in May 2007).

 

Southern National completed a follow-on public offering of its common stock in an underwritten public offering on November 4, 2009, selling 4,791,665 shares of common stock, including 624,999 shares sold pursuant to an over-allotment option granted to the underwriter, at a price of $6.00 per share.  The gross proceeds from the shares sold were $28.7 million.  The net proceeds to Southern National from the offering were approximately $26.9 million after deducting $1.3 million in underwriting commission and an estimated $486 thousand in other expenses incurred in connection with the offering.

 

Southern National’s common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “SONA”.  Our common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market in November 2006, and the exchange listing was upgraded to the Nasdaq Global Market at the open of trading on December 18, 2007.

 

There were 11,590,612 shares of our common stock outstanding at the close of business on March 3, 2014, which were held by 149 shareholders of record.

 

 

The following table presents the high and low intra-day sales prices and dividends declared for quarterly periods during 2013 and 2012:

 

 

 

Dividends are paid at the discretion of our board of directors. While we paid a nonrecurring 10% stock dividend to our holders of common stock in 2007, we declared the first cash dividend on our common stock in February 2012 and each quarter thereafter through 2013. The amount and frequency of dividends, if any, will be determined by our board of directors after consideration of our earnings, capital requirements, our financial condition and our ability to service any equity or debt obligations senior to our common stock, and will depend on cash dividends paid to us by our subsidiary bank. As a result, our ability to pay future dividends will depend on the earnings of Sonabank, its financial condition and its need for funds.

 

There are a number of restrictions on our ability to pay cash dividends. It is the policy of the FRB that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of net income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. The policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of financial strength to its banking subsidiary. For a foreseeable period of time, our principal source of cash will be dividends paid by our subsidiary bank with respect to its capital stock. There are certain restrictions on the payment of these dividends imposed by federal and state banking laws, regulations and authorities.

 

Regulatory authorities could administratively impose limitations on the ability of our subsidiary bank to pay dividends to us if such limits were deemed appropriate to preserve certain capital adequacy requirements or in the interests of “safety and soundness.”

 

 

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

None

 

 

The following chart compares the cumulative total shareholder return on Southern National common stock during the five years ended December 31, 2013, with the cumulative total return of the Russell 2000 Index and the SNL Bank and Thrift Index for the same period. Dividend reinvestment has been assumed. This comparison assumes $100 invested on December 31, 2008 in Southern National common stock, the Russell 2000 Index and the SNL Bank and Thrift Index. The historical stock price performance for Southern National common stock shown on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future stock performance.

 

 

 

 

The following table sets forth selected financial data for Southern National as of December 31, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009:

 

 

Management’s discussion and analysis is presented to aid the reader in understanding and evaluating the financial condition and results of operations of Southern National.  This discussion and analysis should be read with the consolidated financial statements, the footnotes thereto, and the other financial data included in this report.

 

 

Our accounting policies are in accordance with U. S. generally accepted accounting principles and with general practices within the banking industry. Management makes a number of estimates and assumptions relating to reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during periods presented. Different assumptions in the application of these methods or policies could result in material changes in our financial statements. As such, the following policies are considered “critical accounting policies” for us.

 

 

The allowance for loan losses is a valuation allowance for probable incurred credit losses.  Loan losses are charged against the allowance when management believes the collection of the principal is unlikely.  Recoveries of amounts previously charged-off are credited to the allowance.   Management’s determination of the adequacy of the allowance is based on a three year historical average net loss experience for each portfolio segment adjusted for current industry and economic conditions (referred to as “current factors”) and estimates of their effect on loan collectability. While management uses available information to estimate losses on loans, future additions to the allowance may be necessary based on changes in economic conditions, particularly those affecting real estate values.

 

The allowance consists of specific and general components.  The specific component relates to loans that are individually classified as impaired.  The general component provides for estimated losses in unimpaired loans and is based on historical loss experience adjusted for current factors.

 

A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that Southern National will be unable to collect the scheduled payments of principal or interest when due according to the terms of the loan documentation. Factors considered by management in determining impairment include payment status, collateral value, and the probability of collecting scheduled principal and interest payments when due, among other considerations. Loans that experience insignificant payment delays and payment shortfalls generally are not classified as impaired. Management determines the significance of payment delays and payment shortfalls on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the loan and the borrower, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the borrower’s prior payment record, and the amount of the shortfall in relation to the principal and interest owed. Impairment is measured on a loan by loan basis for commercial and construction loans by either the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, the loan’s observable market price, or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. Individual consumer and residential loans are evaluated for impairment based on the aforementioned criteria as well as regulatory guidelines.

 

 

The general component covers non-impaired loans and is based on historical loss experience adjusted for current factors.  The historical loss experience is determined by portfolio segment and is based on the actual net loss history experienced by Southern National over the most recent three years.  This actual loss experience is adjusted for current factors based on the risks present for each portfolio segment.  These current factors include consideration of the following:  levels of and trends in delinquencies and impaired loans; levels of and trends in charge-offs and recoveries; trends in volume and terms of loans; effects of any changes in risk selection and underwriting standards; other changes in lending policies, procedures, and practices; experience, ability, and depth of lending management and other relevant staff; national and local economic trends and conditions; industry conditions; and effects of changes in credit concentrations.  The following portfolio segments have been identified:  owner occupied commercial real estate, non-owner occupied commercial real estate, construction and land development, commercial loans, residential 1-4 family, multi-family residential, loans secured by farmland, home equity lines of credit (HELOC) and consumer.  While underwriting practices in this environment are more stringent, the bank estimates the effect of internal factors on future net loss experience to be negligible.  Management’s estimate of the effect of current external economic environmental conditions on future net loss experience is significant in all loan segments and particularly on loans secured by real estate including single family 1-4, non-owner occupied commercial real estate and construction and land development loans.  These factors include excess inventory, generally less demand driven in part by fewer qualified borrowers and buyers.  These considerations have played a significant role in management’s estimate of the adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses.

 

 

Southern National acquired loan portfolios through its acquisitions of Greater Atlantic Bank in 2009 and its acquisition of HarVest Bank of Maryland in 2012.  The loans acquired in the Greater Atlantic Bank transaction are referred to as covered loans because of loss protection provided by the FDIC pursuant to a loss sharing agreement.   The loans acquired in the HarVest Bank of Maryland transaction are not covered by an FDIC loss sharing agreement.

 

The accounting for the covered loans requires Southern Financial to estimate the timing and amount of cash flows to be collected from these loans at acquisition, and to periodically update our estimates of the cash flows expected to be collected over the life of the covered loans. Similarly, the accounting for the FDIC indemnification asset requires us to estimate the timing and amount of cash flows to be received from the FDIC in reimbursement for losses and expenses related to the covered loans; these estimates are directly related to estimates of cash flows to be received from the covered loans. The estimated cash flows from the FDIC indemnification asset are sensitive to changes in the same assumptions that impact expected cash flows on covered loans.   If the amount of expected cash flows to be recovered from the FDIC changes, the difference between the carrying amount of the FDIC indemnification asset and the revised recoverable amount is accreted or amortized over the remaining term of the FDIC agreement.  These estimates are considered to be critical accounting estimates because they involve significant judgment and assumptions as to the amount and timing of cash flows to be collected.

 

Acquired loans are placed into homogenous pools at acquisition. At acquisition, the fair value of the pools was measured based on the expected cash flows to be derived from each pool. The difference between total contractual payments due and the cash flows expected to be received at acquisition was recognized as non-accretable difference. The excess of expected cash flows over the recorded fair value of each pool at the acquisition is referred to as the accretable yield and is being recognized as interest income over the life of each pool.

 

We monitor loan pool activity and performance and as conditions or expectations change we update our expected cash flows from the pools to determine whether any material changes have occurred in expected cash flows that would be indicative of impairment or necessitate reclassification between non-accretable difference and accretable yield. Initial and ongoing cash flow expectations incorporate significant assumptions regarding prepayment rates, the timing of resolution of loans, frequency of default, delinquency and loss severity, which is dependent on estimates of underlying collateral values.

 

 

Prepayment, delinquency and default curves used to forecast pool cash flows are derived from the historical performance of the loan pools.   Changes in the assumptions that impact forecasted cash flows could result in a potentially material change to the amount of the allowance for loan losses  or the rate of accretion on these loans.

 

 

Management evaluates securities for other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) on at least a quarterly basis, and more frequently when economic or market conditions warrant such an evaluation.  For securities in an unrealized loss position, management considers the extent and duration of the unrealized loss, and the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer.  Management also assesses whether it intends to sell, or it is more likely than not that it will be required to sell, a security in an unrealized loss position before recovery of its amortized cost basis. If either of the criteria regarding intent or requirement to sell is met, the entire difference between amortized cost and fair value is recognized as impairment through earnings.  For debt securities that do not meet the aforementioned criteria, the amount of impairment is split into two components as follows: 1) OTTI related to credit loss, which must be recognized in the income statement and 2) OTTI related to other factors, which is recognized in other comprehensive income.  The credit loss is defined as the difference between the present value of the cash flows expected to be collected and the amortized cost basis. For equity securities, the entire amount of impairment is recognized through earnings.

 

In order to determine OTTI for purchased beneficial interests that, on the purchase date, were not highly rated, Southern National compares the present value of the remaining cash flows as estimated at the preceding evaluation date to the current expected remaining cash flows.  OTTI is deemed to have occurred if there has been an adverse change in the remaining expected future cash flows.

 

 

Goodwill is evaluated for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently if events or circumstances warrant.  Goodwill is primarily related to the 2006 acquisition of 1st Service Bank.  Our annual assessment timing is during the third calendar quarter.    For the 2013 assessment, we performed a qualitative assessment to determine if it was more likely than not that the fair value of our single reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. We concluded that the fair value of our single reporting unit exceeded its carrying amount and that it was not necessary to perform the two-step test pursuant to ASC 350-20. Our qualitative assessment considered many factors including, but not limited to, our actual and projected operating performance and profitability, as well as consideration of recent bank merger and acquisition transaction metrics.  No impairment was indicated in 2013 or 2012.

 

 

Assets acquired through, or in lieu of, loan foreclosure are held for sale and are initially recorded at the fair value of the collateral at the date of foreclosure based on estimates, including some obtained from third parties, less estimated costs to sell, establishing a new cost basis. Subsequent to foreclosure, valuations are periodically performed by management, and the assets are carried at the lower of cost or fair value, less estimated costs to sell. Significant property improvements that enhance the salability of the property are capitalized to the extent that the carrying value does not exceed estimated realizable value. Legal fees, maintenance and other direct costs of foreclosed properties are expensed as incurred.

 

 

Due to the judgment involved in estimating fair value of the properties, accounting for OREO is regarded as a critical accounting policy. Estimates of value of OREO properties at the date of foreclosure are typically based on real estate appraisals performed by independent appraisers.  These values are generally updated as appraisals become available.

 

 

The provision for income taxes reflects the tax effects of the transactions reported in the financial statements, including taxes currently due as well as changes in deferred taxes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities represent estimates of the future tax return consequences of temporary differences between carrying amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities.  Deferred tax assets and liabilities are computed by using currently enacted income tax rates and applying those rates to the periods in which the deferred tax assets or liabilities are expected to be realized or settled.  As changes in tax laws or rates are enacted, deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted through the provision for income taxes. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, management concluded that it is more likely than not that Southern National will generate sufficient taxable income to fully utilize our deferred tax assets.

 

 

Southern National Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (“Southern National”, “we” or “our”) is the bank holding company for Sonabank (“Sonabank” or the “Bank”), a Virginia state chartered bank which commenced operations on April 14, 2005. Sonabank conducts full-service community banking operations from locations in Fairfax County (Reston, McLean and Fairfax), in Charlottesville, Warrenton (2), Loudoun County (Middleburg, Leesburg (2), and South Riding), Front Royal, New Market, Richmond, Haymarket and Clifton Forge, and five branches in Maryland (four in Montgomery County and one in Frederick County) and maintains loan production offices in Richmond, Charlottesville, Warrenton and Fredericksburg. We have administrative offices in Warrenton and an executive office in Georgetown, Washington, D.C where senior management is located.

 

 

We completed the acquisition of the HarVest Bank of Maryland on April 27, 2012, the Midlothian Branch in Richmond, Virginia on October 1, 2011 and the acquisition and assumption of certain assets and liabilities of Greater Atlantic Bank from the FDIC on December 4, 2009.  As part of the Greater Atlantic acquisition, the Bank and the FDIC entered into a loss sharing agreement (the “loss sharing agreement”) on approximately $143.4 million (cost basis) of Greater Atlantic Bank’s assets.  The Bank will share in the losses on the loans and foreclosed loan collateral with the FDIC as specified in the loss sharing agreement; we refer to these assets collectively as “covered assets.” In addition, on January 8, 2014, we announced our entry into an agreement to acquire Prince George’s FSB, which is headquartered in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.

 

 

 

 

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2013 was $6.3 million, compared to $6.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2012.  A decrease in noninterest expense and a reduction in the provision for loan losses in 2013 as compared to 2012 were offset by a decrease in net interest income and a decrease in noninterest income primarily related to the bargain purchase gain on the acquisition of HarVest Bank in 2012.

 

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $6.6 million, up from $4.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, due primarily to the bargain purchase gain on the acquisition of HarVest Bank.  Improvement in net interest income and a reduction in the provision for loan losses in 2012 as compared to 2011 were partially offset by an increase in noninterest expense of approximately $3.9 million.

 

Our operating results depend primarily on our net interest income, which is the difference between interest and dividend income on interest-earning assets such as loans and investments, and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities such as deposits and borrowings.

 

Net interest income was $30.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $31.7 million during the prior year. Average loans during 2013 were $516.9 million compared to $526.4 million last year. The net interest margin was 4.75% in 2013, down from 5.19% in 2012. The primary driver was a reduction in the average yield on loans from 6.70% in 2012 to 6.24% in 2013 as we had to respond to ferocious competition in our marketplace. The GAB loan discount accretion contributed $1.7 million to net interest income during 2013, compared to $3.4 million during 2012. The loan discount accretion on the HarVest Bank portfolio contributed $1.9 million during 2013, compared to $717 thousand during 2012. Before taking the discount accretion related to the GAB and HarVest acquisitions into account, the net interest margin would have been 4.20% in 2013 and 4.52% in 2012. The yield on securities decreased 28 basis points, and the cost of interest bearing deposits declined by 27 basis points year on year.

 

Net interest income was $31.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $27.3 million during the prior year. Average loans during 2012 were $526.4 million compared to $477.6 million last year. The average yield on loans increased from 6.55% in 2011 to 6.70% in 2012. The Greater Atlantic Bank (GAB) loan discount accretion contributed $3.4 million to net interest income during 2012, compared to $3.3 million during 2011. The loan discount accretion on the HarVest Bank portfolio contributed $717 thousand during 2012. Average investment securities increased by $14.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to the same period in 2011, while the average yield decreased from 3.77% to 2.99%. Average interest-bearing liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2012 increased $59.2 million compared to the same period in 2011. Average interest-bearing deposits increased by $68.2 million, while average borrowings decreased by $9.0 million compared to 2011.  The average cost of interest-bearing liabilities decreased from 1.31% in 2011 to 1.11% in 2012. The average cost of interest-bearing deposits decreased from 1.23% in 2011, to 1.07% in 2012. The net interest margin was 5.19% in 2012, up slightly from 5.06% in 2011.

 

 

The following table summarizes changes in net interest income attributable to changes in the volume of interest-bearing assets and liabilities compared to changes in interest rates.  The change in interest, due to both rate and volume, has been proportionately allocated between rate and volume.

 

The provision for loan losses is a current charge to earnings made in order to increase the allowance for loan losses to a level for inherent probable losses in the loan portfolio based on an evaluation of the loan portfolio, current economic conditions, changes in the nature and volume of lending, historical loan experience and other known internal and external factors affecting loan collectability.  Our loan loss allowance is calculated by segmenting the loan portfolio by loan type and applying risk factors to each segment.  The risk factors are determined by considering historical loss data, peer data, as well as applying management’s judgment.

 

The provision for loan losses charged to operations for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $3.6 million, $6.2 million, and $8.5 million, respectively.  We had charge-offs totaling $4.1 million during 2013, $6.2 million during 2012, and $8.0 million during 2011.  There were recoveries totaling $503 thousand during 2013, $702 thousand during 2012 and $199 thousand during 2011. In addition to a decline in net charge-offs, we have also witnessed a significant decline in past due loans and declining non-accrual loans.

 

The Financial Condition Section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis provides information on our loan portfolio, past due loans, nonperforming assets and the allowance for loan losses.

 

 

 

The following table presents the major categories of noninterest income for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands):

 

 

During 2013 noninterest income declined to $1.8 million from $5.6 million in 2012.  The decrease resulted from the bargain purchase gain in 2012 of $3.5 million from the HarVest transaction. In addition, there were other than temporary impairment (OTTI) charges of $717 thousand in trust preferred securities during 2012 compared to $3 thousand in OTTI charges during 2013. Also, during 2012 the bank sold the guaranteed portions of SBA loans and realized a $657 thousand gain. Income from bank owned life insurance (“BOLI”) contributed $592 thousand during 2013, compared to $797 thousand during 2012 which included a death benefit.

 

During 2012, noninterest income increased to $5.6 million during 2012 from $2.4 million in 2011.  The increase resulted from the bargain purchase gain of $3.5 million from the HarVest transaction. In addition, there was an OTTI of $717 thousand in trust preferred securities during 2012 compared to $329 thousand in OTTI charges during 2011. Also, during 2012 the Bank sold the guaranteed portions of SBA loans and realized a $657 thousand gain, and sold SBA pooled securities resulting in a gain of $287 thousand. Income from bank owned life insurance (“BOLI”) contributed $797 thousand during 2012, compared to $1.3 million during 2011. Both periods were affected by death benefits; however, the death benefit received in the 2011 period was $800 thousand as compared to $195 thousand in the 2012 period.

 

 

The following table presents the major categories of noninterest expense for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands):