GUARANTY BANCSHARES INC /TX/ - 10-K Annual Report

Back to GetFilings.com

FINANCIAL INFORMATION 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K

Part I

Item 1.	Business	- 3 -
Item 2.	Properties	- 14 -
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	- 14 -
Item 4.	Submission of Matters to Vote of Security Holders	- 15 -



Part II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Shareholder Matters	- 15 -
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	- 17 -
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation	- 19 -
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	- 41 -
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	- 43 -
Item 9.	Changes and Disagreements with Accountants	- 44 -
Item 9A	Controls and Procedures	- 45 -



Part III

Item 10.	Directors and Executive Officers	- 45 -
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	- 45 -
Item 12.	Security Ownership	- 45 -
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions	- 45 -
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	- 45 -



Part IV

Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K	- 46 -
Independent Auditors’ Reports		- F-2 -
Consolidated Balance Sheets		- F-3 -
Consolidated Statements of Earnings		- F-4 -
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity		- F-5 -
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		- F-6 -
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements		- F-7 -

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

x	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
	OR
o	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 0-23113

GUARANTY BANCSHARES, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Texas		75-1656431
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S.Employer Identification Number)

100 West Arkansas		75455
Mount Pleasant, Texas		(Zip Code)
(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(903) 572-9881

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

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

Common Stock, par value
$1.00 per share

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 whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark 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. o

As of February 17, 2004, the number of outstanding shares of Common Stock was 2,921,928. As of June 30, 2003, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the shares of Common Stock held by non-affiliates, based on the closing price of the Common Stock on the Nasdaq National Market System on such date, was approximately $24.6 million.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:

Portions of the Company’s Proxy Statement relating to the 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which will be filed within 120 days after December 31, 2003, are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10-14 of this Form 10-K.

PART I

SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

Statements and financial discussion and analysis contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K 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 describe the Company’s future plans, strategies and expectations, are based on assumptions and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control. The important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements include, without limitation:

	•	changes in interest rates and market prices, which could reduce the Company’s net interest margins, asset valuations and expense expectations;

	•	changes in the levels of loan prepayments and the resulting effects on the value of the Company’s loan portfolio;

	•	changes in local economic and business conditions which adversely affect the Company’s customers and their ability to transact profitable business with the Company, including the ability of its borrowers to repay their loans according to their terms or a change in the value of the related collateral;

	•	increased competition for deposits and loans adversely affecting rates and terms;

	•	the timing, impact and other uncertainties of the Company’s potential future acquisitions, including the Company’s ability to identify suitable future acquisition candidates, the success or failure in the integration of their operations, and the Company’s ability to enter new markets successfully and capitalize on growth opportunities;

	•	increased credit risk in the Company’s assets and increased operating risk caused by a material change in commercial, consumer and/or real estate loans as a percentage of the total loan portfolio;

	•	the failure of assumptions underlying the establishment of and provisions made to the allowance for loan losses;

	•	changes in the availability of funds resulting in increased costs or reduced liquidity;

	•	changes in the Company’s ability to pay dividends on its Common Stock;

	•	increased asset levels and changes in the composition of assets and the resulting impact on the Company’s capital levels and regulatory capital ratios;

	•	the Company’s ability to acquire, operate and maintain cost effective and efficient systems without incurring unexpectedly difficult or expensive but necessary technological changes;

	•	the loss of senior management or operating personnel and the potential inability to hire qualified personnel at reasonable compensation levels;

	•	the effects of the Internal Revenue Service’s examination regarding the Company’s leveraged leasing transactions;

	•	changes in economic and business conditions which would adversely affect the value of the Aircraft Finance Trust (“AFT”), and cause the Company to not fully realize its current investment in AFT; and,

•

changes in status of government regulations or their interpretations applicable to bank holding companies and the Company’s present and future banking and other subsidiaries, including changes in tax requirements and tax rates.

All written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to the Company are expressly qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements.

Item 1. Business

General

Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) was incorporated as a business corporation under the laws of the State of Texas in 1980 to serve as a holding company for Guaranty Bond Bank, formally known as Guaranty Bank, (the “Bank”), which was chartered in 1913, and for Talco State Bank, which was chartered in 1912 and merged into the Bank in 1997. The Company’s headquarters are located at 100 West Arkansas, Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455, and its telephone number is (903) 572-9881.

The Company has grown through a combination of internal growth, the acquisition of community banks and the opening of new community banking offices. In 1992, the Company established its Deport, Texas location by acquiring certain assets and liabilities of the First National Bank of Deport (the “Deport Bank”). The Deport Bank also had a branch in Paris, Texas, which the Company acquired. To enhance its expansion into the Paris community, in 1994 the Company constructed a new facility to serve as its Paris location. In 2001, the Paris facility was expanded from approximately 5,400 square feet to approximately 9,700 square feet, again to service the expanded customer base. In 1993, the Company purchased a commercial bank in Bogata, Texas and in 1996 opened a second retail-service banking facility in Mount Pleasant. In 1997, the Company merged Talco State Bank into the Bank and opened a full-service location in Texarkana. Texarkana is the center of a trade area encompassing approximately 130,000 people. Management of the Company continues to believe that this trade area provides opportunity for strong growth in loans and deposits. Texas Highway 59 (scheduled to become Interstate 69), which serves as the primary “NAFTA Highway” linking the interior United States and Mexico, is a main artery to Texarkana. The increased traffic along this NAFTA Highway is expected to enhance economic activity in this area and create more opportunities for growth. In 1998, the Company completed a new facility in Texarkana to enhance its expansion in the Texarkana market. In 1999, the Company opened a full-service location in Pittsburg, Texas, a community of approximately 4,500 people located 12 miles from Mount Pleasant. Also in 1999, the Company acquired the First American Financial Corporation, (“First American”), with locations in Sulphur Springs and Commerce, Texas. The Company also acquired First American’s wholly owned mortgage company. In 2000, the operations of the mortgage subsidiary, which were being continued by the Company under the name Guaranty Mortgage Company, were merged into the Bank. Also in August 2000, the Company was granted approval by the Texas Department of Banking to open a loan production office in Fort Stockton, Texas, located in the western portion of Texas, which became a full-service bank in December of 2000. As of December 31, 2003, product offerings at the Fort Stockton location are limited to loans and time deposits.

The Company has developed a community-banking network, with most of its offices located in separate communities. Lending and investment activities are funded from a strong core deposit base consisting of approximately 40,000 deposit accounts as of December 31, 2003. Each of the Company’s offices has the authority and flexibility to make pricing decisions within overall ranges developed by the Company as a form of quality control. Management of the Company believes that its responsiveness to local customers and ability to adjust deposit rates and price loans at each location gives it a distinct competitive advantage. Employees are committed to personal service and developing long-term customer relationships, and adequate staffing is provided at each location to ensure that customers’ needs are well addressed. The Company provides economic incentives to its officers to develop additional business for the Company and to cross-sell additional products and services to existing customers.

The Company continues to look for additional expansion opportunities, either through acquisitions of existing financial institutions or by establishing de novo offices. The Company intends to consider various strategic acquisitions of banks, banking assets or financial service entities related to banking in those areas that management

believes would complement and help grow the Company’s existing business. The Company is particularly optimistic about the growth potential in the Texarkana, Sulphur Springs, Paris, and Mount Pleasant market areas.

The national, regional and local economies have experienced a slight deterioration, but have shown signs of improvement, though at a slow pace. While this deterioration has had a negative affect on the Bank’s earnings and growth, management believes the Bank is well positioned to weather this event and get back into its growth pattern in 2004.

The Bank owns interests in five entities which complement the Company’s business, the first three of which are wholly-owned: (i) Guaranty Leasing Company (“Guaranty Leasing”), which finances equipment leases and has engaged in certain leveraged lease transactions; (ii) Guaranty Company, which owns real estate for future Bank expansion; (iii) GB Com, Inc., a nominee company; (iv) BSC Securities, L.C. (“BSC”), which provides brokerage services; and, (v) Independent Bank Services, L.C. (“IBS”), which performs compliance, loan review, internal audit and EDP audit functions. These entities are accounted for in the Bank’s financial statements using the equity method of accounting and are included in other assets on the balance sheet.

Business

The Company’s guiding strategy is to increase shareholder value by providing customers with individualized, responsive, quality service and to augment its existing market share. The Company’s main objective is to increase loans and deposits through additional expansion opportunities in Texas, while stressing efficiency and maximizing profitability. In furtherance of this objective, the Company has employed the following operating strategies:

Focus On Community Banking. The Company has developed a reputation of being a premier provider of financial services to small and medium-sized businesses, professionals and individuals in Northeast Texas. Management believes the Company’s reputation for providing personal, professional and dependable service is well established in communities located in this area. Each of the Company’s full-service branch locations is administered by a local President with knowledge of the community and lending expertise in the specific industries found in the community, whether it is agriculture, manufacturing and commerce or professional services. Decisions regarding loans are made at each location in a timely manner.

Controlled Core Growth. Prior to 2003, the Company had increased its market share in each of the communities in which it maintains a full-service banking center. In 2003, the Company experienced a decrease in time deposits due to accounts seeking alternative reinvestments caused by the historic low interest rate environment. Other types of accounts such as checking, money market and savings, experienced growth in volume and dollars. In its principal location of Mount Pleasant, the Company’s market share of financial institution deposits, based on the FDIC Deposit Market Share data as of June 30, 2003, was approximately 42.5%, the largest single financial institution in that market. This same report showed gains in market share with total market share for the Commerce location at 4.95%, Pittsburg at 10.82%, Sulphur Springs at 15.43%, Paris at 11.91%, and Bogata at 12.31%. The Company is well known in its geographic area as a result of its longevity and reputation for service. The Company intends to continue to grow by seeking strategic acquisitions and branching opportunities as well as servicing its existing customer base.

Leadership Technology. The Company has embraced technological change as a way to remain competitive, manage operational costs associated with growth and offer superior products to its customers. Recent technological implements include mailroom automation, Voice-Over-IP telephony, and Internet Banking enhancements. This adds to our existing electronic bill and note payment, note and document imaging, electronic report management, remote proof capture, electronic statement delivery, and an automated voice response system. Currently, the Company is evaluating several additional enhancements that will improve its ability to deliver information internally to improve productivity and externally to provide convenience and timeliness to its growing customer base. Such enhancements include consolidation of various accounting systems the Bank uses, implementation of a new “Check 21” compatible teller system and electronic check/image presentment. The Company has made significant investments in technology, and has become a technological leader in its market.

Offer Competitive Products. The Company recognizes its competition is not solely banks, but brokerage houses, insurance companies, credit unions and various other competitors, and that in order to thrive it must be

competitive in the products that it offers. The Company offers a full range of commercial loan products, including term loans, lines of credit, fixed asset loans, real estate loans and working capital loans. The Company also offers consumers a full range of personal loan products including automobile loans, home improvement loans, consumer loans and mortgage loans. The Company also has a wide variety of deposit products, including a Premier Money Market Account that pays a rate competitive with most brokerage investment accounts. This product, coupled with certificates of deposit, NOW accounts, savings accounts, Internet banking, free checking, debit cards and overdraft protection, gives the customer a full complement of deposit products at competitive rates.

Expand Revenue Sources. In order to provide service to its customers and to augment revenues, the Company offers brokerage services through BSC, a full-service brokerage company. BSC offers a complete array of investment options including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, financial and retirement planning, tax advantaged investments and asset allocations. BSC offers securities through Southwest Securities, a Texas-based independent clearing firm and is licensed and regulated through the National Association of Securities Dealers, the Securities and Exchange Commission and various state and federal banking authorities. The Company’s Trust Department offers complete trust services, including estate administration and custody, trust and asset management services. Management believes that an aging affluent population will foster an increase in the need for professional estate administration services. The maturing of the baby boomer generation is creating a market for asset management services. The Trust Department is in a unique position since there is little competition for trust services in the Company’s markets. Because of the Company’s strong presence in its markets, management believes that banking relationships can be leveraged into growth for the Trust Department. In 2003, Trust Department assets under management increased $20.3 million, or 71%. Growth in trust assets and corresponding management fees will result from expanding estate administration, traditional trust services, asset management services and custodial services in the Company’s markets.

Improve Operating Efficiencies. In order to control overhead expenses, the Company seeks to provide a full range of services as effectively as possible. Through BSC, the Company is able to provide its customers with full brokerage services without having to carry the entire cost itself due to a shared cost agreement with other banks. Similarly, the Company enjoys the compliance and loan review functions provided by IBS on a shared cost basis with a group of other banks participating in this arrangement. The Company has spent the last ten years and considerable revenue expanding its market and improving the delivery of its financial products, which has resulted in a higher than desired efficiency ratio. Beginning with the acquisition of the Deport Bank in 1992, the Company has added ten locations. As a result, it has taken longer for the Company to achieve the desired economies of scale, but with its growth rate, those economies are beginning to be realized and the efficiency ratio is expected to show improving trends in the future. The Company has the support staff and related fixed asset investments to accommodate additional growth and enjoy additional economies of scale.

Training. An effective training program is critical to the Company’s success. The rapid growth experienced by the Company, changes in technology, changes in bank regulations, and staff development all contribute to the need for a strong training program. To this end, the Human Resource Manager has developed a formalized training program that focuses on technology, compliance, and operations. In addition, more programs are scheduled to come online in 2004 that target the heart of the Company’s business sales and service.

Competition

The banking business is highly competitive, and the profitability of the Company depends principally on the Company’s ability to compete in the market areas in which its banking operations are located. The Company competes with other commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage and investment banking firms, asset-based non-bank lenders and certain other non-financial entities, including retail stores which may maintain their own credit programs and certain governmental organizations which may offer more favorable financing than the Company. The Company has been able to compete effectively with other financial institutions by emphasizing customer service, technology and local office decision-making, by establishing long-term customer relationships and building customer loyalty, and by providing products and services designed to address the specific needs of its customers. Competition from both financial and non-financial institutions is expected to continue.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, effective March 11, 2000, securities firms and insurance companies that elect to become financial holding companies may acquire banks and other financial institutions. See “-

Supervision and Regulation – The Company”. The financial services industry is also likely to become even more competitive as further technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services. These technological advances may diminish the importance of depository institutions and other financial intermediaries in the transfer of funds between parties.

Leveraged Lease Transactions

In a series of transactions in 1992, 1994 and 1995, Guaranty Leasing acquired limited partnership interests in three different partnerships (collectively, the “Partnerships” or individually, a “Partnership”) engaged in the equipment leasing business. The investments were structured by TransCapital Corporation (“TransCapital”) through various subsidiaries and controlled partnerships.

Generally, in each of the transactions the Partnership became the lessee of equipment from an equipment owner (pursuant to a sale and leaseback transaction) and the sublessor of the equipment to the equipment user. Each Partnership receives note payments from the equipment owner under a purchase money note given to purchase the equipment from that Partnership. The Partnership makes lease payments to the equipment owner pursuant to the master lease of the equipment. In most instances, payments under the purchase money note equals lease payments under the master lease. Rental payments from the equipment used under these equipment subleases were sold in advance subject to existing liens for purchase of the equipment.

The Partnership incurs a tax loss while the master lease/sublease structure is in place, primarily because deductions for rentals paid under the master lease exceed taxable interest income under the purchase money note. Consequently, Guaranty Leasing has reported tax losses as a result of its investments in the Partnerships, which were deductible by the Company. In November 1998, Guaranty Leasing was informed by the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) that it has taken the position that certain losses taken by one of the three Partnerships during 1994, 1995 and 1996 of $302,000, $410,000 and $447,000, respectively, would be disallowed. In October 2001, Guaranty Leasing was informed by the Service that it has taken the position that certain losses taken by that Partnership during 1997 of $487,000 would also be disallowed. In September 2002, the Company received from the Service a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment disallowing these deductions. Based upon the advice of counsel, the Company believes that it has correctly reported these transactions for tax purposes and that it has obtained appropriate legal, accounting and appraisal opinions and authority to support its positions. The Company recorded and expensed the tax affect of the disallowed deductions in 2002. On February 3, 2003, the Company filed a petition to begin the process to litigate the matter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas the (“Texas Court”). On August 5, 2003, the Texas Court issued a Docket Control Order establishing a court timeline and a final Pretrial Conference for April 5, 2004. On October 17, 2003, the Government filed a Motion to Transfer Venue from the Texas Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District for Virginia, (the “Virginia Court”). On November 25, 2003, the Government filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings. On December 18, 2003, the Texas Court issued an Order to Stay Proceedings pending the Court’s ruling on the Government’s Motion to Transfer Venue. Any final determination with respect to the Partnership will be binding on the Company. In addition to the ongoing litigation regarding the Partnership, the Service is currently in the process of examining the tax deductions taken for the other two Partnerships. No determination has been made regarding the disallowance of similar deductions for these other two Partnerships. Should the Service ultimately disallow the related tax deductions taken during the remaining years of the above partnership as well as the other two Partnerships, the Company will be required to recognize an additional maximum tax liability of approximately $3.9 million plus possible penalty and interest. The Company is actively contesting the position of the Service in connection with this matter, and will take appropriate steps necessary to protect its legal position.

During the year ended December 31, 2000, Guaranty Leasing acquired for approximately $2.8 million, a 2.5% ownership interest in an Aircraft Finance Trust (“AFT”), a special purpose business trust formed to acquire, finance, refinance, own, lease, sublease, sell and maintain aircraft. AFT was created by General Electric Capital Corporation, and is a financing transaction through which airlines lease aircraft. AFT is a business trust formed in 1999 under the laws of the state of Delaware, and it leases aircraft to airlines around the world. The senior notes issued to AFT are rated AA by Standard and Poors and the notes are secured by the cash flow from the aircraft leases. The notes mature in 2024.

During the fourth quarter of 2001, on belief that the Company’s investment in AFT was impaired by declines in air travel and reduced demand for commercial aircraft, an impairment charge of $1.5 million was recorded and the carrying amount of the investment was reduced to $1.6 million. During the third quarter of 2001, AFT recorded an impairment charge of $18.2 million related to two airplanes. In addition, management received indications the appraised value of AFT’s fleet of airplanes had declined approximately 9% from their value during 2003. Based on these factors, the limited marketability of the investment, the uncertainty surrounding the air transport industry and general economic conditions, management believed that the value of its investment in AFT was permanently impaired and in 2003 recorded an impairment charge of $113,000.

Employees

As of December 31, 2003, the Company had 211 full-time employees and 30 part-time employees, 86 of whom were officers of the Bank. All employees are non-union employees. The Company provides medical and hospitalization insurance to its full-time employees. The Company considers its relations with employees to be excellent.

Supervision and Regulation

The supervision and regulation of bank holding companies and their subsidiaries is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the deposit insurance funds of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the banking system as a whole, and not for the protection of the bank holding company shareholders or creditors. The banking agencies have broad enforcement power over bank holding companies and banks including the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties for violations of laws and regulations.

The following description summarizes some of the laws to which the Company and the Bank are subject. References herein to applicable statutes and regulations are brief summaries thereof, do not purport to be complete, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations.

The Company. The Company is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”), and it is subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”). The BHC Act and other federal laws subject bank holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage, and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations.

Regulatory Restrictions on Dividends; Source of Strength. 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.

Under Federal Reserve policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to each of its banking subsidiaries and commit resources to their support. Such support may be required at times when, absent this Federal Reserve policy, a holding company may not be inclined to provide it. As discussed below, a bank holding company in certain circumstances could be required to guarantee the capital plan of an undercapitalized banking subsidiary.

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 is required 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, and any claim for breach of such obligation will generally have priority over most other unsecured claims.

Financial Modernization. On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001. 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 U.S. law enforcement’s and the intelligence communities’ ability to

work cohesively to combat terrorism on a variety of fronts. The potential 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, including:

	•	due diligence requirements for financial institutions that administer, maintain or manage private bank accounts or correspondent accounts for non-U.S. persons;

	•	standards for verifying customer identification at account opening;

	•	rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering;

	•	reports by non-financial trades and businesses filed with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for transactions exceeding $10,000; and,

	•	filing of suspicious activities reports regarding securities by brokers and dealers if they believe a customer may be violating U.S. laws and regulations.

Under the Financial Services Modernization Act, federal banking regulators adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. Pursuant to the rules, financial institutions must provide:

	•	initial notices to customers about their privacy policies, describing the conditions under which they may disclose non-public personal information to nonaffiliated third parties and affiliates;

	•	annual notices of their privacy policies to current customers; and,

	•	a reasonable method for customers to “opt out” of disclosures to nonaffiliated third parties.

These privacy provisions will affect how customer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors. Management believes the privacy positions have not had a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices. Bank holding companies are not permitted to engage in unsafe and unsound banking practices. The Federal Reserve’s Regulation Y, for example, generally requires a holding company to give the Federal Reserve prior notice of any redemption or repurchase of its own equity securities, if the consideration to be paid, together with the consideration paid for any repurchases or redemptions in the preceding year, is equal to 10% or more of the company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve may oppose the transaction if it believes that the transaction would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or would violate any law or regulation. Depending upon the circumstances, the Federal Reserve could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Federal Reserve has broad authority to prohibit activities of bank holding companies and their non-banking subsidiaries which represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or which constitute violations of laws or regulations, and can assess civil money penalties for certain activities conducted on a knowing and reckless basis, if those activities caused a substantial loss to a depository institution. The penalties can be as high as $1.0 million for each day the activity continues.

Anti-Tying Restrictions. Bank holding companies and their affiliates are prohibited from tying the provision of certain services, such as extensions of credit, to other services offered by a holding company or its affiliates.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The Federal Reserve has adopted a system using risk-based capital guidelines to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. Under the guidelines, specific categories of assets are assigned different risk weights, based generally on the perceived credit risk of the asset. These risk weights are multiplied by corresponding asset balances to determine a “risk-weighted” asset base. The guidelines

require a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% (of which at least 4.0% is required to consist of Tier 1 capital elements). Total capital is the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital. As of December 31, 2003, the Company’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets was 12.10% and its ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets was 13.18%. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.

In addition to the risk-based capital guidelines, the Federal Reserve uses a leverage ratio as an additional tool to evaluate the capital adequacy of bank holding companies. The leverage ratio is a company’s Tier 1 capital divided by its average total consolidated assets. Certain highly rated bank holding companies may maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 3.0%, but other bank holding companies may be required to maintain a leverage ratio of up to 200 basis points above the regulatory minimum. As of December 31, 2003, the Company’s leverage ratio was 8.32%.

The federal banking agencies’ risk-based and leverage ratios are minimum supervisory ratios generally applicable to banking organizations that meet certain specified criteria, assuming that they have the highest regulatory rating. 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. Federal Reserve 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.

Imposition of Liability for Undercapitalized Subsidiaries. Bank regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” to resolve problems associated with insured depository institutions whose capital declines below certain levels. In the event an institution becomes “undercapitalized,” it must submit a capital restoration plan. The capital restoration plan will not be accepted by the regulators unless each company having control of the undercapitalized institution guarantees the subsidiary’s compliance with the capital restoration plan up to a certain specified amount. Any such guarantee from a depository institution’s holding company is entitled to a priority of payment in bankruptcy.

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 Federal Reserve approval of proposed dividends, or might be required to consent to a consolidation or to divest the troubled institution or other affiliates.

Acquisitions by Bank Holding Companies. The BHC Act requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve before it may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank, if after such acquisition it would own or control, directly or indirectly, more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank. In approving bank acquisitions by bank holding companies, the Federal Reserve is required to consider 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.

Control Acquisitions. The Change in Bank Control Act prohibits a person or group of persons from acquiring “control” of a bank holding company unless the Federal Reserve has been notified and has not objected to the transaction. Under a rebuttable presumption established by the Federal Reserve, the acquisition of 10% or more of a class of voting stock of a bank holding company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, such as the Company, would, under the circumstances set forth in the presumption, constitute acquisition of control of the Company.

In addition, any company is required to obtain the approval of the Federal Reserve under the BHC Act before acquiring 25% (5% in the case of an acquirer that is a bank holding company) or more of the outstanding Common Stock of the Company, or otherwise obtaining control or a “controlling influence” over the Company.

The Bank. The Bank is a Texas-chartered banking association, the deposits of which are insured by the Bank Insurance Fund (“BIF”) of the FDIC. The Bank is not a member of the Federal Reserve System; therefore, the Bank is subject to supervision and regulation by the FDIC and the Texas Department of Banking (“TDB”). Such supervision and regulation subjects the Bank to special restrictions, requirements, potential enforcement actions and periodic examination by the FDIC and the TDB. Because the Federal Reserve regulates the bank holding company parent of the Bank, the Federal Reserve also has supervisory authority, which directly affects the Bank.

Equivalence to National Bank Powers. The Texas Constitution, as amended in 1986, provides that a Texas-chartered bank has the same rights and privileges that are or may be granted to national banks domiciled in Texas. To the extent that the Texas laws and regulations may have allowed state-chartered banks to engage in a broader range of activities than national banks, the FDICIA has operated to limit this authority. FDICIA provides that no state bank or subsidiary thereof may engage as principal in any activity not permitted for national banks, unless the institution complies with applicable capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity poses no significant risk to the insurance fund. In general, statutory restrictions on the activities of banks are aimed at protecting the safety and soundness of depository institutions.

Financial Modernization. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a national bank may establish a financial subsidiary and engage, subject to limitations on investment, in activities that are financial in nature, other than insurance underwriting as principal, insurance company portfolio investment, real estate development, real estate investment and annuity issuance. To do so, a bank must be well capitalized, well managed and have a CRA rating of satisfactory or better. Subsidiary banks of a bank holding company or national banks with financial subsidiaries must remain 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 subsidiary or subsidiaries. In addition, a bank 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 bank holding company or the bank has a CRA rating of satisfactory or better.

Although the powers of state-chartered banks with respect to engaging in financial activities are not specifically addressed in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, state banks, such as the Bank, will have the same if not greater powers as national banks through the parity provision contained in the Texas Constitution.

Branching. Texas law provides that a Texas-chartered bank can establish a branch anywhere in Texas provided that the branch is approved in advance by the TDB. The branch must also be approved by the FDIC, which considers a number of factors, including financial history, capital adequacy, earnings prospects, character of management, needs of the community and consistency with corporate powers.

Restrictions on Transactions With Affiliates and Insiders. Transactions between the Bank and its nonbanking affiliates, including the Company, are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. In general, Section 23A imposes limits on the amount of such transactions, and also requires certain levels of collateral for loans to affiliated parties. It also limits the amount of advances to third parties, which are collateralized by the securities or obligations of the Company or its subsidiaries.

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

Restrictions on Distribution of Subsidiary Bank Dividends and Assets. Dividends paid by the Bank have provided a substantial part of the Company’s operating funds and it is anticipated that dividends paid by the Bank to the Company will continue to be the Company’s principal source of operating funds. Capital adequacy requirements serve to limit the amount of dividends that may be paid by the Bank. Under federal law, the Bank cannot pay a dividend if, after paying the dividend, the Bank will be “undercapitalized.” The FDIC may declare a dividend payment to be unsafe and unsound even though the Bank would continue to meet its capital requirements after the dividend.

Because the Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries, its 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, including any depository institution holding company (such as the Company) or any shareholder or creditor thereof.

Examinations. The FDIC periodically examines and evaluates insured banks. Based upon such an evaluation, the FDIC may revalue the assets of the institution and require that it establish specific reserves to compensate for the difference between the FDIC-determined value and the book value of such assets. The TDB also conducts examinations of state banks but may accept the results of a federal examination in lieu of conducting an independent examination.

Audit Reports. Insured institutions with total assets of $500 million or more must submit annual audit reports prepared by independent auditors to federal and state regulators. In some instances, the audit report of the institution’s holding company can be used to satisfy this requirement. Auditors must receive examination reports, supervisory agreements and reports of enforcement actions. In addition, financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, management’s certifications concerning responsibility for the financial statements, internal controls and compliance with legal requirements designated by the FDIC, and an attestation by the auditor regarding the statements of management relating to the internal controls must be submitted. For institutions with total assets of more than $3 billion, independent auditors may be required to review quarterly financial statements. FDICIA requires that independent audit committees be formed, consisting of outside directors only. The committees of such institutions must include members with experience in banking or financial management, must have access to outside counsel, and must not include representatives of large customers.

Capital Adequacy Requirements. The FDIC has adopted regulations establishing minimum requirements for the capital adequacy of insured institutions. The FDIC may establish higher minimum requirements if, for example, a bank has previously received special attention or has a high susceptibility to interest rate risk.

The FDIC’s risk-based capital guidelines generally require state banks to have a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4.0% and a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8.0%. The capital categories have the same definitions for the Bank as for the Company. As of December 31, 2003, the Bank’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets was 11.72% and its ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets was 12.81%. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.

The FDIC’s leverage guidelines require state banks to maintain Tier 1 capital of no less than 5.0% of average total assets, except in the case of certain highly rated banks for which the requirement is 3.0% of average total assets. The TDB has issued a policy, which generally requires state chartered banks to maintain a leverage ratio (defined in accordance with federal capital guidelines) of 6.0%. As of December 31, 2003, the Bank’s ratio of Tier 1 capital to average total assets (leverage ratio) was 8.05%. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.

Corrective Measures for Capital Deficiencies. The federal banking regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to capital-deficient institutions. Agency regulations define, for each capital category, the levels at which institutions are “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly under capitalized” and “critically under capitalized.” A “well capitalized” bank has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 5.0% or higher; and is not

subject to any written agreement, order or directive requiring it to maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. An “adequately capitalized” bank has a total risk based capital ratio of 8.0% or higher; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or higher; a leverage ratio of 4.0% or higher (3.0% or higher if the bank was rated a composite 1 in its most recent examination report and is not experiencing significant growth); and does not meet the criteria for a well capitalized bank. A bank is “under capitalized” if it fails to meet any one of the ratios required to be adequately capitalized.

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.

Management believes that the Company meets all capital adequacy requirements to which it is subject at December 31, 2003. The Bank’s capital ratios exceeded the minimum requirements for “well capitalized” institutions under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action at December 31, 2003. As a result, the Company does not believe that FDICIA’s prompt corrective action regulations will have any material effect on the activities or operations of the Bank. It should be noted, however, that a bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying the FDIC’s “prompt corrective action” regulations and that the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the Bank’s overall financial condition or prospects.

Deposit Insurance Assessments. The Bank must pay assessments to the FDIC for federal deposit insurance protection. The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system as required by FDICIA. Under this system, FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. Institutions assigned to higher-risk classifications (that is, institutions that pose a greater risk of loss to their respective deposit insurance funds) pay assessments at higher rates than institutions that pose a lower risk. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to the regulators. In addition, the FDIC can impose special assessments in certain instances. The current range of BIF assessments is between 0% and 0.27% of deposits.

The FDIC established a process for raising or lowering all rates for insured institutions semi-annually if conditions warrant a change. Under this new system, the FDIC has the flexibility to adjust the assessment rate schedule twice a year without seeking prior public comment, but only within a range of five cents per $100 above or below the premium schedule adopted. Changes in the rate schedule outside the five-cent range above or below the current schedule can be made by the FDIC only after a full rulemaking with opportunity for public comment.

On September 30, 1996, President Clinton signed into law an act that contained a comprehensive approach to recapitalize the Savings Association Insurance Fund (“SAIF”) and assure the payment of the Financing Corporation’s (“FICO”) bond obligations. Under this new act, banks insured under the BIF are required to pay a portion of the interest due on bonds that were issued by FICO to help shore up the ailing Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation in 1987. The FDIC also applies an assessment against BIF-assessable deposits to be paid to the Financing Corporation (“FICO”) to assist in paying interest of FICO bonds, which financed the resolution of the thrift industry crisis. The FICO assessment on BIF-insured deposits was approximately 1.52 basis points for the fourth quarter 2003. The FICO assessment rate is adjusted quarterly.

Enforcement Powers. The FDIC and the other federal banking agencies have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties and appoint a conservator or receiver. Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and supervisory agreements could subject the Company or its banking subsidiaries, as well as officers, directors and other institution-affiliated parties of these organizations, to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil money penalties. The appropriate federal banking agency may appoint the FDIC as conservator or receiver for a banking institution (or the FDIC may appoint itself, under certain circumstances) if any one or more of a number of circumstances exist, including, without limitation, the fact that the banking institution is undercapitalized and has no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized; fails to become adequately capitalized when required to do so; fails to submit a timely and acceptable capital restoration plan; or materially fails to implement an accepted capital restoration plan. The TDB also has broad enforcement powers over the Bank, including the power to impose orders, remove officers and directors, impose fines and appoint supervisors and conservators.

Brokered Deposit Restrictions. Adequately capitalized institutions cannot accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits except with a waiver from the FDIC, and are subject to restrictions on the interest rates that can be paid on such deposits. Undercapitalized institutions may not accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits.

Cross-Guarantee Provisions. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) contains a “cross-guarantee” provision which generally makes commonly controlled insured depository institutions liable to the FDIC for any losses incurred in connection with the failure of a commonly controlled depository institution.

Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA and the regulations issued thereunder are intended to encourage banks to help meet the credit needs of their service area, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operations of the banks. These regulations also provide for regulatory assessment of a bank’s record in meeting the needs of its service area when considering applications to establish branches, merger applications and applications to acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of another bank. FIRREA requires federal banking agencies to make public a rating of a bank’s performance under the CRA. In the case of a bank holding company, the CRA performance record of the banks involved in the transaction are reviewed in connection with the filing of an application to acquire ownership or control of shares or assets of a bank or to merge with any other bank holding company. An unsatisfactory record can substantially delay or block the transaction.

Consumer Laws and Regulations. In addition to the laws and regulations discussed herein, the Bank is also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the list set forth herein is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Fair Housing Act, among others. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits
or making loans to such customers. The Bank must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of their ongoing customer relations.

Instability of Regulatory Structure. Various legislation, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which expanded the powers of banking institutions and bank holding companies, and proposals to overhaul the bank regulatory system and limit the investments that a depository institution may make with insured funds, is from time to time introduced in Congress. Such legislation may change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company and the Bank in substantial and unpredictable ways. The Company cannot determine the ultimate effect that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act will have or the effect that potential legislation, if enacted, or implementing regulations with respect thereto, would have, upon the financial condition or results of operations of the Company or its subsidiaries.

Expanding Enforcement Authority. One of the major additional burdens imposed on the banking industry by FDICIA is the increased ability of banking regulators to monitor the activities of banks and their holding companies. In addition, the Federal Reserve and FDIC possess extensive authority to police unsafe or unsound practices and violations of applicable laws and regulations by depository institutions and their holding companies. For example, the FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any institution, which it determines has engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice. The agencies can also assess civil money penalties, issue cease and desist or removal orders, seek injunctions, and publicly disclose such actions. FDICIA, FIRREA and other laws have expanded the

agencies’ authority in recent years, and the agencies have not yet fully tested the limits of their powers.

Effect on Economic Environment. The policies of regulatory authorities, including the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, have a significant effect on the operating results of bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the means available to the Federal Reserve to affect the money supply are open market operations in U.S. Government securities, changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings, and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for deposits.

Federal Reserve monetary policies have materially affected the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The nature of future monetary policies and the effect of such policies on the business and earnings of the Company and the Bank cannot be predicted.

Item 2. Properties

The Company conducts business at eleven banking locations, with two located in Mount Pleasant, eight located in the Northeast Texas communities of Bogata, Commerce, Deport, Paris, Pittsburg, Sulphur Springs, Talco, Texarkana and one located in the West Texas community of Fort Stockton. The Company’s headquarters are located at 100 West Arkansas in Mount Pleasant in a two-story office building. The Company owns all of its locations and considers the properties to be suitable and adequate for the Company’s present needs. The following table sets forth specific information on each of the Company’s locations:

Location	Address	Deposits at December 31, 2003

		(Dollars in thousands)

Bogata	110 Halesboro Street, Bogata, Texas 75417		$	14,925
Commerce	1108 Park Street, Commerce, Texas 75429			30,217
Deport	111 Main Street, Deport, Texas 75435			18,475
Fort Stockton	#1 Spring Drive, Fort Stockton, Texas 79735			673	⁽¹⁾
Mount Pleasant-Downtown	100 West Arkansas, Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455			154,143
Mount Pleasant-South	2317 South Jefferson, Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455			4,734
Paris	3250 Lamar Avenue, Paris, Texas 75460			64,604
Pittsburg	116 South Greer Blvd., Pittsburg, Texas 75686			20,776
Sulphur Springs	919 Gilmer Street, Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482			63,305
Talco	104 Broad Street, Talco, Texas 75487			13,919
Texarkana	2202 St. Michael Drive, Texarkana, Texas 75503			22,076

⁽¹⁾	Location offers loans and time deposits only.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

The Company faces ordinary routine litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, liabilities (if any) arising from such claims will not have a material adverse effect upon the business, results of operations or financial condition of the Company.

In March 2000, the Company filed an action in the District Court of Titus County, Texas against Guaranty Federal Bank, F.S.B., (“Guaranty Federal”) a thrift institution, after the Company discovered that Guaranty Federal was using the name, “Guaranty Bank”, in its business dealings. The case sought a declaratory judgment that the Company has the sole right to the name “Guaranty Bank”. In November 2001, a settlement was reached. In exchange for $3.0 million, the Company dropped the lawsuit against Guaranty Federal and the Company agreed to change its name by December 31, 2002. At December 31, 2001, the financial statements of the Company reflect the effect of this settlement. In October 2002, the Bank officially changed its name to Guaranty Bond Bank.

In November 1998, Guaranty Leasing was informed by the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) that it has taken the position that certain losses taken by one of the three Partnerships during 1994, 1995 and 1996 of $302,000, $410,000 and $447,000, respectively, would be disallowed. In October 2001, the Service informed Guaranty Leasing that it has taken the position that certain losses taken by that Partnership during 1997 of $487,000 would also be disallowed. In September 2002, the Company received from the Service a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment disallowing these deductions. Based upon the advice of counsel, the Company believes that it has correctly reported these transactions for tax purposes and that it has obtained appropriate legal, accounting and appraisal opinions and authority to support its positions. The Company has recorded and expensed the tax affect of the disallowed deductions. On February 3, 2003, the Company filed a petition to begin the process to litigate the matter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas the (“Texas Court”). On August 5, 2003, the Texas Court issued a Docket Control Order establishing a court timeline and a final Pretrial Conference for April 5, 2004. On October 17, 2003, the Government filed a Motion to Transfer Venue from the Texas Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District for Virginia, (the “Virginia Court”). On November 25, 2003, the Government filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings. On December 18, 2003, the Texas Court issued an Order to Stay Proceedings pending the Court’s ruling on the Government’s Motion to Transfer Venue. Any final determination with respect to the Partnership will be binding on the Company. In addition to the ongoing litigation regarding the Partnership, the Service is currently in the process of examining the tax deductions taken for the other two Partnerships. No determination has been made regarding the disallowance of similar deductions for these other two Partnerships. Should the Service ultimately disallow the related tax deductions taken during the remaining years of the above partnership as well as the other two partnerships, the Company will be required to recognize an additional maximum tax liability of approximately $3.9 million plus possible penalty and interest. The Company is actively contesting the position of the Service in connection with this matter, and will take appropriate steps necessary to protect its legal position.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2003.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Shareholder Matters

The Common Stock began trading on May 21, 1998 and is listed on the Nasdaq National Market System (“Nasdaq NMS”) under the symbol “GNTY”. Prior to that date, the Company’s Common Stock was privately held and not listed on any public exchange or actively traded. The Company had a total of 2,921,928 shares outstanding at December 31, 2003. As of December 31, 2003, there were 371 registered shareholders of record. The number of beneficial shareholders is unknown to the Company at this time.

The following table presents the high and low Common Stock prices reported on the Nasdaq NMS by quarter during the two years ended December 31, 2003:

2003

2002