Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003

Commission file number: 000-33063

SIERRA BANCORP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(559) 782-4900

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, No Par Value

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  ¨

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

As of June 30, 2003, the last business day of Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $72 million, based on the closing price reported to the Registrant on that date of $14.19 per share.

Shares of Common Stock held by each officer and director and each person owning more than five percent of the outstanding Common Stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of the affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

The number of shares of Common Stock of the registrant outstanding as of February 20, 2004 was 9,348,368.

Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to SEC Regulation 14A are incorporated by reference in Part III, Items 10-14.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I

General

The Company

Sierra Bancorp (the “Company”) is a California corporation registered as a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and is headquartered in Porterville, California. The Company was incorporated in November 2000 and acquired all of the outstanding shares of Bank of the Sierra (the “Bank”) in August 2001. The Company’s principal subsidiary is the Bank, and the Company exists primarily for the purpose of holding the stock of the Bank and of such other subsidiaries it may acquire or establish. The Company’s only other direct subsidiaries are Sierra Capital Trust I, which was formed in November 2001 solely to facilitate the issuance of capital trust pass-through securities, and Sierra Statutory Trust II, formed in March 2004 also for the purpose of issuing capital trust pass-through securities. Pursuant to FASB Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (FIN 46), Sierra Capital Trust I and Sierra Statutory Trust II are not reflected on a consolidated basis in the financial statements of the Company.

The Company’s principal source of income is dividends from the Bank, although supplemental sources of income may be explored in the future. The expenditures of the Company, including (but not limited to) the payment of dividends to shareholders, if and when declared by the Board of Directors, and the cost of servicing debt, will generally be paid from dividends paid to the Company by the Bank.

At December 31, 2003, the Company had consolidated assets of $802 million, deposits of $684 million and shareholders’ equity of $60 million. The Company’s liabilities include $15 million in debt obligations due to Sierra Capital Trust I, related to capital trust pass-through securities issued by Sierra Capital Trust I in November 2001.

References herein to the “Company” include the Company and its consolidated subsidiary, unless the context indicates otherwise.

The Bank

The Bank is a California state-chartered bank headquartered in Porterville, California. It was incorporated in September 1977 and opened for business in January 1978, and has grown to be the largest independent bank headquartered in the South San Joaquin Valley. The Bank is a multi-community independent bank that offers a full range of banking services to individuals and businesses primarily in the central and southern sections of California’s San Joaquin Valley. We operate seventeen full service branch offices throughout this geographic footprint, and have received regulatory approval for an eighteenth branch in the City of Clovis. The Clovis Branch is expected to commence operations in the second quarter of 2004. Prior to 1997, Bank of the Sierra had grown exclusively by establishing de novo full-service branch offices and credit centers. In February 1997 we made our first branch purchase of the Dinuba Office of Wells Fargo Bank. Between February 1997 and September 1999 we opened three additional de novo offices in Tulare, Hanford, and Fresno. In May 2000 we added four branches by the acquisition of Sierra National Bank (“SNB”): one in Bakersfield, another in California City, and two in Tehachapi. The locations of the Bank’s current offices are:

3

Table of Contents

The Bank’s gross loan balances at the end of 2003 totaled $611 million. Our principal retail lending services include home equity lines, consumer loans, and credit card loans. Three other significant dimensions to the Bank’s lending activities are agricultural lending, real estate financing, and small business lending.

Agricultural Credit Centers located in Fresno and Porterville provide a complete line of credit services in support of the agricultural activities that are key to the continued economic development of the communities we serve. “Ag lending” clients include a full range of individual farming customers, small business farming organizations, and major corporate farming units. The Bank Card Center, headquartered in Porterville, provides credit, debit, and ATM card services to all qualified Bank customers.

In addition, we staff our Fresno, Visalia, Porterville, and Bakersfield offices with real estate lending specialists. These officers are responsible for a complete line of land acquisition and development loans, construction loans for residential and commercial development, and multifamily credit facilities. Secondary market services are provided through the Bank’s affiliations with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and various non-governmental programs. In addition, we have an arrangement with Moneyline Lending Services, Inc. (“Moneyline”), whereby Moneyline underwrites single-family mortgage loans for qualifying Bank customers referred to them via Bank-branded delivery channels (i.e., Bank branches, the Bank’s internet site, and a dedicated telephone line).

We also engage in Small Business Administration lending and have been designated as an SBA Preferred Lender since 1999. For the SBA’s fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 the Bank originated 99 loans totaling $11.6 million. This placed the Bank as third in the SBA’s Fresno California District for the dollar volume of SBA loans, and fourth for the number of SBA loans. Further, Bank of the Sierra is a participant in the SBA’s innovative “Community Express” program, and was fifth in the nation from 1999 through 2003 for the volume of loans produced, behind the likes of banks such as Wells Fargo, Bank One, and J.P. Morgan.

As of December 31, 2003, the principal areas in which we directed our lending activities and the percentage of our total loan portfolio for each of those areas were as follows: (i) loans secured by real estate (70.6%); (ii) commercial and industrial (including SBA) loans (18.6%); (iii) consumer loans (6.7%); (iv) agricultural loans (2.2%); and (v) credit cards (1.7%). Real-estate secured loans, loan sales, and loan servicing activities generated approximately 53% of our total interest and other income for 2003, and 52% during 2002. Real estate loans and related activities generated total revenue of $28.0 million and $26.3 million in 2003 and 2002, respectively.

In addition to loans, we offer a wide range of deposit products for retail and business banking markets including checking accounts, interest bearing transaction accounts, savings accounts, time deposit accounts and retirement accounts. Telephone banking and internet banking with bill-pay are options for our deposit customers. We attract

4

Table of Contents

deposits through our customer-oriented product mix, competitive pricing, convenient locations, and drive-up banking, all provided with the highest level of customer service. At December 31, 2003 we had 53,737 deposit accounts totaling approximately $684 million, compared to 49,245 deposit accounts totaling approximately $606 million as of December 31, 2002.

We offer a multitude of other products and services to our customers to complement lending and deposit services. These include installment note collection, cashier’s checks, traveler’s checks, bank-by-mail, ATM, night depository, safe deposit boxes, direct deposit, automated payroll services, electronic funds transfers, on-line banking, and other customary banking services. During the past few years we have added offsite ATMs, thereby increasing consumer convenience by facilitating cash advances and deposit capabilities not otherwise available at non-branch locations. The most recent addition is a Kiosk-style drive-through ATM, which commenced operations in a parking lot on the corner of a high-traffic intersection in Visalia during the fourth quarter of 2003. We currently operate six offsite ATM’s, and also utilize a mobile ATM unit at fairs, exhibitions, and various other community functions within our market area. We have a Spanish language option on our own network of ATMs, and shared ATM and Point of Sale (POS) networks allow our customers access to national and international funds transfer networks. In addition, we have established a convenient customer service group accessible by toll-free telephone to answer questions and assure a high level of customer satisfaction.

In order to provide non-deposit investment options we have developed a strategic alliance with Investment Centers of America, Inc. of Bismarck, North Dakota (“ICA”). Through this arrangement, registered and licensed representatives of ICA provide our customers with convenient access to annuities, insurance products, mutual funds, and a full range of investment products. They conduct business from offices located in our Porterville, Visalia, Tulare and Tehachapi branches.

Sierra Real Estate Investment Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (“REIT”), was formed in June 2002 with the primary business purpose of investing in the Bank’s real-estate related assets, and to enhance and strengthen the Bank’s capital position and increase its earnings. Sierra Real Estate Investment Trust was capitalized in August 2002, when the Bank exchanged real-estate related assets for 100% of the common and preferred stock of the REIT, and it is currently the Bank’s only subsidiary. The Bank distributed a portion of its shares of the REIT’s preferred stock to more than 100 other individual investors in January 2003. The formation and capitalization of Sierra REIT had a substantial impact on the Bank’s 2002 tax liability and tax accruals were reduced accordingly. The REIT-related tax benefit accrued during 2003 was reversed at the end of the year, for reasons explained in the next section.

We have not engaged in any material research activities related to the development of new products or services during the last two fiscal years. However, our officers and employees are continually searching for ways to increase public convenience, enhance public access to the electronic payments system, and enable us to improve our competitive position. In January of 2004, for example, we converted our core bank processing and online banking systems to increase efficiency and improve customer service. During 2003 we began offering lease financing as an alternative to loans and implemented an extensive customer service training program, among other things. The cost to the Bank for these development, operations, and marketing activities cannot be expressly calculated with any degree of certainty.

We hold no patents or licenses (other than licenses required by appropriate bank regulatory agencies), franchises, or concessions. Our business has a modest seasonal component due to the heavy agricultural orientation of the Central Valley. As our branches in more metropolitan areas such as Fresno and Bakersfield have expanded, however, the agriculture-related base has become less important. We are not dependent on a single customer or group of related customers for a material portion of our deposits, nor is a material portion of our loans concentrated within a single industry or group of related industries. While the amounts expended on compliance with new government and regulatory initiatives related to anti-terrorism, corporate responsibility, and customer privacy have not been insignificant, there has been no material effect upon our capital expenditures, earnings, or competitive position as a result of Federal, state, or local environmental regulation.

5

Table of Contents

Recent Developments

On December 31, 2003, the California Franchise Tax Board issued an opinion listing bank-owned REITs as potentially abusive tax shelters subject to penalties outlined in recently-enacted California laws, and stating that REIT consent dividends are not deductible for California state income tax purposes. The Company has received advice from its REIT tax advisor (a national accounting firm) that the law has not changed, and the tax opinion it received on the validity of REIT benefits still stands as issued. The Company felt it prudent, however, to reverse REIT tax benefits accrued on its income statement during 2003 and to maintain an approximate 25% reserve for the possibility that 2002 benefits might be retroactively eliminated. No assurance can be given that REIT benefits will be available in the future, or that the Company will not be assessed by the Franchise Tax Board for back taxes, penalties, and interest. However, should this occur, it is likely that many California banks with REITs, including Bank of the Sierra, will vigorously defend their position that the law was correctly interpreted when REIT tax benefits were realized. Partially offsetting the negative impact of the fourth quarter 2003 reversal of accruals for REIT-related tax benefits were tax advantages associated with an additional $3 million investment in low-income housing tax credit funds made in July of 2003, and a higher level of tax-free income generated by bank-owned life insurance relative to 2002. The tax credit investment consists of a limited partnership interest in WNC Institutional Tax Credit Fund X, California 3 L.P., and increased the Bank’s total tax credit fund investments to $7.8 million at December 31, 2003.

In the third quarter of 2003, the Company received a final liquidating dividend of $125,000 from its investment in Sphinx International, Inc. (“Sphinx”). Sphinx was formerly known as Phoenix International Ltd., Inc., a computer software company which specialized in the production and marketing of client-user software for financial institutions. In 2001, Sphinx sold substantially all of its assets (including all of its operating business) and certain of its liabilities to London Bridge Phoenix Software, Inc. A partial cash distribution was made to shareholders at that time, with the promise of potential additional distributions as the remaining contingent liabilities were resolved. The Company’s remaining $90,000 investment in Sphinx was written off in the first quarter of 2002, subsequent to the receipt a letter from Sphinx that raised doubts about the ultimate resolution of those contingent liabilities, although the Company received $359,000 in liquidating dividends from Sphinx in 2002 after that letter. In the first quarter of 2003 the Company also wrote off its $40,000 investment in California Bankers Insurance Agency, subsequent to the receipt from them of correspondence alerting the Company to their dissolution.

In the second quarter of 2003 the Company established a leasing division to provide commercial customers with an alternative to traditional loans. We offer both finance and operating lease options as defined by generally accepted accounting principles; however, internal policy stipulates that the Company will only offer leases that are treated as true leases for tax purposes. Initially, all accounting and documentation is being outsourced to Phoenix Leasing Portfolio Services, Inc., a company based in San Rafael, California. We do not expect to aggressively pursue leasing business from outside our current service areas, or from companies with which we would not otherwise do business. This business line is projected to grow to about $10 million in total volume by the end of 2004, although no assurance can be given that ending balances will not be substantially over or under this target.

The Company has formed another trust subsidiary through which we issued $15 million in additional variable-rate trust preferred securities in March 2004. This additional regulatory capital will allow the Company to stay on track with current expansion plans without any impairment of risk-based capital ratios. While current rates and underwriting fees are substantially lower than when the Company issued its first $15 million in 2001, the cost of this money is still higher than the Company would otherwise pay for shorter-term borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Bank or from brokered deposit markets. The issuance of these trust preferred securities will, therefore, likely increase the Company’s overall funding costs.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In December, 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) revised FASB Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (FIN 46). This interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, Consolidated Financial Statements, addresses consolidation by business enterprises of a variable interest entity (VIE) that posses certain characteristics. A company that holds variable interests in an entity will need to consolidate that entity if the company’s interest in the VIE is such that the company will absorb a majority of the VIE’s expected

6

Table of Contents

losses and or receive a majority of the VIE’s expected residual returns, if they occur. The Company adopted FIN 46 on December 31, 2003. Although it appears to be an unintended consequence of FIN 46, adoption of this standard required the Company to deconsolidate its investment in Sierra Capital Trust I (Trust), which was formed in connection with the issuance of trust preferred securities. In management’s opinion, the effect of deconsolidation on the Company’s financial position and results of operations was not material. In addition, management does not believe that the Company has any VIEs that would be consolidated under the provisions of FIN 46.

In July 2003, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Systems issued a supervisory letter instructing bank holding companies to continue to include trust preferred securities in their Tier 1 capital for regulatory capital purposes until notice is given to the contrary. The Federal Reserve intends to review the regulatory implications of the accounting changes resulting from FIN 46 and, if necessary or warranted, provide further appropriate guidance. There can be no assurance that the Federal Reserve will continue to allow institutions to include trust preferred securities in Tier 1 capital for regulatory capital purposes.

In December 2003, the Accounting Standards Executive Committee of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants issued Statement of Position 03-03, Accounting for Certain Loans or Debt Securities Acquired in a Transfer (SOP 03-03). This SOP addresses accounting for differences between contractual cash flows and cash flows expected to be collected from an investor’s initial investment in loans or debt securities (loans) acquired in a transfer if those differences are attributable, at least in part, to credit quality. It includes such loans acquired in purchase business combinations and applies to all nongovernmental entities, including not-for-profit organizations. This SOP does not apply to loans originated by the entity. This SOP limits the yield that may be accreted (accretable yield) to the excess of the investor’s estimate of undiscounted expected principal, interest, and other cash flows (cash flows expected at acquisition to be collected) over the investor’s initial investment in the loan. This SOP requires that the excess of contractual cash flows over cash flows expected to be collected (nonaccretable difference) not be recognized as an adjustment of yield, loss accrual, or valuation allowance. This SOP prohibits investors from displaying accretable yield and nonaccretable difference in the balance sheet. Subsequent increases in cash flows expected to be collected generally should be recognized prospectively through adjustment of the loan’s yield over its remaining life. Decreases in cash flows expected to be collected should be recognized as impairment, thereby retaining the accretable yield on the loan as adjusted.

This SOP prohibits “carrying over” or creation of valuation allowances in the initial accounting of all loans acquired in a transfer that are within the scope of this SOP. The prohibition of the valuation allowance carryover applies to the purchase of an individual loan, a pool of loans, a group of loans, and loans acquired in a purchase business combination.

This SOP is effective for loans acquired in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2004. Management has not completed its evaluation of the impact this pronouncement may have on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity. This Statement establishes standards for how an issuer classifies and measures certain financial instruments with characteristics of both liabilities and equity. It requires that an issuer classify a financial instrument that is within its scope as a liability (or an asset in some circumstances). This Statement is effective for financial instruments entered into or modified after May 31, 2003, and otherwise is effective at the beginning of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2003, except for mandatorily redeemable financial instruments of nonpublic entities. For mandatorily redeemable financial instruments of a nonpublic entity, this Statement shall be effective for existing or new contracts for fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2004. The Company adopted the provisions of this Statement on July 1, 2003 and, in management’s opinion, adoption of the Statement did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

On April 30, 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 149, Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. This Statement amends and clarifies the accounting for derivative instruments by providing guidance related to circumstances under which a contract with a net investment meets the characteristics of a derivative as discussed in SFAS No. 133. The Statement also clarifies when a derivative contains a financing component. The Statement is intended to result in more consistent reporting for derivative contracts and must be

7

Table of Contents

applied prospectively for contracts entered into or modified after June 30, 2003, except for hedging relationships designated after June 30, 2003. In management’s opinion, adoption of this Statement did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Competition

The banking business in California in general, and specifically in many of our market areas, is highly competitive with respect to virtually all products and services and has become increasingly more so in recent years. The industry continues to consolidate, and unregulated competitors have entered banking markets with products targeted at highly profitable customer segments. Many largely unregulated competitors are able to compete across geographic boundaries, and provide customers with meaningful alternatives to nearly all significant banking services and products. These competitive trends are likely to continue.

With respect to commercial bank competitors, the business is largely dominated by a relatively small number of major banks with many offices operating over a wide geographical area. For the combined Tulare, Kern, Fresno, and Kings county region, the four counties within which the Company operates, the top six institutions are all multi-billion dollar banks that control a combined 62.0% of deposit market share based on June 30, 2003 FDIC market share data. Bank of the Sierra, the largest independent community bank on the list, is seventh with a 4.1% share of aggregate deposits. In Tulare County, however, where the Bank was originally formed and has the largest number of branches, we rank third with 13.9% of total deposits, behind Wells Fargo (27.3%) and Bank of America (18.8%). The largest portion of deposits in the combined four-county area belongs to Bank of America, with 23.7%, while Wells Fargo is second with 17.0%, and Washington Mutual comes in third with 9.17%. Union Bank of California, Citibank, and Fremont Investment & Loan round out the top six. These banks have, among other advantages, the ability to finance wide-ranging and effective advertising campaigns and to allocate their resources to regions of highest yield and demand. They also have the ability to offer certain services that we do not offer directly but may offer indirectly through correspondent institutions. By virtue of their greater total capitalization, these banks also have substantially higher lending limits than do smaller community banks. For customers whose needs exceed our legal lending limit, we attempt to arrange for loans on a participation basis with other banks.

In addition to other banks, our competitors include savings institutions, credit unions, and numerous non-banking institutions such as finance companies, leasing companies, insurance companies, brokerage firms, and investment banking firms. In recent years, increased competition has also developed from specialized finance and non-finance companies that offer wholesale finance, credit card, and other consumer finance services, including on-line banking services and personal financial software. Strong competition for deposit and loan products affects the rates of those products as well as the terms on which they are offered to customers. Mergers between financial institutions have placed additional pressure on banks within the industry to streamline their operations, reduce expenses, and increase revenues to remain competitive. Competition has also intensified due to federal and state interstate banking laws enacted in the mid-1990’s, which permit banking organizations to expand into other states, and the relatively large and expanding California market has been particularly attractive to out-of-state institutions. The Financial Modernization Act, which became effective March 11, 2000, has made it possible for full affiliations to occur between banks and securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial companies, and has also intensified competitive conditions.

Our credit card business is subject to an even higher level of competitive pressure than our general banking business. There are a number of major banks and credit card issuers that are able to finance highly visible and extremely successful advertising campaigns with which community banks generally do not have the resources to compete. As a result, our credit card accounts and outstanding balances are likely to increase at a slower rate than for nationwide issuers. Additional competition comes from many non-financial institutions, such as retailers that offer credit cards.

Technological innovations have also resulted in increased competition in financial services markets. Such innovation has, for example, made it possible for non-depository institutions to offer customers automated transfer payment services that previously were considered traditional banking products. In addition, many customers now expect a choice of delivery channels, including telephone, mail, home computer, ATMs, self-service branches, and/or in-store branches. Competitors offering such products include traditional banks as well as savings associations, credit unions, brokerage firms, money market and other mutual funds, asset management groups, finance and insurance companies, internet-only financial intermediaries, and mortgage banking firms.

8

Table of Contents

For many years we have countered rising competition by providing a broad array of products accompanied by our own style of community-oriented, personalized service. We rely on local promotional activity, personal contacts by our officers, directors, employees, and shareholders, and individualized service provided through our flexible policies. This approach appears to be well-received by the populace of the San Joaquin Valley, who appreciate a high-touch, customer-oriented environment in which to conduct their financial transactions. Other competitive advantages include our retention of drive-up teller windows, which have been eliminated by much of the competition, and our “preferred lender” or “PLP” status with the Small Business Administration, which enables us to approve SBA loans faster than many of our competitors. Layered on top of the Company’s traditional personal-contact banking philosophy are sophisticated telephone banking, internet banking, and online bill payment capabilities, which were implemented to meet the needs of customers with electronic access requirements and provide automated 24-hour banking. This high-tech and high-touch approach allows individuals to customize their access to the Company to their particular preference.

Employees

As of December 31, 2003 the Company had 243 full-time and 110 part-time employees. On a full time equivalent basis, the Company’s staffing stood at 326 at December 31, 2003, as compared to 311 at December 31, 2002. Staff was added during 2003 for the new office in Fresno, to provide resources in order to maintain satisfactory customer service in growth areas, and to enhance business development activities in certain markets. Our employees are not represented by a union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Management of the Company believes its employee relations are satisfactory.

Regulation and Supervision

The Company and the Bank are subject to significant regulation by federal and state regulatory agencies. The following discussion of statutes and regulations is only a brief summary and does not purport to be complete. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations. No assurance can be given that such statutes or regulations will not change in the future.

The Company

The Company’s stock is traded on Nasdaq under the symbol BSRR, and as such the Company is subject to Nasdaq rules and regulations including those related to corporate governance. The Company is also subject to the periodic reporting requirements of Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) which requires the Company to file annual, quarterly and other current reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Company is subject to additional regulations including, but not limited to, the proxy and tender offer rules promulgated by the SEC under Sections 13 and 14 of the Exchange Act; the reporting requirements of directors, executive officers and principal shareholders regarding transactions in the Company’s Common Stock and short-swing profits rules promulgated by the SEC under Section 16 of the Exchange Act; and certain additional reporting requirements by principal shareholders of the Company promulgated by the SEC under Section 13 of the Exchange Act.

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and is registered as such with the Federal Reserve Board. A bank holding company is required to file with the Federal Reserve Board annual reports and other information regarding its business operations and those of its subsidiaries. It is also subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve Board and is required to obtain Federal Reserve Board approval before acquiring, directly or indirectly, ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank if, after such acquisition, it would directly or indirectly own or control more than 5% of the voting stock of that bank, unless it already owns a majority of the voting stock of that bank.

The Federal Reserve Board has by regulation determined certain activities in which a bank holding company may or may not conduct business. A bank holding company must engage, with certain exceptions, in the business of banking or managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiary banks. The permissible activities and affiliations of certain bank holding companies were expanded in 2000 by the Financial Modernization Act. (See “Financial Modernization Act” below.)

9

Table of Contents

The Company and the Bank are deemed to be affiliates of each other within the meaning set forth in the Federal Reserve Act and are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. This means, for example, that there are limitations on loans by the Bank to affiliates, and that all affiliate transactions must satisfy certain limitations and otherwise be on terms and conditions at least as favorable to the Bank as would be available for non-affiliates.

The Federal Reserve Board has a policy that bank holding companies must serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. It is the Federal Reserve Bank’s position that bank holding companies should stand ready to use their available resources to provide adequate capital to their subsidiary banks during periods of financial stress or adversity. Bank holding companies should also maintain the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting their subsidiary banks.

The Federal Reserve Board also has the authority to regulate bank holding company debt, including the authority to impose interest rate ceilings and reserve requirements on such debt. Under certain circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board may require The Company to file written notice and obtain its approval prior to purchasing or redeeming the Company’s equity securities.

The Bank

As a California state-chartered bank whose accounts are insured by the FDIC up to a maximum of $100,000 per depositor, the Bank is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the California Department of Financial Institutions (the “DFI”) and the FDIC. In addition, while the Bank is not a member of the Federal Reserve System, it is subject to certain regulations of the Federal Reserve Board. The regulations of these agencies govern most aspects of the Bank’s business, including the making of periodic reports by the Bank, and the Bank’s activities relating to dividends, investments, loans, borrowings, capital requirements, certain check-clearing activities, branching, mergers and acquisitions, reserves against deposits and numerous other areas. Supervision, legal action and examination of the Bank by the FDIC is generally intended to protect depositors and is not intended for the protection of shareholders.

The earnings and growth of the Bank are largely dependent on its ability to maintain a favorable differential or “spread” between the yield on its interest-earning assets and the rate paid on its deposits and other interest-bearing liabilities. As a result, the Bank’s performance is influenced by general economic conditions, both domestic and foreign, the monetary and fiscal policies of the federal government, and the policies of the regulatory agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board implements national monetary policies (such as seeking to curb inflation and combat recession) by its open-market operations in United States Government securities, by adjusting the required level of reserves for financial institutions subject to its reserve requirements and by varying the discount rate applicable to borrowings by banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. The actions of the Federal Reserve Board in these areas influence the growth of bank loans, investments and deposits and also affect interest rates charged on loans and deposits. The nature and impact of any future changes in monetary policies cannot be predicted.

Capital Adequacy Requirements

The Company and the Bank are subject to the regulations of the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, respectively, governing capital adequacy. Those regulations incorporate both risk-based and leverage capital requirements. Each of the federal regulators has established risk-based and leverage capital guidelines for the banks or bank holding companies it regulates, which set total capital requirements and define capital in terms of “core capital elements,” or Tier 1 capital; and “supplemental capital elements,” or Tier 2 capital. Tier 1 capital is generally defined as the sum of the core capital elements less goodwill and certain other deductions, notably the unrealized net gains or losses (after tax adjustments) on available for sale investment securities carried at fair market value. The following items are defined as core capital elements: (i) common shareholders’ equity; (ii) qualifying non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus (not to exceed 25% of tier 1 capital); and (iii) minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries. Of the Company’s Tier 1 capital at December 31, 2003, $15 million, or approximately

10

Table of Contents

22%, consisted of Trust Preferred Securities. However, no assurance can be given that Trust Preferred Securities will continue to be treated as Tier 1 capital in the future. Tier 2 capital can include: (i) allowance for loan and lease losses (but not more than 1.25% of an institution’s risk-weighted assets); (ii) perpetual preferred stock and related surplus not qualifying as core capital; (iii) hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt instruments; and (iv) term subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock and related surplus (but not more than 50% of Tier 1 capital). The maximum amount of Tier 2 capital that may be recognized for risk-based capital purposes is limited to 100% of Tier 1 capital, net of goodwill.

The minimum required ratio of qualifying total capital to total risk-weighted assets is 8.0% (“Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio”), at least one-half of which must be in the form of Tier 1 capital, and the minimum required ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets is 4.0% (“Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio”). Risk-based capital ratios are calculated to provide a measure of capital that reflects the degree of risk associated with a banking organization’s operations for both transactions reported on the balance sheet as assets, and transactions, such as letters of credit and recourse arrangements, which are recorded as off-balance sheet items. Under the risk-based capital guidelines, the nominal dollar amounts of assets and credit-equivalent amounts of off-balance sheet items are multiplied by one of several risk adjustment percentages, which range from 0% for assets with low credit risk, such as certain U. S. Treasury securities, to 100% for assets with relatively high credit risk, such as business loans. As of December 31, 2003 and 2002, the Bank’s Total Risk-Based Capital Ratios were 10.15% and 10.99%, respectively, and its Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratios were 9.17% and 9.92%. As of December 31, 2003 and 2002, the Company’s Total Risk-Based Capital Ratios were 10.88% and 11.98%, respectively, and its Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratios were 9.90% and 10.91%.

The risk-based capital requirements also take into account concentrations of credit (i.e., relatively large proportions of loans involving one borrower, industry, location, collateral or loan type) and the risks of “non-traditional” activities (those that have not customarily been part of the banking business). The regulations require institutions with high or inordinate levels of risk to operate with higher minimum capital standards, and authorize the regulators to review an institution’s management of such risks in assessing an institution’s capital adequacy.

Additionally, the risk-based capital regulations include exposure to interest rate risk as a factor that the regulators will consider in evaluating a bank’s capital adequacy. Interest rate risk is the exposure of a bank’s current and future earnings and equity capital arising from adverse movements in interest rates. While interest risk is inherent in a bank’s role as financial intermediary, it introduces volatility to earnings and to the economic value of the bank.

The FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board also require the maintenance of a leverage capital ratio designed to supplement risk-based capital guidelines. Banks and bank holding companies that have received the highest rating of the five categories used by regulators to rate banks and are not anticipating or experiencing any significant growth must maintain a ratio of Tier 1 capital (net of all intangibles) to adjusted total assets (“Leverage Capital Ratio”) of at least 3%. All other institutions are required to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 100 to 200 basis points above the 3% minimum, for a minimum of 4% to 5%. Pursuant to federal regulations, banks must maintain capital levels commensurate with the level of risk to which they are exposed, including the volume and severity of problem loans, and federal regulators may, however, set higher capital requirements when a bank’s particular circumstances warrant. The Bank’s Leverage Capital Ratios were 8.20% and 8.17% on December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. As of December 31, 2003 and 2002, the Company’s leverage capital ratios were 8.87% and 8.99%, exceeding regulatory minimums.

For more information on the Company’s capital, see Part II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Capital Resources. Risk-based capital ratio requirements are discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Prompt Corrective Action Provisions

Federal law requires each federal banking agency to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured financial institutions, including but not limited to those that fall below one or more prescribed minimum capital ratios. The federal banking agencies have by regulation defined the following five capital categories: “well capitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 10%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 6%; and Leverage Ratio of

11

Table of Contents

5%); “adequately capitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 8%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 4%; and Leverage Ratio of 4%, or 3% if the institution receives the highest rating from its primary regulator); “undercapitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 8%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 4%; or Leverage Ratio of less than 4%, or 3% if the institution receives the highest rating from its primary regulator); “significantly undercapitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 6%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 3%; or Leverage Ratio less than 3%); and “critically undercapitalized” (tangible equity to total assets less than 2%). As of December 31, 2003 and 2002, the Bank was deemed to be well capitalized for regulatory capital purposes. A bank may be treated as though it were in the next lower capital category if after notice and the opportunity for a hearing, the appropriate federal agency finds an unsafe or unsound condition or practice so warrants, but no bank may be treated as “critically undercapitalized” unless its actual capital ratio warrants such treatment.

At each successively lower capital category, an insured bank is subject to increased restrictions on its operations. For example, a bank is generally prohibited from paying management fees to any controlling persons or from making capital distributions if to do so would make the bank “undercapitalized.” Asset growth and branching restrictions apply to undercapitalized banks, which are required to submit written capital restoration plans meeting specified requirements (including a guarantee by the parent holding company, if any). “Significantly undercapitalized” banks are subject to broad regulatory authority, including among other things, capital directives, forced mergers, restrictions on the rates of interest they may pay on deposits, restrictions on asset growth and activities, and prohibitions on paying certain bonuses without FDIC approval. Even more severe restrictions apply to critically undercapitalized banks. Most importantly, except under limited circumstances, not later than 90 days after an insured bank becomes critically undercapitalized, the appropriate federal banking agency is required to appoint a conservator or receiver for the bank.

In addition to measures taken under the prompt corrective action provisions, insured banks may be subject to potential actions by the federal regulators for unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their businesses or for violations of any law, rule, regulation or any condition imposed in writing by the agency or any written agreement with the agency. Enforcement actions may include the issuance of cease and desist orders, termination of insurance of deposits (in the case of a bank), the imposition of civil money penalties, the issuance of directives to increase capital, formal and informal agreements, or removal and prohibition orders against “institution-affiliated” parties.

Safety and Soundness Standards

The federal banking agencies have also adopted guidelines establishing safety and soundness standards for all insured depository institutions. Those guidelines relate to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan underwriting and documentation, compensation and interest rate exposure. In general, the standards are designed to assist the federal banking agencies in identifying and addressing problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. If an institution fails to meet these standards, the appropriate federal banking agency may require the institution to submit a compliance plan and institute enforcement proceedings if an acceptable compliance plan is not submitted.

Premiums for Deposit Insurance

The FDIC regulations also implement a risk-based premium system, whereby insured depository institutions are required to pay insurance premiums depending on their risk classification. Under this system, insured banks are categorized into one of three capital categories (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, and undercapitalized) and one of three supervisory categories based on federal regulatory evaluations. The three supervisory categories are: financially sound with only a few minor weaknesses (Group A), demonstrates weaknesses that could result in significant deterioration (Group B), and poses a substantial probability of loss (Group C). The capital ratios used by the FDIC to define well capitalized, adequately capitalized and undercapitalized are the same in the FDIC’s prompt corrective action regulations. The current base assessment rates (expressed as cents per $100 of deposits) are summarized as follows:

12

Table of Contents

In addition, banks must pay an amount toward the retirement of the Financing Corporation bonds issued in the 1980’s to assist in the recovery of the savings and loan industry. This amount fluctuates but for the first quarter of 2004 is 1.54 cents per $100 of insured deposits.

Community Reinvestment Act

The Bank is subject to certain requirements under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”). The CRA generally requires federal banking agencies to evaluate the record of a financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. The CRA further requires the agencies to consider a financial institution’s efforts in meeting its community credit needs when evaluating applications for, among other things, domestic branches, consummating mergers or acquisitions, or holding company formations. In measuring a bank’s compliance with its CRA obligations, the regulators utilize a performance-based evaluation system. They determine CRA ratings based on the bank’s actual lending, service and investment activities, rather than on the extent to which the institution conducts needs assessments, documents community outreach activities or complies with other procedural requirements. In connection with its assessment of CRA performance, the FDIC assigns a rating of “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve” or “substantial noncompliance.” The Bank was last examined for CRA compliance in June 2001 when it received a “satisfactory” CRA Assessment Rating.

Other Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations

The bank regulatory agencies are increasingly focusing attention on compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations. Examination and enforcement has become intense, and banks have been advised to carefully monitor compliance with various consumer protection laws and regulations. The federal Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending issued a policy statement on discrimination in home mortgage lending describing three methods that federal agencies will use to prove discrimination: overt evidence of discrimination, evidence of disparate treatment, and evidence of disparate impact. In addition to CRA and fair lending requirements, the Bank is subject to numerous other federal consumer protection statutes and regulations. Due to heightened regulatory concern related to compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations generally, the Bank may incur additional compliance costs or be required to expend additional funds for investments in the local communities it serves.

Interstate Banking and Branching

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (the “Interstate Banking Act”) regulates the interstate activities of banks and bank holding companies and establishes a framework for nationwide interstate banking and branching. Since June 1, 1997, a bank in one state has generally been permitted to merge with a bank in another state without the need for explicit state law authorization. However, states were given the ability to prohibit interstate mergers with banks in their own state by “opting-out” (enacting state legislation applying equality to all out-of-state banks prohibiting such mergers ) prior to June 1, 1997.

Since 1995, adequately capitalized and managed bank holding companies have been permitted to acquire banks located in any state, subject to two exceptions: first, any state may still prohibit bank holding companies from acquiring a bank which is less than five years old; and second, no interstate acquisition can be consummated by a bank holding company if the acquirer would control more than 10% of the deposits held by insured depository institutions nationwide or 30% percent or more of the deposits held by insured depository institutions in any state in which the target bank has branches.

A bank may establish and operate de novo branches in any state in which the bank does not maintain a branch if that state has enacted legislation to expressly permit all out-of-state banks to establish branches in that state.

13

Table of Contents

In 1995 California enacted legislation to implement important provisions of the Interstate Banking Act discussed above and to repeal California’s previous interstate banking laws, which were largely preempted by the Interstate Banking Act.

The changes effected by Interstate Banking Act and California laws have increased competition in the environment in which the Bank operates to the extent that out-of-state financial institutions directly or indirectly enter the Bank’s market areas. It appears that the Interstate Banking Act has contributed to the accelerated consolidation of the banking industry.

Financial Modernization Act

Effective March 11, 2000 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act eliminated most barriers to affiliations among banks and securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial service providers, and enabled full affiliations to occur between such entities. This legislation permits bank holding companies to become “financial holding companies” and thereby acquire securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature. A bank holding company may become a financial holding company if each of its subsidiary banks is well capitalized under the FDICIA prompt corrective action provisions, is well managed, and has at least a satisfactory rating under the CRA by filing a declaration that the bank holding company wishes to become a financial holding company. No regulatory approval will be required for a financial holding company to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature, as determined by the Federal Reserve Board. The Company has no current intention of becoming a financial holding company, but may do at some point in the future if deemed appropriate in view of opportunities or circumstances at the time.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act defines “financial in nature” to include securities underwriting, dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities; and activities that the Board has determined to be closely related to banking. A national bank (and therefore, a state bank as well) may also engage, subject to limitations on investment, in activities that are financial in nature, other than insurance underwriting, insurance company portfolio investment, real estate development and real estate investment, through a financial subsidiary of the bank, if the bank is well capitalized, well managed and has at least a satisfactory CRA rating. Subsidiary banks of a financial holding company or national banks with financial subsidiaries must continue to be well capitalized and well managed in order to continue to engage in activities that are financial in nature without regulatory actions or restrictions, which could include divestiture of the financial in nature subsidiary or subsidiaries. In addition, a financial holding company or a bank may not acquire a company that is engaged in activities that are financial in nature unless each of the subsidiary banks of the financial holding company or the bank has a CRA rating of satisfactory or better.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also imposes extensive requirements on financial institutions with respect to the privacy of customer information, and modifies other existing laws, including those related to community reinvestment.

USA Patriot Act of 2001

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”). Enacted in response to the terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, the Patriot Act is intended to strengthen the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies and intelligence communities to work cohesively to combat terrorism on a variety of fronts. The impact of the Act on financial institutions of all kinds is significant and wide ranging. The Act contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and requires various regulations applicable to financial institutions, including:

14

Table of Contents

The Company has incorporated the requirements of the Patriot Act into its operating procedures, and while these requirements have resulted in an additional time burden the financial impact on the Company is difficult to quantify.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOA”) was enacted to increase corporate responsibility, to provide for enhanced penalties for accounting and auditing improprieties at publicly traded companies, and to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures pursuant to the securities laws. The SOA generally applies to all companies, both U.S. and non-U.S., that file or are required to file periodic reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including the Company.

The SOA includes very specific additional disclosure requirements and new corporate governance rules, requires the SEC and securities exchanges to adopt extensive additional disclosure, corporate governance and other related rules and mandates further studies of specified issues by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller General. The SOA represents significant federal involvement in matters traditionally left to state regulatory systems, such as the regulation of the accounting profession, and to state corporate law, such as the relationship between a board of directors and management and between a board of directors and its committees. The SOA contains provisions which became effective upon enactment on July 30, 2002 and provisions which became effective from within 30 days to one year from enactment. The Securities and Exchange Commission has promulgated regulations to implement various provisions of the SOA, including additional disclosure requirements in periodic filings under the Exchange Act. The Company has revised its internal policies and Exchange Act disclosures to comply with these new requirements.

Other Pending and Proposed Legislation

Other legislative and regulatory initiatives which could affect the Company, the Bank and the banking industry in general are pending, and additional initiatives may be proposed or introduced before the United States Congress, the California legislature and other governmental bodies in the future. Such proposals, if enacted, may further alter the structure, regulation and competitive relationship among financial institutions, and may subject the Bank to increased regulation, disclosure and reporting requirements. In addition, the various banking regulatory agencies often adopt new rules and regulations to implement and enforce existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether, or in what form, any such legislation or regulations may be enacted or the extent to which the business of the Company or the Bank would be affected thereby.

RISK FACTORS

Statements and financial discussion and analysis by management contained throughout this report that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from forward-looking statements herein include, without limitation, the factors set forth below.

Poor Economic Conditions in Our Market Areas May Cause Us to Suffer Higher Default Rates on Our Loans and Leases. A substantial majority of our assets and deposits are generated in the San Joaquin Valley in central California. As a result, poor economic conditions in the San Joaquin Valley could cause us to incur losses associated with higher default rates and decreased collateral values in our loan portfolio. The local economy currently appears to be experiencing a moderate expansion, and while the Company expects continued improvement, no assurance can be given that this will occur.

The San Joaquin Valley has not experienced the same type of growth that has historically occurred in other areas of California, especially those where high-tech industries have taken hold. While this fact minimized the negative impact of the recent technology-related downturn, unemployment levels are still relatively high. In the Visalia-Tulare-Porterville Metropolitan Statistical Area (“MSA”), for example, which is our geographic center and the base of our

15

Table of Contents

agriculturally oriented communities, the unemployment rate has averaged around 15.5% for the past four years. While unemployment levels remain relatively high in all of the Company’s markets, in recent years some areas in the south and central San Joaquin Valley have experienced substantial commercial growth. The area’s relatively inexpensive real estate and central proximity to both Southern and Northern California have attracted a growing number of warehouse and distribution facilities, as well as manufacturing, health, and other service companies. The low cost of housing has also drawn retirees from more expensive areas of California.

Poor Economic Conditions Affecting the Agricultural Industry Could Have an Adverse Effect on Our Customers and Their Ability to Make Payments to Us. The Company’s balance of non-performing assets is relatively high due in large part to persistent agricultural difficulties. Furthermore, a sizable portion of our total loan portfolio consists of loans to borrowers either directly or indirectly involved in the agricultural industry. While a great number of our borrowers may not be individually involved in agriculture, many of the jobs in the San Joaquin Valley are ancillary to the regular production, processing, marketing and sales of agricultural commodities. The ripple effect of lower commodity prices for milk, nuts, olives, grapes, tree fruit and oranges has a tendency to spread to lower land prices, lower borrower income, and lower collateral values. Weather patterns in particular are of critical importance to row crop, tree fruit, and orange production. A degenerative cycle of weather and commodity prices can impact consumer purchasing power, which has the potential to create further unemployment throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Global competition is another significant issue affecting the agricultural industry. Because of increased global competition and other factors, excess supply and low prices currently characterize the markets for many agricultural products. If current agricultural conditions do not improve, our level of non-performing assets could increase further. Such conditions have affected and may continue to adversely affect our borrower base and negatively impact our business.

Concentrations of Real Estate Loans Could Subject Us to Increased Risks in the Event of a Real Esate Recession or Natural Disaster. Our loan portfolio is heavily concentrated in real estate loans, particularly commercial real estate. At December 31, 2003, 70.6% of our loan portfolio consisted of loans secured by real estate. Between the end of 1999 and the end of 2003, our loans secured by commercial/professional office properties (including construction and development loans) increased from 35.9% to 50.2% of total loans, while loans secured by residential properties have decreased form 23.3% to 16.2%. In the early 1990’s, the entire state of California experienced an economic recession that particularly impacted real estate values and resulted in increases in the level of delinquencies and losses for many financial institutions. Much of our market area seems to have been insulated from the significant fluctuations in real estate prices experienced by other parts of California over the past few decades. However, if a similar real estate recession affects our market areas in the future, the security for many of our loans could be reduced in value and the ability of some of our borrowers to pay could decline. Similarly, the occurrence of a natural disaster like those California has experienced in the past, including earthquakes, brush fires, and flooding, could impair the value of the collateral we hold for real estate secured loans and negatively impact our results of operations.

We May Have Difficulty Managing Our Growth. Management intends to leverage the Company’s current infrastructure to grow assets, and one to two new branches per year are also tentatively planned, although no assurance can be provided that this strategy will result in significant growth. Our ability to manage growth will depend primarily on our ability to: