Southern First Bancshares (SFST) Risk Factors

In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued an accounting standard update, "Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments," which replaces the current "incurred loss" model for recognizing credit losses with an "expected loss" model referred to as the Current Expected Credit Loss ("CECL") model. While the new CECL standard became effective on January 1, 2023 and for interim periods within that year, we early adopted CECL as of January 1, 2022. Under the CECL model, we are required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and periodically thereafter. This differs significantly from the "incurred loss" model required under current generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred. Accordingly, the adoption of the CECL model materially affected how we determine our allowance for credit losses and required us to increase our allowance. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for credit losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for credit losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The high-profile bank failures in 2023 involving Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank caused general uncertainty and concern regarding the liquidity adequacy of the banking sector. Although we were not directly affected by these bank failures, the resulting speed and ease in which news, including social media commentary, led depositors to withdraw or attempt to withdraw their funds from these and other financial institutions, which then caused the stock prices of many financial institutions to become volatile. Additional bank failures could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, either directly or through an adverse impact on certain of our customers. In response to these bank failures and the resulting market reaction, the Secretary of the Treasury approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolutions of the failed banks in a manner that fully protects depositors by utilizing the Deposit Insurance Fund, including the use of Bridge Banks to assume all of the deposit obligations of the failed banks, while leaving unsecured lenders and equity holders of such institutions exposed to losses.. With the risk of any additional bank failures, we may face the potential for reputational risk, deposit outflows, increased costs and competition for liquidity, and increased credit risk which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

Among other sources of funds, in 2023, we relied on brokered deposits to provide funds with which to make loans and provide other liquidity needed. Our brokered deposits were $379.4 million, representing 11.2% of our total deposits at December 31, 2023 and included fixed-rate time deposits with maturities through October 2028. Brokered deposits are utilized, along with other wholesale funding sources, to fund loan growth and offset core deposit outflows. Generally, these deposits may not be as stable as other types of deposits. In the future, these depositors may not replace their deposits with us as they mature, or we may have to pay a higher rate of interest to keep those deposits or to replace them with other deposits or sources of funds. Not being able to maintain or replace these deposits as they mature could affect our liquidity. Paying higher deposit rates to maintain or replace these types of deposits could adversely affect our net interest margin and operating results.

A significant portion of our banking assets are subject to changes in interest rates. As of December 31, 2023, approximately 84% of our loan portfolio was in fixed rate loans, while only 16% was in variable rate loans. Like most financial institutions, our earnings significantly depend on our net interest income, the principal component of our earnings, which is the difference between interest earned by us from our interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and interest paid by us on our 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 beyond our control impact interest rates, including economic conditions, governmental monetary policies, inflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply, and disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets. Changes in monetary policies of the various government agencies could influence not only the interest we receive on loans and securities and the interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect our ability to originate loans and obtain deposits, the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities, and the average duration of our assets and liabilities. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as borrowers refinance their loans at lower rates. In a rising interest rate environment, the interest rate increases often result in larger payment requirements for our floating interest rate borrowers, which increases the potential for default. At the same time, the marketability of the property securing a loan may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates. An increase (or decrease) in interest rates also requires us to increase (or decrease) the interest rates that we pay on our deposits. Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. An increase in interest rates that adversely affects the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans may lead to increases in nonperforming assets, charge-offs and delinquencies, further increases to the allowance for credit losses, and a reduction of income recognized, among others, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. Further, when we place a loan on non-accrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. At the same time, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense. Thus, an increase in the amount of nonperforming assets could have a material adverse impact on our net interest income. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve reduced the target Federal Funds rate to between zero and 0.25%; however, due in part to rising inflation, throughout 2022 the target Federal Funds rate increased to between 4.25% and 4.50%. Throughout 2023, the target Federal Funds rate increased to between 5.25% and 5.50%. Rapid changes in interest rates make it difficult for us to balance our loan and deposit portfolios, which may adversely affect our results of operations by, for example, reducing asset yields or spreads, creating operating and system issues, or having other adverse impacts on our business. When short-term interest rates are low for a prolonged period and assuming longer-term interest rates fall further, we could experience net interest margin compression as our interest-earning assets would continue to reprice downward while our interest-bearing liability rates could fail to decline in tandem, which would have an adverse effect on our net interest income and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. When interest-earning assets mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest-bearing liabilities, falling interest rates could reduce net interest income. When interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest-earning assets in a period, an increase in interest rates could reduce net interest income. In addition, our mortgage operations provide a portion of our noninterest income. We generate mortgage revenues primarily from gains on the sale of residential mortgage loans pursuant to programs currently offered by Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae or Freddie Mac. In this rising or higher interest rate environment, our originations of mortgage loans have decreased, resulting in fewer loans that are available to be sold to investors, which has decreased mortgage revenues in noninterest income. In addition, our results of operations are affected by the amount of noninterest expenses associated with mortgage activities, such as salaries and employee benefits, other loan expense, and other costs. During periods of reduced loan demand, our results of operations may be adversely affected to the extent that we are unable to reduce expenses commensurate with the decline in loan originations.

The Federal Reserve requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. Under the "source of strength" doctrine, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the federal bank regulators to require that all companies that directly or indirectly control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength for the institution. Under these requirements, in the future, we could be required to provide financial assistance to the Bank if the Bank experiences financial distress. A capital injection may be required at times when we do not have the resources to provide it, and therefore we may be required to borrow the funds. In the event of a bank holding company's bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the holding company's general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by the holding company in order to make the required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and will adversely impact the holding company's cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

As of December 31, 2023, approximately 85% of our loans had real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and may deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. A weakening of the real estate market in our primary market areas could result in an increase in the number of borrowers who default on their loans and a reduction in the value of the collateral securing their loans, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our profitability and asset quality. Deterioration in the real estate market could cause us to adjust our opinion of the level of credit quality in our loan portfolio. If we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt during a period of reduced real estate values, our earnings and capital could be adversely affected. Acts of nature, including hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, fires and floods, which may cause uninsured damage and other loss of value to real estate that secures these loans, may also negatively affect our financial condition.

Because our loan portfolio contains a number of real estate loans with relatively large balances, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in nonperforming loans, which could result in a net loss of earnings, an increase in the provision for credit losses and an increase in loan charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

At December 31, 2023, 47.9% of our loan portfolio was secured by commercial real estate. Loans secured by commercial real estate are generally viewed as having more risk of default than loans secured by residential real estate or consumer loans because repayment of the loans often depends on the successful operation of the property, the income stream of the borrowers, the accuracy of the estimate of the property's value at completion of construction, and the estimated cost of construction. Such loans are generally riskier than loans secured by residential real estate or consumer loans because those loans are typically not secured by real estate collateral. An adverse development with respect to one lending relationship can expose us to a significantly greater risk of loss compared with a single-family residential mortgage loan because we typically have more than one loan with such borrowers. Additionally, these loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers compared with single-family residential mortgage loans. Therefore, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant decline in the related asset quality. A return of recessionary conditions could result in a sharp increase in loans charged-off and could require us to significantly increase our allowance for credit losses, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

At December 31, 2023, commercial business loans comprised 13.9% of our total loan portfolio. Our commercial business loans are originated primarily based on the identified cash flow and general liquidity of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower and/or repayment capacity of any guarantor. The borrower's cash flow may be unpredictable, and collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial business loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use. In addition, business assets may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise, and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. Accordingly, the repayment of commercial business loans depends primarily on the cash flow and credit worthiness of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral value provided by the borrower and liquidity of the guarantor. If these borrowers do not have sufficient cash flows or resources to pay these loans as they come due or the value of the underlying collateral is insufficient to fully secure these loans, we may suffer losses on these loans that exceed our allowance for credit losses.

Our actual loans losses could exceed our allowance for credit losses and therefore our historic allowance for credit losses may not be adequate. As of December 31, 2023, 47.9% of our loan portfolio was secured by commercial real estate. Repayment of such loans is generally considered more subject to market risk than residential mortgage loans. Industry experience shows that a portion of loans will become delinquent and a portion of loans will require partial or entire charge-off. Regardless of the underwriting criteria utilized, losses may be experienced as a result of various factors beyond our control, including among other things, changes in market conditions affecting the value of loan collateral, the cash flows of our borrowers and problems affecting borrower credit. If we suffer credit losses that exceed our allowance for credit losses, our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Making loans and other extensions of credit is an essential element of our business. Although we seek to mitigate risks inherent in lending by adhering to specific underwriting practices, our loans and other extensions of credit may not be repaid. The risk of nonpayment is affected by a number of factors, including: - the duration of the credit;         - credit risks of a particular client;         - changes in economic and industry conditions; and         - in the case of a collateralized loan, risks resulting from uncertainties about the future value of the collateral. We attempt to maintain an appropriate allowance for credit losses to provide for probable losses in our loan portfolio. We periodically determine the amount of the allowance based on consideration of several factors, including but not limited to: - an ongoing review of the quality, mix, and size of our overall loan portfolio;         - our historical loan loss experience;         - evaluation of economic conditions;         - regular reviews of loan delinquencies and loan portfolio quality;         - ongoing review of financial information provided by borrowers; and         - the amount and quality of collateral, including guarantees, securing the loans. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for credit losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. A deterioration in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for credit losses. In addition, regulatory agencies periodically review our allowance for credit losses and may require an increase in the provision for credit losses or the recognition of further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of management. In addition, if charge-offs in future periods exceed the allowance for credit losses, we will need additional provisions to increase the allowance for credit losses. Any increases in the allowance for credit losses will result in a decrease in net income and, possibly, capital, and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.