WILSON BANK HOLDING CO

The disclosures set forth in this item are qualified by Item 1A. Risk Factors and the section captioned “Forward-Looking Statements” appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and other cautionary statements set forth elsewhere in this report.

General

Wilson Bank Holding Company (the “Company”) was incorporated on March 17, 1992 under the laws of the State of Tennessee. The purpose of the Company was to acquire all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Wilson Bank and Trust (the “Bank”) and act as a one-bank holding company. On November 17, 1992, the Company acquired 100% of the capital stock of the Bank pursuant to the terms of an agreement and plan of share exchange. The Bank is the only direct subsidiary of the Company. The Bank also holds an ownership interest in Encompass Home Loan Lending, LLC ("Encompass"), a company offering mortgage banking services that is 51% owned by Wilson Bank and 49% owned by two home builders operating in Wilson Bank's market areas.

All of the Company’s banking business is conducted through the Bank, a state chartered bank organized under the laws of the State of Tennessee. The Bank, on February 23, 2024, had the following full service banking offices located in the following counties:

The Company's management believes that Wilson County, Trousdale County, Davidson County, Rutherford County, DeKalb County, Smith County, Sumner County, Putnam County and Williamson County offer an environment for continued banking growth in the Company’s target market, which consists of local consumers, professionals and small businesses. The Bank offers a wide range of banking services, including checking, savings, and money market deposit accounts, certificates of deposit and loans for consumer, commercial and real estate purposes. The Bank also offers custodial, trust, and through a relationship with a third-party investment advisory firm, discount brokerage services to its customers. The Bank does not have a concentration of deposits obtained from a single person or entity or a small group of persons or entities, the loss of which would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the business of the Bank.

The Bank was organized in 1987 to provide Wilson County with a locally-owned, locally-managed commercial bank. Since its opening, the Bank has experienced a steady growth in deposits and loans, while expanding into other counties in and around middle Tennessee as a result of providing personal, service-oriented banking services to its targeted market. For the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company reported net earnings of approximately $48.938 million and at December 31, 2023 it had total assets of approximately $4.846 billion.

Financial and Statistical Information

The Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contained in the selected portions of the Company’s 2023 Annual Report to Shareholders filed as Exhibit 13.1 hereto (the "2023 Annual Report"), are incorporated herein by reference.

Regulation and Supervision

The banking industry is generally subject to extensive regulatory oversight. Both the Company and the Bank are subject to extensive state and federal banking laws and regulations that impose restrictions on and provide for general regulatory oversight of the Company’s and the Bank’s operations. These laws and regulations are generally intended to protect depositors and borrowers, and may not necessarily protect shareholders. Many of these laws and regulations have undergone significant change in recent years.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder implemented far-reaching reforms of major elements of the financial landscape, particularly for larger financial institutions. Many of its most far- reaching provisions do not directly apply to community-based institutions like the Company or the Bank. For instance, provisions that regulate derivative transactions and limit derivatives trading activity of federally-insured institutions, enhance supervision of “systemically significant” institutions, impose new regulatory authority over hedge funds, limit proprietary trading by banks, and phase-out the eligibility of trust preferred securities for Tier 1 capital for institutions with greater than $15.0 billion in total assets are among the provisions that do not directly impact the Company or the Bank either because of exemptions for institutions below a certain asset size or because of the nature of their operations.

Failure by the Company or the Bank to comply with the requirements of applicable state and federal banking regulations would negatively impact the Company’s results of operations and financial condition and could limit its growth or expansion activities. While the Company cannot predict what effect any presently contemplated or future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on it or the Bank, such changes could be materially adverse to the Company’s investors.

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “BHC Act”) and is registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”). The Company is required to file annual reports and other information regarding its business operations and those of its bank subsidiary with, and is subject to examination by, the FRB. The Bank is chartered under the laws of the State of Tennessee and is subject to the supervision of, and is regularly examined by, the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions (the “TDFI”). The Bank is also regularly examined by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the government entity that insures the Bank’s deposits subject to applicable limitations.

Under the BHC Act, a bank holding company may not directly or indirectly acquire ownership or control of more than five percent of the voting shares or substantially all of the assets of any company, including a bank, without the prior approval of the FRB unless the bank holding company already owns a majority of such company. In addition, bank holding companies are generally prohibited under the BHC Act from engaging directly or indirectly in activities other than those of banking or managing or controlling banks, or furnishing services to their subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions and the modernization of the financial services industry in connection with the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”). The GLB Act amended the BHC Act and expanded the activities in which bank holding companies and affiliates of banks are permitted to engage. Under the BHC Act, as amended by the GLB Act, the FRB is authorized to approve the ownership by a bank holding company of shares of any company whose activities have been determined by the FRB to be so closely related to banking or to managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.

Subject to various exceptions, the Federal Change in Bank Control Act, together with related regulations, require FRB approval prior to any person or company acquiring “control” of a bank holding company. Control is conclusively presumed to exist if an individual or company acquires 25% or more of any class of voting securities of the bank holding company. Control is rebuttably presumed to exist if a person or company acquires 10% or more, but less than 25%, of any class of voting securities and either:

•

The bank holding company has registered securities under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”); or

•

No other person owns a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the transaction.

The Company’s common stock is registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act. The regulations provide a procedure for challenge of the rebuttable control presumption.

Under the GLB Act, a “financial holding company” may engage in activities the FRB determines to be financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity or complementary to a financial activity and not a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of such depository institutions or the financial system generally. Generally, such companies may engage in a wide range of securities activities and insurance underwriting and agency activities. The Company has not made application to the FRB to become a “financial holding company.”

Under the BHC Act, a bank holding company, which has not qualified or elected to become a financial holding company, is generally prohibited from engaging in or acquiring direct or indirect control of more than 5% of the voting securities of any company engaged in nonbanking activities unless, prior to the enactment of the GLB Act, the FRB found those activities to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking. Activities that the FRB has found to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking include:

•

Factoring accounts receivable;

•

Acquiring or servicing loans;

•

Leasing personal property;

•

Conducting discount securities brokerage activities;

•

Performing selected data processing services;

•

Acting as agent or broker in selling credit life insurance and other types of insurance in connection with credit transactions; and

•

Underwriting certain insurance risks of the holding company and its subsidiaries.

Despite prior approval, the FRB may order a bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any of these activities or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when it has reasonable cause to believe that the bank holding company’s continued ownership, activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness, or stability of any of its bank subsidiaries.

Under the Tennessee Bank Structure Act, a bank holding company which controls 30% or more of the total deposits (excluding certain deposits) in all federally insured financial institutions in Tennessee is prohibited from acquiring any bank in Tennessee. With prior regulatory approval, Tennessee law permits banks based in the state to either establish new or acquire existing branch offices throughout Tennessee. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bank and other state-chartered or national banks generally may establish new branches in another state to the same extent as banks chartered in the other state may establish new branches in that state.

The Company and the Bank are subject to certain restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, respectively, on any extensions of credit to the bank holding company or its subsidiary bank, on investments in the stock or other securities of the bank holding company or its subsidiary bank, and on taking such stock or other securities as collateral for loans of any borrower. The Bank takes Company common stock as collateral for borrowings subject to the aforementioned restrictions.

Both the Company and the Bank are subject to the provisions of Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. Section 23A places limits on the amount of:

•

A bank’s loans or extensions of credit, including purchases of assets subject to an agreement to repurchase, to or for the benefit of affiliates;

•

A bank’s investment in affiliates;

•

Assets a bank may purchase from affiliates, except for real and personal property exempted by the FRB;

•

The amount of loans or extensions of credit to third parties collateralized by the securities or obligations of affiliates;

•

Transactions involving the borrowing or lending of securities and any derivative transaction that results in credit exposure to an affiliate; and

•

A bank’s guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit issued on behalf of an affiliate.

The total amount of the above transactions is limited in amount, as to any one affiliate, to 10% of a bank’s capital and surplus and, as to all affiliates combined, to 20% of a bank’s capital and surplus. In addition to the limitation on the amount of these transactions, each of the above transactions that is a credit transaction must also meet specified collateral requirements. The Bank must also comply with other provisions designed to avoid the taking of low-quality assets.

The Company and the Bank are also subject to the provisions of Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act which, among other things, prohibits an institution from engaging in the above transactions with affiliates unless the transactions are on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the institution or its subsidiaries, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with nonaffiliated companies.

The Bank is also subject to restrictions on extensions of credit to its executive officers, directors, principal shareholders and their related interests. Among other requirements and limitations, these extensions of credit (1) must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with third parties, and (2) must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features.

The FRB has the power to prohibit dividends by bank holding companies if their actions constitute unsafe or unsound practices. The FRB has issued a policy statement expressing its view that a bank holding company should pay cash dividends only to the extent that the company’s net income for the past year is sufficient to cover the cash dividends and only if the rate of earnings retention appears consistent with the company’s current and expected future capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. As noted below, FRB regulations limit dividends, stock repurchases and discretionary bonuses to executive officers if a bank holding company’s capital is below the level of regulatory minimums plus the applicable capital conservation buffer. FRB policy also provides that a bank holding company should inform the FRB reasonably in advance of declaring or paying a dividend that exceeds earnings for the period for which the dividend is being paid or that could result in a material adverse change to the bank holding company's capital structure.

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. Over time, the principal source of the Company’s cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends to the Company’s common stock shareholders, will be dividends that the Bank pays to the Company as its sole shareholder. Under Tennessee law, the Company is not permitted to pay dividends if, after giving effect to such payment, the Company would not be able to pay its debts as they become due in the normal course of business or the Company’s total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities plus any amounts needed to satisfy any preferential rights if the Company were dissolving. In addition, in deciding whether or not to declare a dividend of any particular size, the Company’s board of directors must consider the Company’s current and prospective capital, liquidity, and other needs.

Statutory and regulatory limitations also apply to the Bank’s payment of dividends to the Company. Under Tennessee law, the Bank in any one calendar year can only pay dividends to the Company in an amount equal to or less than the total amount of its net income for that calendar year combined with retained net income for the preceding two years. Payment of dividends in excess of this amount requires the consent of the Commissioner of the TDFI.

The payment of dividends by the Bank and the Company may also be affected by other factors, such as the requirement to maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. The federal banking agencies have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a depository institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), a depository institution may not pay any dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, and previously under FRB policy, the Company is required to act as a source of financial strength for the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank. This support can be required at times when it would not be in the best interest of the Company’s shareholders or creditors to provide it. Further, if the Bank’s capital levels were to fall below certain minimum regulatory guidelines, the Bank would need to develop a capital plan to increase its capital levels and the Company would be required to guarantee the Bank’s compliance with the capital plan in order for such plan to be accepted by the federal regulatory agency. In the event of bankruptcy, any commitment by the Company to a federal regulatory agency to maintain the capital of the Bank would be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

Both the Company and the Bank are required to comply with the capital adequacy standards established by the FRB, in the Company’s case, and the FDIC, in the case of the Bank. The FRB has established a risk-based and a leverage measure of capital adequacy for bank holding companies, like the Company. The Bank is also subject to risk-based and leverage capital requirements adopted by the FDIC, which are substantially similar to those adopted by the FRB for bank holding companies. In addition, the FDIC and TDFI may require state banks that are not members of the FRB, like the Bank, to maintain capital at levels higher than those required by general regulatory requirements. Tennessee state banks are required to have the capital structure that the TDFI deems adequate, and the Commissioner of the TDFI as well as federal regulators may require a state bank (or its holding company in the case of federal regulators) to increase its capital levels to the point deemed adequate by the Commissioner or such other federal regulator before granting approval of a branch application, merger application or charter amendment.

The risk-based capital standards are designed to make regulatory capital requirements more sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banks and bank holding companies, to account for off-balance-sheet exposure, and to minimize disincentives for holding liquid assets. Assets and off-balance-sheet items, such as letters of credit and unfunded loan commitments, are assigned to broad risk categories, each with appropriate risk weights. The resulting capital ratios represent capital as a percentage of total risk-weighted assets and off-balance-sheet items.

In July 2013, the FRB and the FDIC approved final rules that substantially amended the regulatory capital rules applicable to the Bank and the Company, effective January 1, 2015. The final rules implemented the regulatory capital reforms of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision reflected in “Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems” (Basel III) and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Under these rules, the leverage and risk-based capital ratios of bank holding companies like the Company may not be lower than the leverage and risk-based capital ratios for insured depository institutions like the Bank. The final capital rules implementing Basel III, among other things, included new minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratios for banks and their holding companies. Moreover, these rules refined the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios, including the definitions of Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. Total capital consists of two components, Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital. Tier 1 capital generally consists of common stock (plus related surplus) and retained earnings, limited amounts of minority interest in the form of additional Tier 1 capital instruments, and non-cumulative preferred stock and related surplus, subject to certain eligibility standards, less goodwill and other specified intangible assets and other regulatory deductions. Cumulative preferred stock and trust preferred securities issued after May 19, 2010 no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, but such securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, including in the case of bank holding companies with less than $15.0 billion in total assets as of December 31, 2009, trust preferred securities issued prior to that date, continue to count as Tier 1 capital subject to certain limitations. Tier 2 capital generally consists of perpetual preferred stock and related surplus not meeting the Tier 1 capital definition, qualifying subordinated debt, qualifying mandatorily convertible debt securities, and a limited amount of the allowance for credit losses.

The minimum capital level requirements applicable to bank holding companies and banks subject to the rules are: (i) a Tier 1 common equity (“CET1”) capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6%; (iii) a total capital ratio of 8%; and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The rules also established a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5% (consisting of CET1 capital) above the regulatory minimum capital ratios, and have resulted in the following minimum ratios: (i) a CET1 capital ratio of 7%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. An institution will be subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases and paying discretionary bonuses if capital levels fall below minimum levels plus the buffer amounts. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions.

Under the Basel III capital rules, CET1 capital consists of common stock and paid in capital and retained earnings. CET1 capital is reduced by goodwill, certain intangible assets, net of associated deferred tax liabilities, deferred tax assets that arise from tax credit and net operating loss carryforwards, net of any valuation allowance, and certain other items specified in the Basel III capital rules. The Basel III capital rules also provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1 capital. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks and investments in non-consolidated financial institutions be deducted from CET1 capital to the extent that any one such category exceeds 25% of CET1 capital.

The final rules implementing Basel III allow banks and their holding companies with less than $250 billion in assets a one-time opportunity to opt-out of a requirement to include unrealized gains and losses in accumulated other comprehensive income in their capital calculation. The Company and the Bank each opted out of this requirement.

Additionally, the FDICIA establishes a system of prompt corrective action ("PCA") to resolve the problems of undercapitalized financial institutions. Under this system, the federal banking regulators have established five capital categories (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized) into one of which all institutions are categorized. Federal banking regulators are required to take various mandatory supervisory actions and are authorized to take other discretionary actions with respect to institutions in the three undercapitalized categories. The severity of the action depends upon the capital category in which the institution is placed. Generally, subject to a narrow exception, the banking regulator must appoint a receiver or conservator for an institution that is critically undercapitalized. The federal banking agencies have specified by regulation the relevant capital level for each category (excluding the Basel III capital conservation buffer amounts), as set forth in the following table:

Failure to meet statutorily mandated capital guidelines or more restrictive ratios separately established for a depository institution or its holding company by its regulators could subject a bank or bank holding company to a variety of enforcement remedies, including issuance of a capital directive, the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC, a prohibition on accepting or renewing brokered deposits, limitations on the rates of interest that the institution may pay on its deposits, limitations on the ability to hire senior executive officers or add directors without prior approval and other restrictions on its business. As described above, significant additional restrictions can be imposed on FDIC-insured depository institutions that fail to meet applicable capital requirements.

A state regulated bank which is not a member of the Federal Reserve, like the Bank, is required to be “well-capitalized” under PCA in order to take advantage of expedited procedures on certain applications, such as branches and mergers, and to accept and renew brokered deposits without further regulatory approval.

The Basel III capital rules prescribe a standardized approach for risk weightings that expand the risk-weighting categories from the four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories. Specific changes to the rules impacting the Company’s and the Bank’s determination of risk-weighted assets include, among other things:

•

applying a 150% risk weight instead of a 100% risk weight for certain high volatility commercial real estate acquisition, development and construction loans;

•

assigning a 150% risk weight to the unsecured portion of non-residential mortgage loans that are 90 days past due or otherwise on nonaccrual status;

•

applying a 250% risk weight to any non-deducted mortgage servicing rights;

•

providing for a 20% credit conversion factor for the unused portion of a commitment with an original maturity of one year or less that is not unconditionally cancellable (previously set at 0%);

•

providing for a risk weight, generally not less than 20% with certain exceptions, for securities lending transactions based on the risk weight category of the underlying collateral securing the transaction; and

•

eliminating the 50% cap on the risk weight for OTC derivatives.

In December 2017, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published the last version of the Basel III accord, generally referred to as “Basel IV” or the “Basel III Endgame.” The Basel Committee stated that a key objective of the revisions incorporated into the framework is to reduce excessive variability of risk-weighted assets (“RWA”), which will be accomplished by enhancing the robustness and risk sensitivity of the standardized approaches for credit risk and operational risk, which will facilitate the comparability of banks’ capital ratios; constraining the use of internally modeled approaches; and complementing the risk-weighted capital ratio with a finalized leverage ratio and a revised and robust capital floor. In July 2023, federal banking regulators issued a joint agency proposal that sought to implement the final components of the Basel III Endgame as well as seeking to make changes aimed at addressing the underlying causes of the turmoil in the banking industry that was experienced in the first half of 2023 with the failure of certain larger financial institutions. The proposal seeks to revise the capital framework for banks with total assets of $100 billion or more in four main areas of credit risk, market risk, operational risk and credit valuation adjustment risk. The proposal also would require banks with total assets of $100 billion or more to include unrealized gains and losses from certain securities in their capital ratios, to comply with supplementary leverage ratio requirements and to comply with countercyclical capital buffer requirements, if activated. The comment period for these proposed changes ends in the first quarter of 2024 and though the proposal applies only to banks with total assets of $100 billion or more, it’s unclear at this time whether any of these more stringent requirements will be imposed on the Company or the Bank through the ongoing regulatory oversight process.

In 2018, the U.S. Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (the “Growth Act”). The Growth Act, among other things, required the federal banking agencies to issue regulations allowing community bank organizations with total assets of less than $10.0 billion and limited amounts of certain assets and off-balance sheet exposures to access a simpler capital regime focused on a bank’s Tier 1 leverage capital levels rather than risk-based capital levels that are the focus of the capital rules issued under the Dodd-Frank Act implementing Basel III.

In October 2019, the federal banking agencies approved final rules that, under the Growth Act, exempt from the risk-based and leverage capital requirements of the capital rules issued under the Dodd-Frank Act any qualifying community bank and its holding company that have leverage ratios, calculated as Tier 1 capital over average total consolidated assets (the “Community Bank Leverage Ratio”), of greater than 9 percent and hold 25% or less of total assets in off-balance sheet exposures and 5% or less of total assets in trading assets and liabilities. Tier 1 capital for purposes of calculating the Community Bank Leverage Ratio is defined as total equity less accumulated other comprehensive income, less goodwill, less all other intangible assets, less deferred tax assets that arise from net operating loss and tax carryforwards, net of any related valuation allowances. Off-balance sheet exposures include, among other items, unused portions of commitments, securities lent or borrowed, credit enhancement and financial standby letters of credit. A qualifying community banking organization and its holding company that have chosen the proposed framework are no longer required to calculate the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital requirements. Such a bank is also considered to have met the capital ratio requirements to be well capitalized for the agencies’ PCA rules provided it has a Community Bank Leverage Ratio greater than 9 percent. The final rules also established a grace period of two fiscal quarters during which a qualifying financial institution that temporarily failed to meet any of the qualifying criteria for use of the Community Bank Leverage Ratio would nonetheless be considered well capitalized so long as the institution maintained a Community Bank Leverage Ratio of greater than 7%.

Pursuant to the CARES Act, the required Community Bank Leverage Ratio was lowered to 8% until the earlier of December 31, 2020 and 60 days following the end of the national emergency declared with respect to COVID-19. The federal regulators when establishing the Community Bank Leverage Ratio, also established a grace period of two fiscal quarters during which a qualifying financial institution that temporarily failed to meet any of the qualifying criteria for use of the Community Bank Leverage Ratio would nonetheless be considered well capitalized so long as the institution maintained a Community Bank Leverage Ratio of greater than 7.0%. Effective November 9, 2020, the federal banking regulatory agencies approved rules raising the Community Bank Leverage Ratio to 8.5% for 2021 and 9% thereafter. The regulatory agencies also modified the two-quarter grace period to require a Community Bank Leverage Ratio of 7.5% or greater in 2021 and 8% thereafter.

The Company and the Bank each opted to take advantage of this rule effective January 1, 2020. During the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company determined its total off balance sheet exposures, calculated in accordance with applicable regulations, exceeded 25% of its total consolidated assets during the period of time it had opted to utilize the Community Bank Leverage Ratio, and as a result, neither the Company nor the Bank was able to take advantage of the Community Bank Leverage Ratio rules, including as of December 31, 2021, in each case, applying the Basel III capital guidelines that were applicable to it as a result of its not qualifying for the Community Bank Leverage Ratio.

Pursuant to the CARES Act, lenders, like the Bank, were given the option to defer the implementation of ASU 2016-13, “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” (“CECL”) until 60 days after the declaration of the end of the public health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic or December 31, 2020, whichever came first. The Coronavirus Relief Act subsequently gave lenders the option to further defer the implementation of CECL until January 1, 2022. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) staff has stated that opting to delay the implementation of CECL shall be considered to be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. As a result, the Bank elected to delay implementation of CECL until January 1, 2022.

In February 2019, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule (the “2019 CECL Rule”) that revised certain capital regulations to account for changes to credit loss accounting under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The 2019 CECL Rule included a transition option that allows banking organizations to phase in, over a three-year period, the day-one adverse effects of adopting a new accounting standard related to the measurement of CECL on their regulatory capital ratios (three-year transition option). In March 2020, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued an interim final rule that maintains the three-year transition option of the 2019 CECL Rule following the adoption of CECL. If adopted, the cumulative amount of transition adjustments will become fixed at the start of the three-year period, and will be phased out of the regulatory capital calculations evenly over such period, with 75% recognized in year one, 50% recognized in year two, and 25% recognized in year three. The Company did not take advantage of this option and recognized the effects of its adoption of CECL in full upon its adoption of CECL on January 1, 2022.

Banking organizations must have appropriate capital planning processes, with proper oversight from the board of directors. Accordingly, pursuant to a separate, general supervisory letter from the FRB, bank holding companies are expected to conduct and document comprehensive capital adequacy analyses prior to the declaration of any dividends (on common stock, preferred stock, trust preferred securities or other Tier 1 capital instruments), capital redemptions or capital repurchases. Moreover, the federal banking agencies have adopted a joint agency policy statement, noting that the adequacy and effectiveness of a bank’s interest rate risk management process and the level of its interest rate exposures are critical factors in the evaluation of the bank’s capital adequacy. A bank with material weaknesses in its interest rate risk management process or high levels of interest rate exposure relative to its capital will be directed by the relevant federal banking agencies to take corrective actions.

The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system for insured depository institutions that takes into account the risks attributable to different categories and concentrations of assets and liabilities. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC adopted regulations that base deposit insurance assessments on total assets less capital rather than deposit liabilities and include off-balance sheet liabilities of institutions and their affiliates in risk-based assessments.

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the basic limit on federal deposit insurance coverage to $250,000 per depositor at each insured depository institution. The Dodd-Frank Act also repealed the prohibition on paying interest on demand transaction accounts, but did not extend unlimited insurance protection for these accounts.

The FDIC may terminate its insurance of deposits if it finds that a depository institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC.

The Financial Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 provides that a holding company’s controlled insured depository institutions are liable for any loss incurred by the FDIC in connection with the default of, or any FDIC-assisted transaction involving, an affiliated insured bank or savings association.

The maximum permissible rates of interest on most commercial and consumer loans made by the Bank are governed by Tennessee’s general usury law and the Tennessee Industrial Loan and Thrift Companies Act (“Industrial Loan Act”). Certain other usury laws affect limited classes of loans, but the Company believes that the laws referenced above are the most significant. Tennessee’s general usury law authorizes a floating rate of 4% per annum over the average prime or base commercial loan rate, as published by the FRB from time to time, subject to an absolute 24% per annum limit. The Industrial Loan Act, which is generally applicable to most of the loans made by the Bank in Tennessee, authorizes an interest rate of up to 24% per annum and also allows certain loan charges, generally on a more liberal basis than does the general usury law.

The Bank’s loan operations are also subject to federal laws, rules and regulations applicable to credit transactions, such as the:

•

Federal Truth-In-Lending Act, governing disclosures of credit terms and costs to consumer borrowers giving consumers the right to cancel certain credit transactions, and defining requirements for servicing consumer loans secured by a dwelling;

•

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, requiring financial institutions to provide information to enable the public and public officials to determine whether a financial institution is fulfilling its obligation to help meet the housing needs of the community it serves;

•

Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1978, governing the use and provision of information to credit reporting agencies;

•

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, governing the manner in which consumer debts may be collected by collection agencies;

•

Service Members’ Civil Relief Act, governing the repayment terms of, and property rights underlying, secured obligations of persons in active military service;

•

Rules and regulations of the various federal agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing the federal laws;

•

Electronic Funds Transfer Act, which regulates fees and other terms of electronic funds transactions;

•

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which permanently extended the national credit reporting standards of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and permits consumers, including the Bank’s customers, to opt out of information sharing among affiliated companies for marketing purposes and requires financial institutions, including banks, to notify a customer if the institution provides negative information about the customer to a national credit reporting agency or if the credit that is granted to the customer is on less favorable terms than those generally available; and

•

the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974, which affords consumers greater protection pertaining to federally related mortgage loans by requiring, among other things, improved and streamlined good faith estimate forms including clear summary information and improved disclosure of yield spread premiums.

The Bank’s deposit operations are subject to the:

•

Right to Financial Privacy Act, which imposes a duty to maintain confidentiality of consumer financial records and prescribes procedures for complying with administrative subpoenas of financial records;

•

Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E issued by the Federal Reserve to implement that act, which govern automatic deposits to and withdrawals from deposit accounts and customers' rights and liabilities (including with respect to the permissibility of overdraft charges) arising from the use of automated teller machines and other electronic banking services;

•

the Truth in Savings Act, which requires depository institutions to disclose the terms of deposit accounts to consumers;

•

the Expedited Funds Availability Act, which requires financial institutions to make deposited funds available according to specified time schedules and to disclose funds availability policies to consumers; and

•

the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (“Check 21”), which is designed to foster innovation in the payments system and to enhance its efficiency by reducing some of the legal impediments to check truncation. Check 21 created a new negotiable instrument called a substitute check and permits, but does not require, banks to truncate original checks, process check information electronically, and deliver substitute checks to banks that wish to continue receiving paper checks.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), which is an office in the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is responsible for helping to ensure that U.S. entities do not engage in transactions with “enemies” of the United States, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress. OFAC publishes lists of names of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts; owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of target countries, and narcotics traffickers. If a bank finds a name on any transaction, account or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, it must freeze or block the transactions on the account. The Bank has appointed a compliance officer to oversee the inspection of its accounts and the filing of any notifications. The Bank actively checks high-risk OFAC areas such as new accounts, wire transfers and customer files. These checks are performed using software that is updated each time a modification is made to the lists provided by OFAC and other agencies of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. Failure to comply with these sanctions could have serious financial, legal and reputational consequences. Regulatory authorities have imposed cease and desist orders and civil money penalties against institutions found to be violating these obligations.

Pursuant to the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”), as amended, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with foreign financial institutions and foreign customers.

A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions has been aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The Bank Secrecy Act (the "BSA") and its implementing regulations and parallel requirements of the federal banking regulators require the Bank to maintain a risk-based anti-money laundering (“AML”) program reasonably designed to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorist financing and to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the BSA, including the requirement to report suspicious activity. The Patriot Act substantially broadened the scope of AML laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations on financial institutions, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Financial institutions, including banks, are required under final rules implementing Section 326 of the Patriot Act to establish procedures for collecting standard information from customers opening new accounts and verifying the identity of these new account holders within a reasonable period of time. Financial institutions are also prohibited from entering into specified financial transactions and account relationships and must take certain steps to assist government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering and to report certain types of suspicious transactions. In May 2016, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued rules under the BSA requiring financial institutions to identify the beneficial owners who own or control certain legal entity customers at the time an account is opened and to update their AML compliance programs to include risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence. In January 2021, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (“AMLA”), which amends the BSA, was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Among other things, the AMLA codifies a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering compliance for financial institutions; requires the development of standards for evaluating technology and internal processes for BSA compliance; and expands enforcement and investigation-related authority, including increasing available sanctions for certain BSA violations and instituting BSA whistleblower incentives and protections. The Bank currently has policies and procedures in place designed to comply with the Patriot Act, the BSA and the other regulations targeting terrorism and money laundering, and it will modify these policies and procedures as necessary to comply with the changes reflected in the AMLA and its future implementing regulations.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the “CRA”) requires that, in connection with examinations of financial institutions within their respective jurisdictions, the FRB and the FDIC shall evaluate the record of each financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods consistent with safe and sound operations of the institutions. These facts are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions, and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria could impose additional requirements and limitations on the Bank. Additionally, banks are required to publicly disclose the terms of various CRA-related agreements. The Bank received a “satisfactory” CRA rating from its primary federal regulator on its most recent regulatory examination.

In December 2019, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) jointly proposed rules that would have significantly changed existing CRA regulations. In May 2020, the OCC issued its final CRA rule, effective October 1, 2020, however in December 2021, the OCC revoked the newly issued rule and largely reverted to its prior CRA rule. On October 24, 2023, the OCC, FRB and FDIC issued a final rule that the regulators believe will strengthen and modernize regulations implementing the CRA. The stated key objectives of the rule are to (1) strengthen the achievement of the core purpose of the CRA, (2) adapt to changes in the banking industry, including the expanded role of mobile and online banking, (3) provide greater clarity and consistency in the application of CRA regulations, (4) tailor performance standards to account for differences in bank size, business models and local conditions, (5) tailor data collection and reporting requirements and use existing data whenever possible, (6) promote transparency and public engagement, (7) confirm that CRA and fair lending responsibilities are mutually reinforcing and (8) promote a consistent regulatory approach that applies to banks regulated by all three agencies. This final rule becomes effective on April 1, 2024 though there is a multiyear phase-in period. Because of the Bank’s asset size it will be evaluated for compliance with the new rule under each of the rules four tests – the retail lending test, the retail services and products tests, a community development financing test and a community development services test. Among other things, the new rule expands those assessment areas where the Bank’s activities will be tested for compliance with the rules to include areas where the Bank may not have a physical presence but nonetheless engages in activity as a result of online banking activities. The Company is evaluating the impact of the changes within these new rules on its operations and the potential impact to its financial condition, results of operations, and/or liquidity, which cannot be predicted at this time.

The Bank is also subject to fair lending requirements and reporting obligations involving its home mortgage lending operations. Fair lending laws prohibit discrimination in the provision of banking services, and bank regulators have increasingly focused on the enforcement of these laws. Fair lending laws include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibit discrimination in credit and residential real estate transactions on the basis of prohibited factors including, among others, race, color, national origin, gender and religion. The Bank may be liable, either through administrative enforcement or private civil actions, for policies that result in a disparate treatment of or have a disparate impact on a protected class of applicants or borrowers. If a pattern or practice of lending discrimination is alleged by a regulator, then that agency may refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for investigation. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding, the DOJ and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“the CFPB”) have agreed to share information, coordinate investigations and generally commit to strengthen their coordination efforts. The Bank is required to have a fair lending program that is of sufficient scope to monitor the inherent fair lending risk of the institution and that appropriately remediates issues which are identified. State and federal banking regulators have issued various policy statements and, in some cases, regulations, emphasizing the importance of technology risk management and supervision. In July 2023, the SEC adopted rules that require disclosure of material cybersecurity incidents, as well as cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance. The final rule applicable to the cybersecurity disclosure to be included in the Company’s (i) Current Reports on Form 8-K became effective on December 18, 2023 and (ii) Annual Report on Form 10-K became effective for any fiscal year ending on or after December 15, 2023. On November 18, 2021, the federal banking agencies issued a joint final rule that requires a banking organization to notify their primary federal regulator within 36 hours of becoming aware that a significant “computer-security incident” has occurred. In general, a banking organization must notify its primarily federal regulator for incidents that have materially disrupted, degraded or impaired – or are reasonably likely to materially disrupt, degrade or impair – (i) the ability of such banking organization to carry out banking operations and activities or deliver banking products and services, (ii) such banking organization’s results of operations, or (iii) the financial stability of the financial sector. The final rule also requires a bank service provider to notify each of its affected customers as soon as possible when it determines that it has experienced a computer-security incident that has caused, or is reasonably likely to cause, a material service disruption for four or more hours. Compliance with the final rule was required by May 1, 2022. This new rule and the earlier such policy statements and regulations indicate that financial institutions should design multiple layers of security controls to establish lines of defense and to ensure that their risk management processes also address the risk posed by compromised customer credentials, including security measures to reliably authenticate customers accessing internet-based services of the financial institution. A financial institution’s management is expected to maintain sufficient business continuity planning processes to ensure the rapid recovery, resumption and maintenance of the institution’s operations after a cyber-attack involving destructive malware. A financial institution is expected to develop appropriate processes to enable recovery of data and business operations and address rebuilding network capabilities and restoring data if the institution or its critical service providers fall victim to this type of cyber-attack.

Federal statutes and regulations, including the GLB Act and the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, limit the Company’s and the Bank’s ability to disclose non-public information about consumers, customers and employees to nonaffiliated third parties. Specifically, the GLB Act requires disclosure of the Company’s privacy policies and practices relating to sharing non-public information and enables retail customers to opt out of the institution’s ability to share information with unaffiliated third parties under certain circumstances. The GLB Act also requires the Company and the Bank to implement a comprehensive information security program that includes administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information and, if applicable state law is more protective of customer privacy than the GLB Act, financial institutions, including the Bank, will be required to comply with such state law. In addition to their obligations to safeguard customer information under GLB Act regulations, financial institutions, like the Bank, are subject to regulations that require the institutions when they become aware of an incident of unauthorized access to sensitive customer information, to conduct a reasonable investigation to promptly determine the likelihood that the information has been or will be misused. If the institution determines that misuse of the sensitive customer information has occurred or is reasonably possible, it should notify the affected customers as soon as possible. An increasing number of state laws and regulations have been enacted in recent years to implement privacy and cybersecurity standards and regulations, including data breach notification and data privacy requirements. This trend of state-level activity is expected to continue to expand, requiring continual monitoring of developments in the states in which the Company's customers are located and ongoing investments in the Company's information systems and compliance capabilities.

Other laws and regulations impact the Company’s and the Bank’s ability to share certain information with affiliates and non-affiliates for marketing and/or non-marketing purposes. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors. In connection with the regulations governing the privacy of consumer financial information, the federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have adopted guidelines for establishing information security standards and programs to protect such information. In addition, the Bank has established a privacy policy that it believes promotes compliance with the federal requirements.

Examination and enforcement by the state and federal banking agencies, including the CFPB, and other such enforcement authorities, for non-compliance with consumer protection laws and their implementing regulations have increased and become more intense. Due to these heightened regulatory concerns, including increased enforcement of the CRA by the federal banking agencies, and the powers and authority of the CFPB, the Bank may incur additional compliance costs or be required to expend additional funds for investments in its local community or other assessments areas. Federal banking regulators have significantly increased their focus on compliance by banks with existing regulations, including those that seek to prevent unfair and deceptive trade practices, under the Biden administration, including a focus on deposit and other service charges and fees banks charge customers who overdraw their accounts or have checks or other items presented when a customer’s account does not have sufficient funds to cover those checks or other items.

The Company’s securities are registered under the Exchange Act. As such, the Company is subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading, corporate governance, and other requirements and restrictions of the Exchange Act. As a public company, the Company is also subject to the accounting oversight and corporate governance requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), including, among other things, required executive certification of financial presentations, increased requirements for board audit committees and their members, and enhanced requirements relating to disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting.

New regulations and statutes are regularly proposed that contain wide-ranging provisions for altering the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of the nation’s financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether or in what form any proposed regulation or statute will be adopted or the extent to which the Company’s business may be affected by any new regulation or statute or change in applicable rules or regulations. Even if modifications are enacted to existing or proposed regulations, including raising certain assets thresholds above those currently in place, the Company may continue to face enhanced scrutiny from its regulators who may expect it to continue to comply with the current, more stringent requirements as part of their safety and soundness and compliance examinations and general oversight of the Company’s operations.

Competition

The banking business is highly competitive. The Company’s primary market areas consist of Wilson, Trousdale, Davidson, Rutherford, DeKalb, Smith, Sumner, Putnam and Williamson Counties in Tennessee. The Company competes with numerous commercial banks and savings institutions with offices in these market areas. In addition to these competitors, the Company competes for loans with insurance companies, private equity firms, regulated small loan companies, credit unions, and certain government agencies. The Company also competes with numerous companies and financial institutions engaged in similar lines of business, such as mortgage banking companies, brokerage companies and non-bank lending companies. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of the Company's non-bank competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than the Bank can. Continued consolidation in the financial services industry has contributed to increases in the number of large competitors the Company faces in its markets. Some of the Company’s competitors have significantly greater financial resources and offer a greater number of branch locations. To offset this advantage of its larger competitors, the Company believes it can attract customers by providing loan and management decisions at the local level and by being more responsive to customers than some of its larger competitors. The Company does not experience significant seasonal trends in its operations.

Monetary Policies

The results of operations of the Bank and the Company are affected by the policies of the regulatory authorities, particularly the FRB. An important function of the FRB is to regulate the national supply of bank credit in order to combat recession and curb inflation. Among the instruments used to attain these objectives are open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements relating to member bank deposits. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may also affect interest rates charged on loans and paid for deposits. Policies of the regulatory agencies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to do so in the future. The effect of such policies upon the future business and results of operations of the Company and the Bank cannot be predicted with accuracy.

Human Capital

As of February 23, 2024, the Company and the Bank collectively employed 584 full-time equivalent employees. As an independent, community-based bank, the Bank strives to provide friendly, professional, personal service from a caring staff, while offering an extensive assortment of financial services to its customers. As such, the Bank’s employees are central to the successful execution of its business strategy.

The Bank strives to recruit, attract and retain employees and future leaders whose skills and experience advance the mission of the Bank. The Bank's Human Resources Department works closely with its Training Department, managers and mentors to ensure a positive start for new employees. With regard to talent development, the Bank works to identify future leaders within the Bank to develop the skills necessary for career growth. The Bank is committed to professional development for all of its employees through internal and external training programs, mentorships and dedicated leadership workshops. In 2023, an employee engagement survey was conducted with a response rate of 95%. The survey resulted in an employee engagement score of 84% and an employee satisfaction rate of 87%. Although these are considered strong scores by industry observers, the Bank continually works to improve its relations with its employee and those employees’ experiences. In 2023, the Bank's retention rate was 89%.

The Bank strives to hire, train and develop a diverse workforce because it believes doing so allows it to better meet the financial needs of the diverse members of the communities the Bank serves. The Bank believes that all employees should feel a sense of belonging where they work and that collaboration among employees of diverse backgrounds improves the day-to-day experience of all of its employees.

The health and safety of the Bank’s employees has been and continues to be a top priority.

In addition to the substantial investments in employee professional development and safety, the Bank’s benefits and compensation programs are designed to ensure it recruits and retains top talent. The Bank offers employees a comprehensive health benefits package, provides a 401(k) match of $0.50 on the dollar on the first 8% of an employee's contributions to encourage retirement savings, and structures its bonus program for employees to create meaningful performance-based incentives. The Bank believes that these programs, combined with an intentional focus to create a positive, values-based culture will help to ensure that the Bank retains its status as a leading community bank in the markets that it serves.

Serving the needs of all of the members of the Company’s communities also remains a vital part of the Bank’s and the Company’s mission. Besides continuing its annual donations, fundraising and sponsorships in 2023, the Bank’s departments and employees were able to support local nonprofit organizations of their choosing through the We Believe Together giving program – including hundreds of hands-on volunteer hours with the recipient organizations that could permit them. The Bank created the We Believe Together Program in 2017 as a way for employees to contribute work hours and earn matching contribution funds from the Bank for local charities. The Bank also actively participates in the School Bank Program which allows elementary students to become familiar with banking at a young age. The Company also sponsors popular community events in its market areas, including the annual Southern Home & Garden Expo and the Wilson County Fair.

Environmental Matters

There is an increasing concern among individuals and governments over the risks of climate change and related environmental sustainability and the Company’s management and board is continuing to monitor developments in this area and evaluate those things that the Company can do to aid in addressing these concerns. To date, the Company has taken steps to reduce the amount of paper it uses by encouraging clients to receive digital statements. The use of e-signatures by clients has also increased in recent years, further reducing the amount of paper that the Company utilizes in its operations. Expansion of online and digital banking tools in recent years has allowed the Bank to further reduce the number of trips that customers have to make in person to branch locations. These digital and online offerings include remote deposit and mobile banking applications that allow customers to deposit checks without the need for physical delivery to the Bank’s branches.

In addition, the Bank's operations center contains many environmentally friendly features, including solar panels, LED motion-activated lighting and an HVAC computer-controlled system.

Information about our Executive Officers

The following information regarding the Company’s executive officers is included in Part I of this report in lieu of being included in the Company’s definitive proxy materials to be filed in connection with the Company’s 2024 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

John McDearman (54) – Mr. McDearman is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank. Mr. McDearman joined the Bank in November of 1998. He has held positions in branch administration and commercial lending. From November 2002 to January 2009, he held the position of Senior Vice President-Central Division of the Bank. From January 2009 to January 2018, he served as Executive Vice President of the Bank and from January 2018 to January 1, 2020, he served as President of the Bank. Prior to joining the Bank in 1998, he was Assistant Vice President, Banking Center Manager for NationsBank, Chattanooga, Tennessee, a position he held from 1994 to 1998. Mr. McDearman also serves on the Boards of Directors of the Company and the Bank, including as the Chairman of the Bank’s Board of Directors.

John Foster (51) – Mr. Foster joined the Bank in January 1998. He has held positions in branch administration and consumer lending. From August 2017 to July 2018, Mr. Foster served as Senior Vice President/Head of Consumer Lending for the Bank, after having served as a Senior Vice President of the Bank from January 2013 to August 2017. From July 2018 to April 2019, he served as Executive Vice President/Small Business & Consumer Lending for the Bank. From April 2019 to January 1, 2020, he served as the Bank’s Executive Vice President/Chief Consumer/Commercial Banking Officer. Currently, he serves as President of the Bank, a position he has held since January 1, 2020.

Lisa Pominski (59) – Ms. Pominski is Executive Vice President and the Chief Financial Officer of the Bank and the Company, positions she has held since January 2017 and September 1997, respectively, and is the Company’s principal financial and accounting officer. Ms. Pominski has held several positions with the Bank including Asst. Cashier, Asst. Vice President and Senior Vice President since the Bank’s formation in May of 1987. Prior to 1987 Ms. Pominski was employed by People’s Bank, Lebanon, Tennessee.

Clark Oakley (54) – Mr. Oakley joined the Bank in October of 1995. He has held positions in mortgage origination and branch administration. From 2008 to 2016 he held the position of Senior Vice President- Eastern Division of the Bank, and since January 1, 2017, he has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Bank. Prior to joining the Bank, Mr. Oakley was most recently employed at Union Planters Bank in Alexandria, Tennessee. His primary duties include overseeing the operations of the Company and the Bank, including information technology and electronic banking.

Taylor Walker (39) – Mr. Walker has served as the Bank’s Chief Credit Officer since January 1, 2023. Prior to this he was employed by the Bank as Executive Vice President – Head of Commercial Lending since April 2022. Prior to that he served as Senior Vice President – Head of Commercial Lending from January 2021 through March 2022. From January 2017 through December 2022, Mr. Walker served as the Bank’s Senior Vice President and North Region President. Before that he was a Vice President and Business Development Manager from January 2016 through December 2016 and a Vice President and Office Manager from August 2012 through December 2015.

Available Information

The Company’s headquarters is located at 623 West Main Street, Lebanon, Tennessee where its phone number is (615) 444-2265. Its website is http://www.wilsonbank.com. Please note that the Company’s website address is provided as an inactive textual reference only. The Company makes available free of charge on its website the Company’s annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after it files or furnishes such materials to the SEC. The information provided on the Company’s website is not part of this report, and is therefore not incorporated by reference herein unless such information is otherwise specifically incorporated by reference.