Farmers & Merchants Bancshares, Inc.

Previous wording

The risk of credit losses on loans varies with, among other things, general economic conditions, the type of loans being made, the creditworthiness of the borrowers over the term of the loans and, in the case of collateralized loans, the value and marketability of the collateral for the loans. Management of the Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses based upon, among other things, historical experience, an evaluation of economic conditions and regular reviews of delinquencies and loan portfolio quality. Based upon such factors, management makes various assumptions and judgments about the ultimate collectability of the loan portfolio and provides an allowance for credit losses based upon a percentage of the outstanding balances and for specific loans when their ultimate collectability is considered questionable. If management’s assumptions and judgments prove to be incorrect and the allowance for credit losses is inadequate to absorb future losses, or if the bank regulatory authorities require us to increase the allowance for credit losses as a part of its examination process, our earnings and capital could be significantly and adversely affected. Although management continually monitors our loan portfolio and makes determinations with respect to the allowance for credit losses, future adjustments may be necessary if economic conditions differ substantially from the assumptions used or adverse developments arise with respect to our non-performing or performing loans. Material additions to the allowance for credit losses could result in a material decrease in our net income and capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Current wording

The risk of credit losses on loans varies with, among other things, general economic conditions, the type of loans being made, the creditworthiness of the borrowers over the term of the loans and, in the case of collateralized loans, the value and marketability of the collateral for the loans. Management of the Bank maintains an allowance for credit losses on loans based upon, among other things, historical experience, an evaluation of economic conditions and regular reviews of delinquencies and loan portfolio quality. Based upon such factors, management makes various assumptions and judgments about the ultimate collectability of the loan portfolio and provides an allowance for credit losses based upon a percentage of the outstanding balances and for specific loans when their ultimate collectability is considered questionable. If management’s assumptions and judgments prove to be incorrect and the allowance for credit losses is inadequate to absorb future losses, or if the bank regulatory authorities require us to increase the allowance for credit losses as a part of its examination process, our earnings and capital could be significantly and adversely affected. Although management continually monitors our loan portfolio and makes determinations with respect to the allowance for credit losses, future adjustments may be necessary if economic or other conditions differ substantially from the assumptions used or adverse developments arise with respect to our non-performing or performing loans. Material additions to the allowance for credit losses could result in a material decrease in our net income and capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Previous wording

Our net income depends primarily upon our net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest income earned on loans, investments and other interest-earning assets and the interest expense incurred on deposits and borrowed funds. The level of net interest income is primarily a function of the average balance of our interest-earning assets, the average balance of our interest-bearing liabilities, and the spread between the yield on such assets and the cost of such liabilities. These factors are influenced by both the pricing and mix of our interest-earning assets and our interest-bearing liabilities which, in turn, are impacted by such external factors as the local economy, competition for loans and deposits, the monetary policy of the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and market interest rates.

Current wording

Our net income depends primarily upon our net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest income earned on loans, investments and other interest-earning assets and the interest expense incurred on deposits and borrowed funds. The level of net interest income is primarily a function of the average balance of our interest-earning assets, the average balance of our interest-bearing liabilities, and the spread between the yield on such assets and the cost of such liabilities. These factors are influenced by both the pricing and mix of our interest-earning assets and our interest-bearing liabilities which, in turn, are impacted by such external factors as the local economy, competition for loans and deposits, the monetary policy of the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve, and market interest rates.

Previous wording

As of December 31, 2024, investment securities in our investment portfolio having a cost basis of $149.0 million and a market value of $125.7 million were classified as available-for-sale pursuant to FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 320, Investments – Debt and Equity Securities, relating to accounting for investments. Topic 320 requires that unrealized gains and losses in the estimated value of the available-for-sale portfolio be “marked to market” and reflected as a separate item in stockholders’ equity (net of tax) as accumulated other comprehensive gain or loss. There can be no assurance that future market performance of our investment portfolio will enable us to realize income from sales of securities. Stockholders’ equity will continue to reflect the unrealized gains and losses (net of tax) of these investments. Moreover, there can be no assurance that the market value of our investment portfolio will not decline, causing a corresponding decline in stockholders’ equity.

Current wording

As of December 31, 2025, investment securities in our investment portfolio having a cost basis of $136.1 million and a market value of $118.7 million were classified as available-for-sale pursuant to FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 320, Investments – Debt and Equity Securities, relating to accounting for investments. Topic 320 requires that unrealized gains and losses in the estimated value of the available-for-sale portfolio be “marked to market” and reflected as a separate item in stockholders’ equity (net of tax) as accumulated other comprehensive gain or loss. There can be no assurance that future market performance of our investment portfolio will enable us to realize income from sales of securities. Stockholders’ equity will continue to reflect the unrealized gains and losses (net of tax) of these investments. Moreover, there can be no assurance that the market value of our investment portfolio will not decline, causing a corresponding decline in stockholders’ equity.

Previous wording

In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. Assessing the need for, or the sufficiency of, a valuation allowance requires management to evaluate all available evidence, both negative and positive, including the recent trend of quarterly earnings. Positive evidence necessary to overcome the negative evidence includes whether future taxable income in sufficient amounts and character within the carryback and carry forward periods is available under the tax law, including the use of tax planning strategies. When negative evidence (e.g., cumulative losses in recent years, history of operating loss or tax credit carry forwards expiring unused) exists, more positive evidence than negative evidence will be necessary. At December 31, 2024, our net deferred tax assets were valued at $7.6 million.

Current wording

In assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. Assessing the need for, or the sufficiency of, a valuation allowance requires management to evaluate all available evidence, both negative and positive, including the recent trend of quarterly earnings. Positive evidence necessary to overcome the negative evidence includes whether future taxable income in sufficient amounts and character within the carryback and carry forward periods is available under the tax law, including the use of tax planning strategies. When negative evidence (e.g., cumulative losses in recent years, history of operating loss or tax credit carry forwards expiring unused) exists, more positive evidence than negative evidence will be necessary. At December 31, 2025, our net deferred tax assets were valued at $6.3 million.

Previous wording

In addition, changes to the banking laws over the last several years have facilitated interstate branching, merger and expanded activities by banks and holding companies. For example, the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act revised the BHC Act and repealed the affiliation provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which, taken together, limited the securities and other non-banking activities of any company that controls an FDIC insured financial institution. As a result, the ability of financial institutions to branch across state lines and the ability of these institutions to engage in previously-prohibited activities are now accepted elements of competition in the banking industry. These changes may bring us into competition with more and a wider array of institutions, which may reduce our ability to attract or retain customers. Management cannot predict the extent to which we will face such additional competition or the degree to which such competition will impact our financial conditions or results of operations.

Current wording

In addition, changes to the banking laws over the years have facilitated interstate branching, merger and expanded activities by banks and holding companies. For example, the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act revised the BHC Act and repealed the affiliation provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which, taken together, limited the securities and other non-banking activities of any company that controls an FDIC insured financial institution. As a result, the ability of financial institutions to branch across state lines and the ability of these institutions to engage in previously-prohibited activities are now accepted elements of competition in the banking industry. These changes may bring us into competition with more and a wider array of institutions, which may reduce our ability to attract or retain customers. Management cannot predict the extent to which we will face such additional competition or the degree to which such competition will impact our financial conditions or results of operations.

Previous wording

Due to the large number of bank failures that have occurred since the 2008 recession, banking customers across the country have become increasingly concerned about the extent to which their deposits are insured by the FDIC. This concern could cause the Bank’s customers to withdraw deposits from the Bank in an effort to ensure that the amount they have on deposit with us is fully-insured. Because the Bank relies heavily on deposits to fund loans and purchase other interest-earning assets, a decrease in deposits could have a materially adverse effect on our funding costs and net income.

Current wording

Since the 2008 recession that involved a large number of bank failures, banking customers across the country have become increasingly concerned about the extent to which their deposits are insured by the FDIC. This concern could cause the Bank’s customers to withdraw deposits from the Bank in an effort to ensure that the amount they have on deposit with us is fully-insured. Because the Bank relies heavily on deposits to fund loans and purchase other interest-earning assets, a decrease in deposits could have a materially adverse effect on our funding costs and net income.

Previous wording

We formed the Insurance Subsidiary as a captive insurance company in late 2016 to insure or reinsure certain risks faced by the Bank as part of our enterprise-wide, multi-year insurance strategy to better position our risk programs and provide us with increased flexibility in the management of our insurance programs as well as contribute to efficiencies relating to our insurance programs over time. As indicated by our decision to not renew our most recent policy, we may deviate from or change our insurance strategy from time to time, such as by choosing to not purchase insurance coverage through the Insurance Subsidiary for a particular year. If we do purchase insurance coverage through the Insurance Subsidiary, we may experience unanticipated events that could reduce or eliminate the benefits, both operational and financial, that we hope to realize through this entity, including, without limitation, significant insurance claims and/or changes in tax laws. In particular, we may not realize the tax benefits of owning a captive insurance company, which are discussed in the section of Item 1 of this annual report entitled “Supervision and Regulation” under the heading “Laws Related to the InsuranceSubsidiary”.** **Although we believe that we have structured the Insurance Subsidiary’s operations to achieve these benefits, no assurance can be given that our efforts were or will be successful. If we are unable to achieve these benefits, then we will likely suspend the operations of the Insurance Subsidiary.

Current wording

We formed the Insurance Subsidiary as a captive insurance company in late 2016 to insure or reinsure certain risks faced by the Bank as part of our enterprise-wide, multi-year insurance strategy to better position our risk programs and provide us with increased flexibility in the management of our insurance programs as well as contribute to efficiencies relating to our insurance programs over time. As indicated by our decision to not renew our most recent policy, we may deviate from or change our insurance strategy from time to time, such as by choosing to not purchase insurance coverage through the Insurance Subsidiary for a particular year. If we do purchase insurance coverage through the Insurance Subsidiary, we may experience unanticipated events that could reduce or eliminate the benefits, both operational and financial, that we hope to realize through this entity, including, without limitation, significant insurance claims and/or changes in tax laws. In particular, we may not realize the tax benefits of owning a captive insurance company, which are discussed in Item 1 of this Annual Report under the heading “Supervision and Regulation” - “Laws Related to the InsuranceSubsidiary”.** **Although we believe that we have structured the Insurance Subsidiary’s operations to achieve these benefits, no assurance can be given that our efforts were or will be successful.

Previous wording

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions through alternative methods that historically have involved banks. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts, mutual funds or general-purpose reloadable prepaid cards. Consumers can also complete transactions, such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. Although the digital asset marketplace has in recent months experienced substantial instability, transactions utilizing digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and other similar assets, have increased substantially over the course of the last several years. Certain characteristics of digital asset transactions, such as the speed with which such transactions can be conducted, the ability to transact without the involvement of regulated intermediaries, the ability to engage in transactions across multiple jurisdictions, and the anonymous nature of the transactions, are appealing to certain consumers notwithstanding the various risks posed by such transactions as illustrated by the current and ongoing market volatility. Accordingly, digital asset service providers, which at present are not subject to the extensive regulation of banking organizations and other financial institutions, have become active competitors for our customers’ banking business. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation”, could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. Further, an initiative by the CFPB, as prompted by the current Presidential Administration, to promote “open and decentralized banking” through the proposal of a Personal Financial Data Rights rule designed to facilitate the transfer of customer information at the direction of the customer to other financial institutions could lead to greater competition for products and services among banks and nonbanks alike if a final rule is adopted. The timing of and prospects for any such action are uncertain at this time. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions through alternative methods that historically have involved banks. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts, mutual funds or general-purpose reloadable prepaid cards. Consumers can also complete transactions, such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. Although the digital asset marketplace has experienced substantial instability over the past few years, transactions utilizing digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and other similar assets, have increased substantially. Certain characteristics of digital asset transactions, such as the speed with which such transactions can be conducted, the ability to transact without the involvement of regulated intermediaries, the ability to engage in transactions across multiple jurisdictions, and the anonymous nature of the transactions, are appealing to certain consumers notwithstanding the various risks posed by such transactions as illustrated by the current and ongoing market volatility. Accordingly, digital asset service providers, which at present are not subject to the extensive regulation of banking organizations and other financial institutions, have become active competitors for our customers’ banking business. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation”, could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. Further, an initiative by the CFPB, as prompted by the current Presidential Administration, to promote “open and decentralized banking” through the proposal of a Personal Financial Data Rights rule designed to facilitate the transfer of customer information at the direction of the customer to other financial institutions could lead to greater competition for products and services among banks and nonbanks alike if a final rule is adopted. The timing of and prospects for any such action are uncertain at this time. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.