Back to GetFilings.com

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2002

Commission File No. 0-26486

Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

100 N. Gay Street
Auburn, Alabama 36830
(334) 821-9200
(Address and telephone number of principal executive offices)

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:
Common Stock, Par Value, $.01 Per Share
(Title of class)

Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or 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

Check if disclosure of delinquent filers in response to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained in this form, and no disclosure will be contained, to the best of the 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

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

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of registrant computed by reference to the price at which the stock was last sold as of June 30, 2002 was $34,263,224.

As of March 21, 2003, there were issued and outstanding 3,894,818 shares of the registrant’s $.01 par value common stock.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 13, 2003 are incorporated by reference into Part III.

PART I

SPECIAL CAUTIONARY NOTICE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain of the statements made herein under the caption “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and elsewhere, including information incorporated herein by reference to other documents, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of, and subject to the protections of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

Forward-looking statements include statements with respect to our beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, expectations, anticipations, assumptions, estimates, intentions, and future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may be beyond our control, and which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Auburn National Bancorporation (the “Company”) to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.

All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be forward-looking statements. You can identify these forward-looking statements through our use of words such as “may”, “will”, “anticipate”, “assume”, “should”, “indicate”, “would”, “believe”, “contemplate”, “expect”, “estimate”, “continue”, “plan”, “point to”, “project”, “could”, “intend”, “target”, other similar words and expressions of the future. These forward-looking statements may not be realized due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation:

•          future economic and business conditions;

•          government monetary and fiscal policies;

•          the risks of changes in interest rates on the levels, composition and costs of deposits, loan demand, and the values of loan collateral, securities, and interest sensitive assets and liabilities;

•          the effects of competition from a wide variety of local, regional, national and other providers of financial, investment, and insurance services;

•          the failure of assumptions underlying the establishment of reserves for possible loan losses and other estimates;

•          the risks of mergers and acquisitions, including, without limitation, the related costs, including integrating operations as part of these transactions and the failure to achieve expected gains, revenue growth and/or expense savings from such transactions;

•          changes in laws and regulations, including tax laws and regulations;

•          changes in accounting policies, rules and practices;

•          changes in technology or products may be more difficult or costly, or less effective than anticipated;

•          the effects of war or other conflicts, acts of terrorism or other catastrophic events that may affect general economic conditions and economic confidence; and

•          other factors and risks described in any of our subsequent reports that we make with the Commission under the Exchange Act.

All written or oral forward-looking statements that are attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary notice. We have no obligation and do not undertake to update, revise or correct any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this report, or after the respective dates on which such statements otherwise are made.

ITEM 1.         BUSINESS

Auburn National Bancorporation, Inc. (the “Company”) is a bank holding company registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956,

2

as amended (the “BHC Act”). The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 1990, and in 1994 it succeeded its Alabama predecessor as the bank holding company controlling AuburnBank, an Alabama state member bank with its principal office in Auburn, Alabama (the “Bank”). The Company and its predecessor have controlled the Bank since 1984. As a bank holding company, the Company may diversify into a broader range of financial services and other business activities than currently are permitted to the Bank under applicable law. The holding company structure also provides greater financial and operating flexibility than is presently permitted to the Bank.

The Bank has operated continuously since 1907 and conducts its business in East Alabama, including Lee County and surrounding areas. In April 1995, in order to gain flexibility and reduce certain regulatory burdens, the Bank converted from a national bank to an Alabama state bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System (the “Charter Conversion”). Upon consummation of the Charter Conversion, the Bank’s primary regulator changed from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to the Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent of Banks (the “Alabama Superintendent”). The Bank has been a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (the “FHLB-Atlanta”) since 1991.

General

The Company’s business is conducted primarily through the Bank. Although it has no immediate plans to conduct any other business, the Company may engage directly or indirectly in a number of activities which the Federal Reserve has determined to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.

Services

The Bank offers checking, savings, transaction deposit accounts and certificates of deposit, and is an active residential mortgage lender in its primary service area (“PSA”). The Bank also offers commercial, financial, agricultural, real estate construction and consumer loan products and other financial services. The Bank is one of the largest providers of automated teller services in East Alabama, operating ATM machines in 14 locations. The Bank offers VISA Checkcards, which are debit cards with the VISA logo that work like checks but can be used anywhere VISA is accepted, including ATMs. The Bank’s VISA Checkcards can be used internationally through the Cirrus^® network. In 1999, the Bank launched its Internet web page and began offering online banking and bill payment services.

Competition

The banking business in Alabama, including Lee County, is highly competitive with respect to loans, deposits, and other financial services, and the area is dominated by a number of major banks and bank holding companies which have substantially greater resources, and numerous offices and affiliates operating over wide geographic areas. The Bank competes for deposits, loans, and other business with these banks, as well as with credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and other local and nonlocal financial institutions, including institutions offering services through the mail, by telephone and over the Internet. Among the advantages that certain of these institutions have over the Bank are their ability to finance extensive advertising campaigns and to allocate and diversify their assets among loans and securities of the highest yield and in locations with the greatest demand.

Many of the major commercial banks operating in the Bank’s service area, or their affiliates, offer services, such as international banking and investment services, which are not presently offered directly by the Bank. Such competitors, because of their greater capitalization, also have substantially higher lending limits than the Bank.

The Bank faces further competition for loans and deposits from a wide variety of local and nonlocal financial institutions. As more and different kinds of businesses enter the market for financial services, competition from nonbank financial intermediaries such as thrifts, credit unions, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and other financial institutions may be expected to intensify further. Community banks also have experienced significant

3

competition for deposits from mutual funds, insurance companies, and other investment companies, and money center banks’ offerings of high-yield investments and deposits. Certain of these competitors are not subject to the same regulatory restrictions as the Bank. Since September 29, 1995, any bank holding company located outside Alabama may acquire any bank based in Alabama or generally, any other state, subject to certain deposit-percentage, aging requirements, and other restrictions. Alabama has also opted into the provisions of the Interstate Banking Act, which permits national and state-chartered banks to branch interstate through acquisitions of banks in other states. See “SUPERVISION AND REGULATION.”

Selected Economic Data

The Bank’s PSA includes the cities of Auburn and Opelika, Alabama and nearby surrounding areas in East Alabama, primarily in Lee County. Lee County’s population is approximately 102,000. Approximately 71% of the land in Lee County is devoted to agriculture, of which approximately 91% is comprised of forests. An estimated 10% is urban or developed. Timber and timber products, greenhouses and horticulture, beef cattle, and cotton are the major agricultural products. Principal manufactured products in the Company’s PSA include magnetic recording tapes, tires, textiles, small gasoline engines, and hardware. The largest employers in the area are Auburn University, East Alabama Medical Center, Uniroyal-Goodrich, West Point Stevens, and Briggs & Stratton.

Loans and Loan Concentrations

The Bank makes loans for commercial, financial, and agricultural purposes, as well as for real estate mortgage, real estate construction, and consumer purposes. While there are certain risks unique to each type of lending, management believes that there is more risk associated with commercial, real estate construction, agricultural, and consumer lending than with real estate mortgage loans. To help manage these risks, the Bank has established underwriting standards used in evaluating each extension of credit on an individual basis, which are substantially similar for each type of loan. These standards include a review of the economic conditions affecting the borrower, the borrower’s financial strength and capacity to repay the debt, the underlying collateral, and the borrower’s past credit performance. These standards are used to determine the creditworthiness of the borrower at the time a loan is made and are monitored periodically throughout the life of the loan.

The Bank has loans outstanding to borrowers in all industries within its PSA. Any adverse economic or other conditions affecting these industries would also likely have an adverse effect on the local workforce, other local businesses, and individuals in the community that have entered into loans with the Bank. However, management believes that due to the diversified mix of industries located within the Bank’s PSA, adverse changes in one industry may not necessarily affect other area industries to the same degree or within the same time frame. Management realizes that the Bank’s PSA is also subject to both local and national economic fluctuations.

Employees

At December 31, 2002, the Bank had 123 full-time equivalent employees, including 29 officers.

Statistical Information

Certain statistical information (as required by Guide 3) is included in response to Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Certain statistical information is also included in response to Item 6, Item 7A and Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

4

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

Bank holding companies and banks are extensively regulated under federal and state law. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provisions referred to below and is not intended to be an exhaustive description of the status or regulations applicable to the Company’s and the Bank’s business. Supervision, regulation, and examination of the Company and the Bank and their respective subsidiaries by the bank regulatory agencies are intended primarily for the protection of depositors rather than holders of Company capital stock. Any change in applicable law or regulation may have a material effect on the Company’s business.

Bank Holding Company Regulation

The Company, as a bank holding company, is subject to supervision and regulation by the Federal Reserve under the BHC Act. Bank holding companies are generally limited to the business of banking, managing, or controlling banks, and other activities that the Federal Reserve determines to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. The Company is required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports and such other information as the Federal Reserve may request. The Federal Reserve examines the Company, and may examine its subsidiaries. The State of Alabama does not regulate bank holding companies.

The BHC Act requires prior Federal Reserve approval for, among other things, the acquisition by a bank holding company of direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all the assets of any bank, or for a merger or consolidation of a bank holding company with another bank holding company. With certain exceptions, the BHC Act prohibits a bank holding company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of voting shares of any company which is not a bank or bank holding company and from engaging directly or indirectly in any activity other than banking or managing or controlling banks or performing services for its authorized subsidiary. A bank holding company may, however, engage in or acquire an interest in a company that engages in activities which the Federal Reserve has determined by regulation or order to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.

In November 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB Act”) was enacted, which revised the statutory restrictions separating banking activities from certain other financial activities. Under the GLB Act, bank holding companies that are “well-capitalized” and “well-managed” and whose subsidiary banks have satisfactory or better ratings under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as amended (the “CRA”), and meet certain other conditions can elect to become “financial holding companies.” Financial holding companies and their subsidiaries are permitted to acquire or engage in previously impermissible activities such as insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, travel agency activities, broad insurance agency activities, merchant banking, and other activities that the Federal Reserve determines to be financial in nature or complementary thereto. In addition, under the merchant banking authority added by the GLB Act and Federal Reserve regulations, financial holding companies are authorized to invest in companies that engage in activities that are not financial in nature, as long as the financial holding company makes its investment with the intention of limiting the terms of its investment, does not manage the company on a day-to-day basis, and the investee company does not cross-market with any of the financial holding company’s controlled depository institutions. Financial holding companies continue to be subject to the overall oversight and supervision of the Federal Reserve, but the GLB Act applies the concept of functional regulation to the activities conducted by subsidiaries. For example, insurance activities would be subject to supervision and regulation by state insurance authorities. While the Company has not elected to become a financial holding company, in order to exercise the broader activity powers provided by the GLB Act, it may elect to do so in the future. The GLB Act also includes numerous consumer privacy provisions, and the Federal Reserve and the other federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted extensive privacy rules.

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. Various legal limitations restrict the Bank from lending or otherwise supplying funds to the Company. The Company and the Bank are subject to Section 23A

5

of the Federal Reserve Act. Section 23A defines “covered transactions”, which include extensions of credit, and limits a bank’s covered transactions with any affiliate to 10% of such bank’s capital and surplus. All covered and exempt transactions between a bank and its affiliates must be on terms and conditions consistent with safe and sound banking practices, and banks and their subsidiaries are prohibited from purchasing low-quality assets from the bank’s affiliates. Finally, Section 23A requires that all of a bank’s extensions of credit to its affiliate be appropriately secured by acceptable collateral, generally United States government or agency securities. The Company and the Bank also are subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which generally requires covered and other transactions among affiliates to be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that are substantially the same as or at least as favorable to the bank or its subsidiary as those prevailing at the time for similar transactions with unaffiliated companies.

Federal Reserve policy requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial strength and to take measures to preserve and protect its bank subsidiaries in situations where additional investments in a troubled bank may not otherwise be warranted. In addition, where a bank holding company has more than one bank or thrift subsidiary, each of the bank holding company’s subsidiary depository institutions are responsible for any losses to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as a result of an affiliated depository institution’s failure. As a result, a bank holding company may be required to loan money to its subsidiary in the form of capital notes or other instruments which qualify as capital under regulatory rules. However, any loans from the holding company to such subsidiary banks likely will be unsecured and subordinated to such bank’s depositors and perhaps to other creditors of the bank.

Bank and Bank Subsidiary Regulation

The Bank is subject to supervision, regulation, and examination by the Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent of Banks, which monitor all areas of the operations of the Bank, including reserves, loans, mortgages, issuances of securities, payment of dividends, establishment of branches, capital adequacy, and compliance with laws. The Bank is a member of the FDIC and, as such, its deposits are insured by the FDIC to the maximum extent provided by law. See “FDIC Insurance Assessments”.

The powers granted to Alabama-chartered banks by state law include certain provisions designed to provide such banks with competitive equality to the powers of national banks regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The Federal Reserve adopted the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (“FFIEC”) updated rating system which assigns each financial institution a confidential composite “CAMELS” rating based on an evaluation and rating of six essential components of an institution’s financial condition and operations including Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity and Sensitivity to market risk. For most institutions, the FFIEC has indicated that market risk primarily reflects exposures to changes in interest rates. When regulators evaluate this component, consideration is expected to be given to: management’s ability to identify, measure, monitor, and control market risk; the institution’s size; the nature and complexity of its activities and its risk profile, and the adequacy of its capital and earnings in relation to its level of market risk exposure. Market risk is rated based upon, but not limited to, an assessment of the sensitivity of the financial institution’s earnings or the economic value of its capital to adverse changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices, or equity prices; management’s ability to identify, measure, monitor and control exposure to market risk; and the nature and complexity of interest rate risk exposure arising from nontrading positions.

The GLB Act requires banks and their affiliated companies to adopt and disclose privacy policies, including policies regarding the sharing of personal information they obtain from customers with third parties. The GLB Act also permits bank subsidiaries to engage in “financial activities” similar to those permitted to financial holding companies.

6

Community Reinvestment Act

The Company and the Bank are subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as amended (the “CRA”), and the federal banking agencies’ regulations thereunder. Under the CRA, all banks and thrifts have a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with their safe and sound operation, to help meet the credit needs for their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions, nor does it limit an institution’s discretion to develop the types of products and services that it believes are best suited to its particular community. The CRA requires a depository institution’s primary federal regulator, in connection with its examination of the institution, to assess the institution’s record of assessing and meeting the credit needs of the community served by that institution, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The regulatory agency’s assessment of the institution’s record is made available to the public. Further, such assessment is required of any institution which has applied to: (i) charter a national bank; (ii) obtain deposit insurance coverage for a newly-chartered institution; (iii) establish a new branch office that accepts deposits; (iv) relocate an office; or (v) merge or consolidate with, or acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of, a federally regulated financial institution. In the case of a bank holding company applying for approval to acquire a bank or other bank holding company, the Federal Reserve will assess the records of each subsidiary depository institution of the applicant bank holding company, and such records may be the basis for denying the application. A less than satisfactory CRA rating will slow, if not preclude expansion of banking activities. The Bank had a CRA rating of satisfactory as of May 6, 2002.

Current CRA regulations rate institutions based on their actual performance in meeting community credit needs. CRA performance is evaluated by the Federal Reserve, the Bank’s primary federal regulator, using a lending test, an investment test, and a service test. The Federal Reserve also will consider: (i) demographic data about the community; (ii) the institution’s capacity and constraints; (iii) the institution’s product offerings and business strategy; and (iv) data on the prior performance of the institution and similarly-situated lenders. As a result of GLB Act, CRA agreements with private parties must be disclosed and annual CRA reports must be made to a bank’s primary federal regulator. A bank holding company will not be permitted to become a financial holding company and no new activities authorized under GLB may be commenced by a holding company or by a bank financial subsidiary if any of its bank subsidiaries received less than a “satisfactory” CRA rating in its latest CRA examination.

The Bank is also subject to, among other things, the provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (the “ECOA”) and the Fair Housing Act (the “FHA”), both of which prohibit discrimination based on race or color, religion, national origin, sex, and familial status in any aspect of a consumer or commercial credit or residential real estate transaction. In April 1994, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice (the “DoJ”), and the federal banking agencies issued an Interagency Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending to provide guidance to financial institutions in determining whether discrimination exists, how the agencies will respond to lending discrimination, and what steps lenders might take to prevent discriminatory lending practices. The DoJ has also increased its efforts to prosecute what it regards as violations of the ECOA and FHA.

Payment of Dividends

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The prior approval of the Federal Reserve and/or the Alabama Superintendent is required if the total of all dividends declared by a state member bank (such as the Bank) in any calendar year will exceed the sum of such bank’s net profits for the year and its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. Federal law also prohibits any state member bank from paying dividends that would be greater than such bank’s undivided profits after deducting statutory bad debt reserves in excess of such bank’s allowance for loan losses. During 2002, the Bank paid cash dividends of $1,712,000 to the Company.

In addition, the Company and the Bank are subject to various general regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including requirements to maintain adequate capital above regulatory

7

minimums. The appropriate federal regulatory and state authorities are authorized to determine, under certain circumstances relating to the financial condition of a state member bank or a bank holding company, that the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice and to prohibit payment thereof. The Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a state member bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsound and unsafe banking practice. The Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent also have indicated that depository institutions should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings.

Capital

The Federal Reserve has risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and state member banks, respectively. These guidelines require a minimum ratio of capital to risk-weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) of 8%. At least half of the total capital must consist of common equity, retained earnings and a limited amount of qualifying preferred stock, less goodwill and certain core deposit intangibles (“Tier 1 capital”). The remainder may consist of non–qualifying preferred stock, qualifying subordinated, perpetual, and/or mandatory convertible debt, term subordinated debt and intermediate term preferred stock, up to 45% of pretax unrealized holding gains on available for sale equity securities with readily determinable market values that are prudently valued, and a limited amount of general loan loss allowance (“Tier 2 capital” and, together with Tier 1 capital, “Total Capital”).

In addition, the federal regulatory agencies have established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and state member banks, which provide for a minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to adjusted average quarterly assets (“leverage ratio”) equal to 3%, plus an additional cushion of 1.0% – 2.0% if the institution has less than the highest regulatory rating. The guidelines also provide that institutions 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. Higher capital may be required in individual cases and depending upon a bank holding company’s risk profile. All bank holding companies and banks are expected to hold capital commensurate with the level and nature of their risks including the volume and severity of their problem loans. Lastly, the Federal Reserve’s guidelines indicate that the Federal Reserve will continue to consider a “tangible Tier 1 leverage ratio” (deducting all intangibles) in evaluating proposals for expansion or new activity. The Federal Reserve has not advised the Company or the Bank of any specific minimum leverage ratio or tangible Tier 1 leverage ratio applicable to them.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), among other things, requires the federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” regarding depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. FDICIA establishes five capital tiers: “well capitalized”, “adequately capitalized”, “undercapitalized”, “significantly undercapitalized”, and “critically undercapitalized”. A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon how its capital levels compare to various relevant capital measures and certain other factors, as established by regulation.

All of the federal banking agencies have adopted regulations establishing relevant capital measures and relevant capital levels. The relevant capital measures are the Total Capital ratio, Tier 1 capital ratio, and the leverage ratio. Under the regulations, a state member bank will be (i) well capitalized if it has a Total Capital ratio of 10% or greater, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% or greater, a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% or greater and is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive by a federal bank regulatory agency to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure, (ii) adequately capitalized if it has a Total Capital ratio of 8% or greater, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 4% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 4% or greater (3% in certain circumstances), (iii) undercapitalized if it has a Total Capital ratio of less than 8%, a Tier 1 capital ratio of less than 4% (3% in certain circumstances), (iv) significantly undercapitalized if it has a Total Capital ratio of less than 6%, a Tier 1 capital ratio of less than 3% and a leverage ratio of less than 3% or (v) critically undercapitalized if its tangible equity is equal to or less than 2% of average quarterly tangible assets.

8

As of December 31, 2002, the consolidated capital ratios of the Company and the Bank were as follows:

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be undercapitalized. Undercapitalized depository institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan for approval. For a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with such capital restoration plan. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of 5% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized and the amount necessary to bring the institution into compliance with applicable capital standards. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is significantly undercapitalized. If the controlling holding company fails to fulfill its obligations under FDICIA and files (or has filed against it) a petition under the federal Bankruptcy Code, the claim would be entitled to a priority in such bankruptcy proceeding over third party creditors of the bank holding company. Significantly undercapitalized depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become adequately capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. Critically undercapitalized institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Because the Company and the Bank exceed applicable capital requirements, the respective managements of the Company and the Bank do not believe that the provisions of FDICIA have had or will have any material impact on the Company and the Bank or their respective operations.

FDICIA

FDICIA directs that each federal banking regulatory agency prescribe standards for depository institutions and depository institution holding companies relating to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth composition, a maximum ratio of classified assets to capital, minimum earnings sufficient to absorb losses, a minimum ratio of market value to book value for publicly traded shares, and such other standards as the federal regulatory agencies deem appropriate.

FDICIA also contains a variety of other provisions that may affect the operations of the Company and the Bank, including new reporting requirements, regulatory standards for real estate lending, “truth in savings” provisions, the requirement that a depository institution give 90 days prior notice to customers and regulatory authorities before closing any branch, and a prohibition on the acceptance or renewal of brokered deposits by depository institutions that are not well capitalized or are adequately capitalized and have not received a waiver from the FDIC.

Enforcement Policies and Actions

The Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent monitor compliance with laws and regulations. Violations of laws and regulations, or other unsafe and unsound practices, may result in these agencies imposing fines or penalties, cease and desist orders, or taking other enforcement actions. Under certain circumstances, these agencies may enforce these remedies directly against officers, directors, employees and others participating in the affairs of a bank or bank holding company.

9

Fiscal and Monetary Policy

Banking is a business which depends on interest rate differentials. In general, the difference between the interest paid by a bank on its deposits and its other borrowings, and the interest received by a bank on its loans and securities holdings, constitutes the major portion of a bank’s earnings. Thus, the earnings and growth of the Company and the Bank are subject to the influence of economic conditions generally, both domestic and foreign, and also to the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States and its agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve regulates the supply of money through various means, including open market dealings in United States government securities, the discount rate at which banks may borrow from the Federal Reserve, and the reserve requirements on deposits. The nature and timing of any changes in such policies and their effect on the Company and the Bank cannot be predicted.

FDIC Insurance Assessments

The Bank is subject to FDIC deposit insurance assessments. The Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC’s Bank Insurance Fund (“BIF”), and it has no deposits insured by the Savings Association Insurance Fund (“SAIF”). In 1996, the FDIC began applying a risk-based premium schedule which decreased the assessment rates for BIF depository institutions. Under this schedule, the annual premiums range from zero to $.27 for every $100 of deposits. The Deposit Insurance Funds Act of 1996 authorized The Financing Corporation (“FICO”) to levy assessments on BIF-assessable deposits. The FICO assessments are set quarterly, and for BIF in 2002 ranged from 1.70 to 1.82 basis points. The FICO assessment rates for both BIF and SAIF for the first quarter of 2003 are 1.68 basis points (0.0168%) of assessable deposits.

Each financial institution is assigned to one of three capital groups – well capitalized, adequately capitalized or undercapitalized – and further assigned to one of three subgroups within a capital group, on the basis of supervisory evaluations by the institution’s primary federal and, if applicable, state regulators, and other information relevant to the institution’s financial condition and the risk posed to the applicable insurance fund. The actual assessment rate applicable to a particular institution will, therefore, depend in part upon the risk assessment classification so assigned to the institution by the FDIC. During the three years ended December 31, 2002, the Bank paid $0 in BIF deposit insurance premiums, and paid approximately $174,000, $60,000 and $122,000 in FICO assessments during 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively. The FDIC has indicated that based on its current level of reserves deposit insurance premiums may increase in 2003.

Legislative and Regulatory Changes

The International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorism Funding Act of 2001, imposes new “know your customer” requirements that obligate financial institutions to take actions to verify the identity of the account holders in connection with the opening of an account at any U.S. financial institution. Banking regulators are required to consider a financial institution’s compliance with the act’s money laundering provisions in making decisions regarding approval of acquisitions and mergers, and the regulatory authorities may impose sanctions for violations of this act.

Various legislative and regulatory proposals regarding changes in banking, and the regulation of banks, thrifts and other financial institutions and bank and bank holding company powers are being considered by the executive branch of the Federal government, Congress and various state governments. The FDIC has proposed a restructuring of the federal deposit insurance system, to better measure and price deposit insurance, to merge BIF and SAIF and increase FDIC insurance coverage. Other proposals pending in Congress would, among other things, allow banks to pay interest on checking accounts, allow the Federal Reserve to pay interest on reserves and permit de novo interstate branching. Certain of these proposals, if adopted, could significantly change the regulation of banks and the financial services industry. It cannot be predicted whether any of these proposals will be adopted, and, if adopted, how these proposals will affect the Company and the Bank. Various federal oversight authorities are also reviewing the capital

10

adequacy and riskiness of government sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Changes from such review could affect the cost and availability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Services.

ITEM 2.         DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

The Bank conducts its business from its main office and seven branches. The main office is located in downtown Auburn, Alabama, in a 16,150 square foot building that is owned by the Bank. The original building was constructed in 1964, and an addition was completed in 1981. Portions of the building have been renovated within the last five years in order to accommodate growth and changes in the Bank’s operational structure and to adapt to technological changes. The main office building is surrounded on two sides by paved areas that provide parking for 84 vehicles, including four handicapped spaces. The main office branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services and has 2 ATMs, including one walk-up ATM and one drive-through ATM. The Bank owns a drive-in facility located directly across the street from its main office. This drive-in facility was constructed in 1979 and has five drive-through lanes and a walk-up window.

The Bank’s Kroger branch is located in the Kroger supermarket in the Corner Village Shopping Center in Auburn, Alabama. On September 15, 1987, the Bank entered into a 15-year lease agreement with an option to extend for approximately 500 square feet of space in the supermarket. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services including an ATM, with the exception of loans and safe deposit boxes.

The Opelika branch is located in Opelika, Alabama, in a 4,000 square foot building. This branch is owned by the Bank and was built in 1991. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services and has drive-through windows and an ATM. This branch offers parking for approximately 36 vehicles, including two handicapped spaces.

The Bank’s Phenix City branch was opened August 19, 1998 in the Wal-Mart shopping center in Phenix City, Alabama, about 30 miles south of Auburn, Alabama. The Bank has a five-year lease agreement with an option to extend for approximately 600 square feet of space in the Wal-Mart. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s deposit and other services including an ATM, except loans and safe deposit boxes.

The Bank’s Hurtsboro branch was opened June 28, 1999. This branch is located in Hurtsboro, Alabama, about 40 miles south of Auburn, Alabama, in a 1,000 square foot building. This branch was built in 1999 and is owned by the Bank. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services and has drive-through windows and an ATM. This branch offers parking for approximately 8 vehicles, including a handicapped ramp.

The Bank’s Auburn Wal-Mart Supercenter branch was opened September 20, 2000 inside the Wal-Mart shopping center on the south side of Auburn, Alabama. The Bank has a five-year lease agreement with an option to extend for approximately 695 square feet of space in the Wal-Mart. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s deposit and other services including an ATM, except loans and safe deposit boxes.

The Bank’s Notasulga branch was opened August 9, 2001. This branch is located in Notasulga, Alabama, about 12 miles southwest of Auburn, Alabama in a 1,400 square foot building. This branch was built in 2001 and is owned by the Bank. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s services and has an ATM and drive-through window. This branch offers parking for approximately 11 vehicles, including a handicapped ramp.

In July 2002, the Bank opened a mortgage loan office in Phenix City. The mortgage office is located in downtown Phenix City, about 30 miles south of Auburn, Alabama. The Bank has a one-year lease for approximately 700 square feet of space. This office only offers mortgage loan services.

Also in July 2002, the Bank’s Opelika Wal-Mart Supercenter branch was opened inside the Wal-Mart shopping center in Opelika, Alabama. The bank has a five-year lease agreement with an option to extend for approximately 700 square feet of space in the Wal-Mart. This branch offers the full line of the Bank’s deposits and other services including an ATM, except loans and safe deposit boxes.

11

The Bank’s Winn Dixie branch lease expired and the branch was closed on April 3, 2002. This branch was consolidated with the Auburn Wal-Mart Supercenter branch. This branch was opened on April 3, 1997 and was located inside the Winn Dixie supermarket in the Tiger Crossing Shopping Center on the south side of Auburn, Alabama.

In addition, the Bank leases from the Company approximately 8,300 square feet of space in the AuburnBank Center (the “Center”), which is located next to the main office. This building, which has approximately 18,000 square feet of space, is also leased to outside third parties. Leases between the Bank and the Company are based on the same terms and conditions as leases to outside third parties leasing space in the same building. The Bank’s data processing activities, as well as other operations, are located in this leased space. The parking lot provides parking for approximately 120 vehicles, including handicapped parking.

Directly behind the Center is an older home that is also owned by the Company. This building is rented as housing to university students. The rear portion of this property is used as a parking area for approximately 20 vehicles of Bank employees.

The Bank also owns a two-story building located directly behind the main office. The first floor of this building is leased to unaffiliated third parties. The Bank uses the second floor for storage.

The Company owns a commercial office building (the “Hudson Building”) located across the street from the main office in downtown Auburn. The Hudson Building has two floors and a basement which contain approximately 14,395 square feet of leasable space. Approximately 63.2% of this building is available for rent by third-party tenants. The Bank occupies approximately 5,300 square feet, which includes a portion of the basement level used for storage and office space used to house certain bank functions. The Bank pays rent to the Company based on current market rates for such space.

In 1994, the Bank acquired a parcel of commercial real estate located in Auburn on U.S. Highway 29. This property, which was acquired in satisfaction of debt previously contracted, was formerly used by a floor covering business and contained approximately 6,045 square feet of office, showroom, and warehouse space. The Bank subsequently removed an underground storage tank (“UST”) containing petroleum products from the site. In 1995, the property was sold to a third party and the purchaser was indemnified of any environmental liability associated with the UST. Also in 1995, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM”) requested that the Bank submit a Secondary Investigation Plan (“Secondary Investigation”) as a result of underground soil and water contamination of petroleum-based hydrocarbon products. The Secondary Investigation was completed and submitted to ADEM by Roy F. Weston, Inc. (“Weston”), an independent consultant hired by the Bank. The Secondary Investigation indicated low concentrations of soil contamination on site and elevated concentrations of gasoline constituents both on-site and off-site. The Secondary Investigation indicated a low risk to human receptors, and Weston recommended to ADEM initiation of a quarterly ground water monitoring program for one year, at which time the program would be reassessed. In response to ADEM’s Letter of Requirement dated January 18, 1996, Weston prepared and submitted, on behalf of the Bank, a Monitoring Only Corrective Action Plan on February 20, 1996. In 1999, Weston installed a passive waste removal system to remove petroleum-based hydrocarbon products from the groundwater test well. Quarterly groundwater monitoring will continue in 2003 as required by ADEM. Samples from the eight existing monitoring wells will be collected and analyzed by Weston. The monitoring data will be submitted by Weston to ADEM as required. It is estimated that the cost for monitoring and providing reporting data to ADEM for 2003 will be approximately $9,000 (unless the site is released by ADEM during the year). The extent and cost of any further testing and remediation, if any, cannot be predicted at this time.

ITEM 3.         LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In the normal course of its business, the Company and the Bank from time to time are involved in legal proceedings. The Company and Bank management believe there are no pending or threatened legal proceedings

12

which upon resolution are expected to have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s or the Bank’s financial condition or results of operations.

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 the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002.

13

PART II

ITEM 5.         MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

The Company’s Common Stock is listed on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market, under the symbol “AUBN”. As of March 21, 2003, there were approximately 3,894,818 shares of the Company’s Common Stock issued and outstanding, which were held by approximately 460 shareholders of record. The following table sets forth, for the indicated periods, the high and low closing sale prices for the Company’s Common Stock as reported on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market, and the cash dividends paid to shareholders during the indicated periods.

   (1)   The price information represents actual transactions.

The Company has paid cash dividends on its capital stock since 1985. Prior to this time, the Bank paid cash dividends since its organization in 1907, except during the Depression years of 1932 and 1933. Holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive such dividends as may be declared by the Company’s Board of Directors. The amount and frequency of cash dividends will be determined in the judgment of the Company’s Board of Directors based upon a number of factors, including the Company’s earnings, financial condition, capital requirements, and other relevant factors. Company management currently intends to continue its present dividend policies.

The amount of dividends payable by the Bank is limited by law and regulation. The need to maintain adequate capital in the Bank also limits dividends that may be paid to the Company. Although Federal Reserve policy could restrict future dividends on Common Stock, such policy places no current restrictions on such dividends. See “SUPERVISION AND REGULATION — DIVIDENDS” and “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — CAPITAL RESOURCES.”

14

ITEM 6.         SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

15

ITEM 7.         MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion and analysis is designed to provide a better understanding of various factors related to the Company’s results of operations and financial condition. Such discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with “BUSINESS” and “FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.”

The purpose of this discussion is to focus on significant changes in the financial condition and results of operations of the Company during the three years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000. This discussion and analysis is intended to supplement and highlight information contained in the accompanying consolidated financial statements and the selected financial data presented elsewhere herein.

Summary

Net earnings increased $477,000 (10.4%) to $5,055,000 during 2002 from $4,578,000 for the year ended December 31, 2001. Basic earnings per share was $1.30 and $1.17 for 2002 and 2001, respectively, an increase of 11.1%. Comparatively, net earnings during 2001 increased $1,564,000 (51.9%) from the 2000 total of $3,014,000, while basic earnings per share showed an increase of $0.40 per share for 2001 from a 2000 per share total of $0.77. The increase in net earnings for 2002 is attributable to an increase in net interest income and a decrease in the provision for loan losses. This was offset by a decrease in noninterest income and an increase in noninterest expense. The increase in net earnings for 2001 is attributable to an increase in net interest income and noninterest income offset by an increase in provision for loan losses and noninterest expense. In addition, net income for first quarter 2001 was significantly impacted by a $1,548,000 gain recorded upon the sale of the Star Systems, Inc. ATM network in which the Company received ownership in a publicly traded entity whose shares were issued to the Company in exchange for its ownership interest in Star Systems, Inc. network. See “FINANCIAL CONDITION — CAPITAL RESOURCES” and the “CONSOLIDATED AVERAGE BALANCES, INTEREST INCOME/EXPENSE AND YIELDS/RATES” tables.

Total assets at December 31, 2002 and 2001 were $505,027,000 and $473,010,000, respectively, reflecting growth of $32,017,000 (6.8%). The Company’s growth during 2002 resulted primarily from the growth in investment securities available for sale driven by an increase in deposits. This increase is offset by a decrease in loans. In addition, deposits grew $25,523,000 (6.9%) from $369,668,000 at December 31, 2001 to $395,191,000 at December 31, 2002. See “FINANCIAL CONDITION-DEPOSITS”, “FINANCIAL CONDITION- LOANS” and “LIQUIDITY.”

Critical Accounting Policies

The accounting and financial reporting policies of the Company conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and to general practices within the banking industry. The allowance for loan losses is an accounting policy applied by the Company which is deemed critical. Critical accounting policies are defined as policies which are important to the portrayal of the Company’s financial condition and results of operations, and that require management’s most difficult, subjective or complex judgements. The Company’s financial results could differ significantly if different judgements or estimates are applied in the application of this policy. See “ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN LOSSES AND RISK ELEMENTS.”

Management analyzes the loan portfolio to determine the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses and the appropriate provision required to maintain a level management considers adequate to absorb anticipated loan losses. When management believes the collection of the principal of a loan is unlikely, a loan is charged off against the allowance for loan losses. Subsequent recoveries of principal are added back to the allowance for loan losses. Management’s evaluation of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses is based on a formal analysis which assesses the risks within the loan portfolio. In assessing the adequacy of the allowance, management reviews the size, quality and risk of loans in the portfolio. Management also considers such factors as the Bank’s loan loss experience, the amount of past due and nonperforming loans, specific known risk, the status and amount of nonperforming assets, underlying collateral values securing loans, current and anticipated economic conditions and

16

other factors which affect the allowance for loan losses. In 2002, the credit administration area reviewed approximately 24% of the total loan portfolio. In addition, the Bank has engaged an outside loan review consultant, on a semi-annual basis, to perform an independent review of the quality of the loan portfolio. In 2002, the outside loan review consultant reviewed approximately 33% of the total loan portfolio. The current economic conditions have slowed loan growth in 2002. The Company is closely monitoring certain portions of its loan portfolio that management believes to be of higher risk under the current economic situation.

Management believes the allowance for loan losses is adequate at December 31, 2002. While management uses available information to recognize losses on loans, future additions to the allowance for loan losses may be necessary based on economic changes and other changes that can effect the various borrowers. Certain economic and interest rate factors could have a material impact on the determination of the allowance for loan losses. The Bank’s allowance for loan losses is also subject to regulatory examinations and determinations as to adequacy, which may take into account such factors as the methodology used to calculate the allowance for loan losses and the size of the allowance for loan losses in comparison to a group of peer banks identified by the regulators. During their routine examinations of banks, the Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent may require a bank to make additional provisions to its allowance for loan losses where, in the opinion of the regulators, credit evaluations and allowance for loan loss methodology differ materially from those of management. See “SUPERVISION AND REGULATION.”

Management, considering current information and events regarding a borrowers’ ability to repay its obligations, considers a loan to be impaired when the ultimate collectibility of all amounts due, according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement, is in doubt. When a loan is considered to be impaired, the amount of the impairment is measured based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate. If the loan is collateral-dependent, the fair value of the collateral is used to determine the amount of the impairment. Impairment losses are included in the allowance for loan losses through a charge to the provision for loan losses. Cash receipts on accruing impaired loans are applied to principal and interest under the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Cash receipts on impaired loans which are not accruing interest are applied first to principal and then to interest income.

Commercial real estate mortgage loans were $124,490,000 which represented 47.81% of the total loans at December 31, 2002. The largest 10 commercial real estate mortgage relationships approximated $33.3 million or 12.79% of the total loans outstanding at December 31, 2002. There are no significant concentrations of industries or loan types within the commercial real estate loan portfolio. The Bank’s commercial real estate loans are secured by real estate located principally in Lee County, Alabama. Accordingly, the ultimate collectibility of a substantial portion of the Bank’s loan portfolio is susceptible to changes in market conditions in this area. A rapidly rising interest rate environment could have a material impact on certain borrowers’ ability to pay. The Company currently anticipates that interest rates will slightly increase in 2003. In the event of a deeper recession or a significant increase in interest rates, the Bank’s credit costs and losses could increase significantly. See “QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK.”

Financial Condition

Investment Securities

Investment securities held to maturity were $7,928,000 and $16,164,000 at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. This decrease of $8,236,000 (51.0%) in 2002 resulted from scheduled paydowns, maturities and calls of principal amounts. The investment securities available for sale portfolio was $182,990,000 and $135,310,000 at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. This increase of $47,680,000 (35.2%) reflects purchases of $39,129,000 in U.S. agency securities, $46,839,000 in mortgage-backed securities, $37,537,000 in collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), $2,500,000 in corporate securities and $411,000 in state and political subdivision securities. This increase is offset by $62,341,000 of scheduled paydowns, maturities and calls of principal amounts. In addition, $3,030,000 of U.S. agency securities, $8,495,000 of CMOs, $3,096,000 of mortgage-backed securities,

17

$1,302,000 of asset backed securities and $970,000 in equity securities were sold in 2002.

The composition of the Company’s total investment securities portfolio reflects the Company’s investment strategy to provide acceptable levels of interest income from portfolio yields while maintaining an appropriate level of liquidity to assist with controlling the Company’s interest rate position. In recent years, the Company has invested primarily in taxable securities due to its inability to fully realize the benefits of the preferential treatment afforded tax-exempt securities under the tax laws. Because of their liquidity, credit quality and yield characteristics, the majority of the purchases of taxable securities have been in investment grade mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) and CMOs. The yields, values, and durations of such MBS and CMOs generally vary with interest rates, prepayment levels, and general economic conditions, and as a result, the values of such instruments may be more volatile and unpredictable than other instruments with similar maturities. Such MBS and CMOs also may have longer stated maturities than other securities, which may result in further price volatility.

The following table indicates the amortized cost of the portfolio of investment securities held to maturity at the end of the last three years:

The following table indicates the fair value of the portfolio of investment securities available for sale at the end of the last three years:

At December 31, 2002, the Bank owned CMOs with a total amortized cost of $63,418,000. All of the CMOs are rated AAA. The CMOs are all backed by federal agency guaranteed mortgages.

The MBS portfolio’s total amortized cost of $73,068,000 at December 31, 2002, is a mixture of fixed rate mortgages, adjustable rate mortgages (“ARMs”), and securities with balloon payments. At the time of purchase, the

18

Bank considers various prepayment speeds and makes the purchase based on the ability to accept the yield and average life based on both increasing and decreasing prepayment speeds.

The following tables present the maturities and weighted average yields of investment securities at December 31, 2002:

19

Loans

Total loans were $260,360,000 at December 31, 2002, a decrease of $11,474,000 (4.2%), over total loans of $271,834,000 at December 31, 2001. The primary decrease during 2002 occurred in the commercial, financial and agricultural loans and residential real estate mortgage loans. In addition, the above was offset by an increase in commercial real estate mortgage loans. The commercial, financial and agricultural portfolio decreased $6,668,000 (10.6%) to $56,490,000 at December 31, 2002 compared to $63,158,000 at December 31, 2001. Commercial, financial and agricultural loans represented 21.7% and 23.2% of the total loans at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. In addition, the residential real estate mortgage loan component of the loan portfolio decreased $5,701,000 (11.0%) to $46,105,000 at December 31, 2002, from the 2001 balance of $51,806,000 and represented 17.7% of the total loan portfolio at December 31, 2002, as compared to 19.1% at December 31, 2001.

These above decreases are offset by an increase in the commercial real estate mortgage loan portfolio. The commercial real estate mortgage portfolio increased $12,415,000 (11.1%) to $124,490,000 at December 31, 2002 compared to $112,075,000 at December 31, 2001. The increase was due primarily to increased demand for commercial credits. Commercial real estate mortgage loans represented 47.8% and 41.2% of the total loans at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively.

In addition to originating mortgage loans for its own portfolio, the Company also originates residential mortgage loans which are sold in the secondary market. In addition to selling real estate mortgage loans to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) with the Bank retaining the servicing, the Bank has arranged with one mortgage servicing company to originate and sell, without recourse, residential first mortgage real estate loans, with servicing released. During 2002, the Bank sold mortgage loans totaling approximately $58,186,000 to FNMA, with the Bank retaining the servicing, and sold mortgage loans totaling approximately $12,172,000 to the mortgage servicing company with servicing released. At December 31, 2002, the Bank was servicing loans totaling approximately $107,672,000. The Bank collects monthly servicing fees of 0.25% to 0.375% annually of the outstanding balances of loans serviced for FNMA. See “– EFFECTS OF INFLATION AND CHANGING PRICES.”

20

The following table presents the composition of the loan portfolio by major categories at the end of the last five years:

The following table presents maturities by major loan classifications and the sensitivity of loans to changes in interest rates within each maturity category at December 31, 2002:

Allowance for Loan Losses and Risk Elements

Interest on loans is normally accrued from the date an advance is made. The performance of loans is evaluated primarily on the basis of a review of each customer relationship over a period of time and the judgment of lending officers as to the ability of borrowers to meet the repayment terms of loans. If there is reasonable doubt as to the repayment of a loan in accordance with the agreed terms, the loan may be placed on a nonaccrual basis pending the sale of any collateral or a determination as to whether sources of repayment exist. This action may be taken even

21

though the financial condition of the borrower or the collateral may be sufficient ultimately to reduce or satisfy the obligation. Generally, when a loan is placed on a nonaccrual basis, all payments are applied to reduce principal to the extent necessary to eliminate doubt as to the repayment of the loan. Thereafter, any interest income on a nonaccrual loan is recognized only on a cash basis.

The Company’s policy generally is to place a loan on nonaccrual status when it is contractually past due 90 days or more as to payment of principal or interest. A loan may be placed on nonaccrual status at an earlier date when concerns exist as to the ultimate collections of principal or interest. At the time a loan is placed on nonaccrual status, interest previously accrued but not collected is reversed and charged against current earnings. Loans that are contractually past due 90 days or more which are well secured and are in the process of collection generally are not placed on nonaccrual status.

Lending officers are responsible for the ongoing review and administration of loans assigned to them. As such, they make the initial identification of loans which present some difficulty in collection or where circumstances indicate that the possibility of loss exists. The responsibilities of the lending officers include the collection effort on a delinquent loan. To strengthen internal controls in the collection of delinquencies, senior management and the Directors’ Loan Committee are informed of the status of delinquent and “watch” or problem loans on a monthly basis. Senior management reviews the allowance for loan losses and makes recommendations to the Directors’ Loan Committee as to loan charge-offs on a monthly basis.

The allowance for loan losses represents management’s assessment of the risk associated with extending credit and its evaluation of the quality of the loan portfolio. Management analyzes the loan portfolio to determine the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses and the appropriate provision required to maintain a level considered adequate to absorb anticipated loan losses. In assessing the adequacy of the allowance, management reviews the size, quality and risk of loans in the portfolio. Management also considers such factors as the Bank’s loan loss experience, the amount of past due and nonperforming loans, specific known risks, the status and amount of nonperforming assets, underlying collateral values securing loans, current and anticipated economic conditions and other factors which affect the allowance for loan losses. An analysis of the credit quality of the loan portfolio and the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses is prepared by the Bank’s Credit Administration area and presented to the Directors’ Loan Committee on a monthly basis. In addition, the Bank has engaged outside loan review consultants, on a semi-annual basis, to perform an independent review of the quality of the loan portfolio.

The Bank’s allowance for loan losses is also subject to regulatory examinations and determinations as to adequacy, which may take into account such factors as the methodology used to calculate the allowance for loan losses and the size of the allowance for loan losses in comparison to a group of peer banks identified by the regulators. During their routine examinations of banks, the Federal Reserve and the Alabama Superintendent may require a bank to make additional provisions to its allowance for loan losses where, in the opinion of the regulators, credit evaluations and allowance for loan loss methodology differ materially from those of management. See “SUPERVISION AND REGULATION.”

While it is the Bank’s policy to charge off in the current period loans for which a loss is considered probable, there are additional risks of future losses which cannot be quantified precisely or attributed to particular loans or classes of loans. Because these risks include the state of the economy, management’s judgment as to the adequacy of the allowance is necessarily approximate and imprecise.

22

The following table summarizes the levels of the allowance for loan losses at the end of the last five years and activity in the allowance during such years:

The allowance for loan losses was $5,104,000 (1.96% of total outstanding loans) at December 31, 2002, compared to $5,340,000 (1.96% of total outstanding loans) at December 31, 2001. This allowance reflects a constant percentage of total outstanding loans even though the allowance has decreased slightly due to the decrease in total outstanding loans as of December 31, 2002 compared to the same period last year.

The Bank has been engaged in enhanced reviews of its loan approval and credit grading processes. The Bank has sought to better price its loans consistent with its costs of funds and its assessment of potential credit risk. This has had the effect of slowing the Bank’s loan growth.

During 2002, the Company had loan charge-offs totaling $2,273,000 and recoveries of $357,000, as compared to $1,970,000 in charge-offs and recoveries of $121,000 in the prior year. Charge-offs slightly increased in 2002 due to several commercial loans which were identified in 2002 and 2001 as problem credits in the reviews and examinations as discussed above.

Management believes that the $5,104,000 allowance for loan losses at December 31, 2002 (1.96% of total outstanding loans), is adequate to absorb known risks in the portfolio at such date. However, no assurance can be given that adverse economic circumstances, generally, including current economic events, or other events, including additional loan review or examination findings or changes in borrowers’ financial conditions, will not result in increased losses in the Bank’s loan portfolio or in additional provisions to the allowance for loan losses. The Bank does not currently allocate its allowance for loan losses among its various classifications of loans. The increase in the

23

ratio of the allowance for loan losses to nonperforming assets between year-end 2001 and year-end 2002 was primarily due to the reduction in nonaccrual loans and other real estate owned. The increase in the ratio of the allowance for loan losses to nonperforming assets between year-end 2000 and year-end 2001 was primarily due to an increase in the provision for loan losses.

While management recognizes that there is more risk traditionally associated with commercial and consumer lending as compared to real estate mortgage lending, the Bank currently has a tiered approach to determine the adequacy of its allowance for loan losses. This methodology focuses on the determination of the specific and general loss allowances for certain loans classified as problem credits and uses a five-year historical loss factor to determine the loss allocation for the remainder of the loan portfolio as opposed to allocations based on major loan categories. Level I includes specific allowances that have been reserved for impaired loans where management has identified specific losses. Level II allowances are set aside to cover general losses associated with problem loans which possess more than a normal degree of credit risk, but where no specific losses have been identified. These loans have been criticized or classified by the Bank’s regulators, external loan review personnel engaged by the Bank, or internally by management. The five-year historical loss factors, subject to certain minimum percentages considering regulatory guidelines, are applied to the Level II problem loans in determining the allocation. Level III is the allowance for the balance of the loan portfolio. The loans in this tier consist of all loans that are not classified as Level I or Level II problem credits, and less risk-free loans. Risk-free loans are defined as loans fully secured by cash or cash equivalents, readily marketable collateral, and portions of the portfolio that are partially covered by a U.S. Government or government agency guaranty. Adjustments are then made for local economic conditions. The allocation for Level III is determined by applying the historical loss factor, derived from prior years actual experience, to the adjusted outstanding balance for this classification. At December 31, 2002, the allowance for loan losses was allocated to approximately $860 thousand for impaired loans (Level 1), approximately $2.5 million for criticized and classified loans (Level II) and approximately $1.8 million for the general reserve (Level III).

At December 31, 2002, the Company had approximately $5,281,000 of impaired loans, which included 5 loans to 3 borrowers with a total valuation allowance of approximately $861,000. At December 31, 2001, the Company had approximately $10,164,000 of impaired loans, which included 22 loans to 10 borrowers with a total valuation allowance of approximately $1,413,000.

Nonperforming Assets

Nonperforming assets consist of loans on nonaccrual status, loans that have been renegotiated at terms more favorable to the borrower than those for similar credits, real estate and other assets acquired in partial or full satisfaction of loan obligations and accruing loans that are past due 90 days or more.

Nonperforming assets were $3,114,000, $12,706,000, and $8,695,000 at December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000, respectively. These levels represent a decrease of $9,592,000 (75.5%) for the year ended December 31, 2002, and an increase of $4,011,000 (46.1%) for the year ended December 31, 2001. The decrease in 2002 was mainly due to a decrease in nonaccrual loans, other real estate owned and accruing loans 90 days or more past due. The increase in 2001 was mainly due to an increase in nonaccrual loans due to a deterioration in certain loans determined by recent analyses and loan reviews. In addition in 2001, accruing loans 90 days or more past due increased significantly which is mainly due to one large loan which was then placed on nonaccrual in the first quarter of 2002.

24

An analysis of the components of nonperforming assets at the end of the last five years is presented in the following table:

If nonaccrual loans had performed in accordance with their original contractual terms, interest income would have increased approximately $462,000, $528,000, and $826,000 for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 respectively. The Company did not recognize any interest income on nonaccrual loans for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000.

Other Potential Problem Loans

Potential problem loans consist of those loans where management has serious doubts as to the borrower’s ability to comply with the present loan repayment terms. At December 31, 2002, the Company had identified 98 loans totaling approximately $11,574,000, or 4.4% of total loans, which were considered potential problem loans. At December 31, 2001, the Company had identified 117 loans totaling approximately $10,379,000, or 3.8% of total loans, which were considered potential problem loans. Such loans have been considered in the determination of the Level II allowance previously discussed.

Deposits

Total deposits increased $25,523,000 (6.9%) to $395,191,000 at December 31, 2002, as compared to $369,668,000 at December 31, 2001. Noninterest-bearing deposits were $53,219,000 and $48,543,000 while total interest-bearing deposits were $341,972,000 and $321,124,000 at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. This trend is the result of management’s decision to maintain a competitive position in its deposit rate structure coupled with the Bank’s marketing efforts to attract local deposits and fund its loan growth. At December 31, 2002, as a percentage of total deposits, noninterest-bearing accounts comprised approximately 13.5%, while MMDAs, NOWs and regular savings made up approximately 39.5%, certificates of deposit under $100,000 comprised approximately 22.7%, and certificates of deposit and other time deposits of $100,000 or more comprised 24.3%. At December 31, 2001, as a percentage of total deposits, noninterest-bearing accounts comprised approximately 13.1%, while MMDAs, NOWs and regular savings made up approximately 39.0%, certificates of deposit under $100,000 comprised approximately 23.8%, and certificates of deposit and other time deposits of $100,000 or more comprised 24.1%.

25

The composition of total deposits for the last three years is presented in the following table: