Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2003

Commission file number 000-25128

MAIN STREET BANKS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

770-422-2888

(Registrant’s telephone number)

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:

NONE

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:

Common Stock, no par value

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

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

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

The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates as of February 29, 2004 (based on the closing price on June 30, 2003): $337,530,653

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, as of February 29, 2004: 19,317,429

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III.

Table of Contents

MAIN STREET BANKS, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORM 10-K

DECEMBER 31, 2003

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K may contain or incorporate by reference statements which may constitute “forward looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including statements relating to present or future trends or factors generally affecting the banking industry and specifically affecting Main Street Banks, Inc.’s (the “Company’s”) operations, markets and products. Without limiting the foregoing, the words “believes,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “expects,” or similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those projected for many reasons including, without limitation, changing events and trends that have influenced the Company’s assumptions. These trends and events include (i) changes in the interest rate environment which may reduce margins, (ii) non-achievement of expected growth, (iii) less favorable than anticipated changes in national and local business environment and securities markets, (iv) adverse changes in the regulatory requirements affecting the Company, (v) greater competitive pressures among financial institutions in Company’s market, (vi) greater than expected loan losses and (vii) inability to effectively integrate acquired businesses. Additional information and other factors that could affect future financial results are included in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

1

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Business Overview

The term “the Company” is used throughout this Annual Report on Form 10-K to refer to Main Street Banks, Inc. and its subsidiaries. The term “Parent Company” is used to refer to Main Street Banks, Inc. wherever a distinction between Main Street Banks, Inc. and its subsidiaries aids in the understanding of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Parent Company is a financial holding company which engages through its subsidiaries, Main Street Bank (“the Bank”) Main Street Insurance Services, Inc. (“MSII”), Piedmont Settlement Services, Inc. (“Piedmont”) and MSB Payroll Solutions, LLC in providing a full range of banking, mortgage banking, investment and insurance services to its retail and commercial customers located primarily in Barrow, Clarke, Cobb, DeKalb, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Newton, Rockdale and Walton counties in Georgia. Prior to January 2, 2001, the Parent Company was known as First Sterling Banks, Inc. On December 29, 2000, former bank subsidiaries, The Westside Bank and Trust Company, The Eastside Bank and Trust Company and Community Bank of Georgia were merged into the Bank. The Parent Company was incorporated on March 16, 1994 as a Georgia business corporation. Its executive offices are located at 676 Chastain Road, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144, and its telephone number is 770-422-2888. The Company has no foreign activities.

Effective November 17, 2000, the Parent Company became a financial holding company under the provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (“GLB Act”), which amended the Bank Holding Company Act and expands the activities in which the Company may engage. After becoming a financial holding company, in December 2000 the Parent Company acquired Williamson Insurance Agency, Inc. and Williamson & Musselwhite Insurance Agency, Inc. Upon consummation of the acquisition, the two insurance companies were combined with the Bank’s existing Insurance division and the name was ultimately changed to Main Street Insurance Services, Inc. In January of 2004 MSII acquired substantially all of the assets of Banks Moneyhan Hayes Insurance Agency, Inc.

The Parent Company

Under Federal Reserve policy, the Parent Company is expected to act as a source of financial strength and to commit resources to support the Bank. In addition, any capital loans by a bank holding company to its subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

Subsidiary Bank

The Bank, a state chartered commercial bank, provides traditional deposit, lending, mortgage and securities brokerage services. Main Street Bank conducts a general banking business at 25 bank offices in Georgia. The Bank performs banking services customary for full service banks of similar size and character. Such services include receiving demand and time deposits, making personal and commercial loans and furnishing personal and commercial checking accounts.

Insurance Subsidiary

The Parent Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, MSII, makes available to its customers and others, as agent for a variety of insurance companies, term life insurance, fixed-rate annuities, property and casualty insurance and other insurance products.

Products and Services

The Company provides a full range of traditional banking, mortgage banking, investment, and insurance services to individual and corporate customers.

Loans. The Company’s primary lending activities include real estate loans (mortgage and construction), commercial and industrial loans to small and medium sized businesses, and consumer loans. The Company originates first mortgage loans and enters into a commitment to sell these loans in the secondary market. The Company limits its interest rate risk on such loans originated by selling individual loans immediately after the customer locks in their rate.

2

Table of Contents

Deposits. The Company offers a full range of depository accounts and services to both individuals and businesses. These deposit accounts have a wide range of interest rates and terms and consist of demand, savings, money market and time accounts.

Insurance Services. The Company provides insurance services to individuals and businesses through its subsidiary, MSII. MSII provides a variety of insurance products for consumers including life, health, homeowners, automobile and umbrella liability coverage. Commercial products include coverage for property, general liability, worker’s compensation, and group life and health. MSII is an insurance agency and does not underwrite policies but rather acts as a broker.

Investment Services. The Company, through a division of the Bank, provides its customers with comprehensive investment and brokerage services through an arrangement with Invest Financial. Products and services include stocks and bonds, mutual funds, annuities, 401(k) plans, life insurance, individual retirement accounts, simplified employee pension accounts, estate planning and financial needs analysis.

Business Combinations

Since 1995, the Company has been reviewing and analyzing possible acquisition and growth opportunities in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Its strategic plan has been to enhance shareholder value by creating a larger high performing banking company in the Atlanta area. The goal has been to provide broader and more comprehensive services to its customers, create efficiencies in the administration and service functions, and provide a larger shareholder base with a more liquid security trading on a national market.

The first merger occurred in 1996 when the Company merged with Eastside Holding Corporation, a one-bank holding company located in Snellville, Gwinnett County, Georgia. In 1999, the Company consummated a merger with Georgia Bancshares, Inc. and thereby acquired Community Bank located in DeKalb County, Georgia. In May of 2000, the Company consummated a merger with the former Main Street Banks Incorporated, the former parent of the Bank. In December of 2000, the Company acquired Williamson Insurance Agency, Inc. and Williamson and Musselwhite Insurance Agency, Inc. In January of 2001, the Company acquired Walton Bank and Trust Company, which merged into the Bank.

During 2001, the Bank formed MSB Holdings, Inc., an intermediate holding company, and MSB Investments, Inc., a real estate investment trust (“REIT”). These companies were established in order to strengthen the Bank’s capital position. The establishment of a REIT subsidiary allows the Bank to increase the effective yield on its real estate related assets and residential mortgage loan portfolios by transferring a portion of the assets and loans to an entity that receives favorable tax treatment.

During 2002, MSII acquired Hometown Insurance Center, Inc. (“Hometown”) located in Winder Georgia. Hometown was a multi-line independent insurance agency serving Barrow, Jackson, and Gwinnett Counties.

During 2002, the Company successfully completed the acquisition of First National Bank of Johns Creek. First National Bank of Johns Creek was a $110 million bank with 2 branch locations and 2 ATM machines. First National Bank of Johns Creek had approximately $94 million in loans and $96 million in deposits.

During 2003, the Company acquired First Colony Bancshares, Inc., the former holding company of First Colony Bank, a $320 million asset holding company headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia (“First Colony”). First Colony’s banking offices in Alpharetta, Roswell, and Cumming gave the Bank a strong presence in North Fulton County and the Cumming Office augmented the Company’s presence in Forsyth County. First Colony Bank was merged into the Bank.

During 2003, the Company completed the acquisition of the remaining 50% interest from the other partners of Piedmont Settlement Services, LLP, a Pennsylvania limited liability partnership. Upon this acquisition, the operations were transferred upstream to an intermediate holding company that subsequently changed its name to Piedmont Settlement Services, Inc. Piedmont is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent Company. Piedmont is a third party provider of mortgage loan related services.

Subsequent to year-end, in January 2004, MSII acquired substantially all of the assets of Banks Moneyhan Hayes Insurance Agency, Inc. (“BMIA”), an insurance agency headquartered in Conyers, Georgia. BMIA’s insurance agency offices are located in Conyers and Athens, Georgia and employ 25 insurance professionals selling business and property and casualty insurance, as well as group life and health. BMIA was the dominate insurance agency in Newton and Rockdale counties with roots dating back to 1847.

3

Table of Contents

Market Area and Competition

The Company’s primary service area is in the counties north and east of Atlanta, Georgia. These counties include Barrow, Clarke, Cobb, DeKalb, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Newton, Rockdale and Walton counties. The Company’s marketing strategy emphasizes its local nature and involvement in the communities located in its primary service area.

Since July 1, 1995, numerous interstate acquisitions involving Georgia-based financial institutions have been announced or consummated. Though interstate banking has resulted in significant changes in the structure of financial institutions in the southeastern region, including the Bank’s primary service areas, management does not feel that such changes have had or will have a significant impact upon its operations.

The Bank encounters vigorous competition from other commercial banks, savings and loan associations and other financial institutions and intermediaries in the Bank’s primary service areas.

The Bank competes with other banks in its primary service area in obtaining new deposits and accounts, making loans, obtaining branch banking locations and providing other banking services. The Bank also competes with savings and loan associations and credit unions for savings and transaction deposits, certificates of deposit and various types of retail and commercial loans.

The Bank must compete with other financial intermediaries, including mortgage banking firms and real estate investment trusts, small loan and finance companies, insurance companies, credit unions, leasing companies, and certain government agencies. Competition exists for time deposits and, to a more limited extent, demand and transaction deposits offered by a number of other financial intermediaries and investment alternatives, including money market mutual funds, brokerage firms, government and corporate bonds and other securities.

Competition for banking services in the State of Georgia is not limited to institutions headquartered in the State. A number of large interstate banks, bank holding companies, and other financial institutions and intermediaries have established loan production offices, small loan companies, and other offices and affiliates in the State of Georgia. Many of the interstate financial organizations that compete in the Georgia market engage in regional, national or international operations and have substantially greater financial resources than the Company.

Management expects that competition will remain intense in the future due to State and Federal laws and regulations, and the entry of additional bank and non-bank competitors in its markets.

Employees

As of December 31, 2003, the Company had a total of 541 full-time equivalent employees. These employees are provided with fringe benefits in varying combinations, including health, accident, disability and life insurance plans. None of the Company’s employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement, and the Company has never experienced a work stoppage. The Company also maintains training, educational and affirmative action programs designed to prepare employees for positions of increasing responsibility. In the opinion of management, the Company enjoys excellent relations with its employees.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

Main Street Bank offers loans to its directors, officers and employees. All of such loans are made in the ordinary course of business, and made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates, collateral and application fees, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with non-affiliated persons and do not involve more than the normal risk of collectibility or present other unfavorable features. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 generally prohibits public companies from making personal loans to their directors and executive officers; however, it exempts from this general prohibition loans made by insured depository institutions, such as the Bank, in accordance with federal banking regulations.

The Company’s directors and certain business organizations and individuals associated with them are customers of and have banking transactions with the Bank in the ordinary course of business. Such transactions include commitments, lines of credit and letters of credit. Additional transactions with these persons and businesses are anticipated in the future.

The Company has entered into twelve lease agreements with members of the Board or their related interests, through which these individuals lease to the Company buildings that it uses for its operations center, bank headquarters, human resources and accounting offices, branch operations and treasury offices, credit administration office, professional offices, and the Covington Main Banking Center. The Company believes that the terms of the lease agreements are at least as favorable to it as terms available from unrelated third parties.

4

Table of Contents

Government Monetary Policy

The Parent Company and the Bank are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”). An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the national supply of bank credit. Among the instruments of monetary policy used by the Federal Reserve to implement these objectives are open market operations in United States Government securities, changes in the discount rate, reserve requirements on member bank deposits and funds availability regulations. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence the overall growth of bank loans, investments and deposits and may also affect interest rate charges on loans or paid on deposits.

The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve authorities have had a significant effect on the operating results of financial institutions in the past and will continue to do so in the future. In view of changing conditions in the national economy and money markets, as well as the effect of actions by monetary and fiscal authorities, no reasonable prediction can be made as to the future impact that changes in interest rates, deposit levels, or loan demand may have on the business and income of the Parent Company its subsidiaries.

Supervision and Regulation

The Parent Company is a financial holding company registered with the Federal Reserve and the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (“BHC Act”) as amended, the “Holding Company Act” and the Georgia Bank Holding Company Act, respectively. As a result, it is subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of these acts and the regulations of the Federal Reserve and the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance issued under these acts. To qualify as a financial holding company, a bank holding company must demonstrate that each of its bank subsidiaries is well capitalized and well managed and has a rating of “satisfactory” or better under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”).

The BHC Act requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve before (1) it may acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank if, after the acquisition, the bank holding company will directly or indirectly own or control more than five percent of the voting shares of the Bank; (2) it or any of its subsidiaries, other than a bank, may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank; or (3) it may merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company.

The GLB Act was enacted on November 12, 1999. The GLB Act permits bank holding companies meeting certain management, capital and community reinvestment standards to engage in a substantially broader range of non-banking activities than were permitted previously, including insurance underwriting and merchant banking activities. The BHC Act was amended to permit a financial holding company to engage in any activity and acquire and retain any company that the Federal Reserve determines to be (a) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity or (b) complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally. The GLB Act repealed sections 20 and 32 of the Glass Steagall Act, permitting affiliations of banks with securities firms and registered investment companies. The GLB Act permits banks to be under common control with securities firms, insurance companies, investment companies and other financial interests if these companies are subsidiaries of an financial holding company. Some of these affiliations are also permissible for bank subsidiaries. The GLB Act gives the Federal Reserve broad authority to regulate financial holding companies, but provides for functional regulation of subsidiary activities by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, state insurance and securities authorities and similar regulatory agencies.

The GLB Act includes significant provisions regarding the privacy of financial information. These financial privacy provisions generally require a financial institution to adopt a privacy policy regarding its practices for sharing nonpublic personal information and to disclose that policy to its customers, both at the time the customer relationship is established and at least annually during the relationship. These provisions also prohibit the Company from disclosing nonpublic personal financial information to third parties unless customers have the opportunity to opt out of the disclosure.

The Federal Reserve Act generally imposes certain limitations on extensions of credit and other transactions by and between banks that are members of the Federal Reserve and other affiliates (which includes any holding company of which a bank is a subsidiary and any other non-bank subsidiary of such holding company). Banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve also are subject to these limitations. Further, federal law prohibits a bank holding company and its subsidiaries from engaging in certain tying arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or the furnishing of services.

5

Table of Contents

In December 1991, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) was enacted. This act recapitalized the Bank Insurance Fund (“BIF”), of which the Bank is a member; substantially revised statutory provisions, including capital standards; restricted certain powers of state banks; gave regulators the authority to limit officer and director compensation; and required holding companies to guarantee the capital compliance of their banks in certain instances. FDICIA, which became effective in December 1992, among other things, requires the federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to banks that do not meet minimum capital requirements. FDICIA established five capital tiers: “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized,” as defined by regulations adopted by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the other federal depository institution regulatory agencies. A depository institution is well capitalized if it significantly exceeds the minimum level required by regulation for each relevant capital measure, adequately capitalized if it meets such measure, undercapitalized if it fails to meet any such measure, significantly undercapitalized if it is significantly below such measure, and critically undercapitalized if it fails to meet any critical capital level set forth in the regulations. The critical capital level must be a level of tangible equity capital equal to the greater of 2 percent of total tangible assets or 65 percent of the minimum leverage ratio to be prescribed by regulation. An institution may be deemed to be in a capitalization category that is lower than is indicated by its actual capital position if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating. Generally, subject to a narrow exception, FDICIA requires the banking regulator to appoint a receiver or conservator for an institution that is critically undercapitalized. The federal banking agencies have specified by regulation the relevant capital level for each category.

Under the agency rule implementing the prompt corrective action provisions, an institution that (i) has a Total Capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a Tier 1 Capital ratio of 6.0% or greater, and a Leverage Ratio of 5.0% or greater and (ii) is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by the appropriate federal banking agency is deemed to be “well capitalized.”

An institution with a Total Capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a Tier 1 Capital ratio of 4.0% or greater, and a Leverage Ratio of 4.0% or greater is considered to be “adequately capitalized.” A depository institution that has a Total Capital ratio of less than 8.0%, a Tier 1 Capital ratio of less than 4.0%, or a Leverage Ratio of less than 4.0% is considered to be “undercapitalized.” A depository institution that has a Total Capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a Tier 1 Capital ratio of less than 3.0%, or a Leverage Ratio of less than 3.0% is considered to be “significantly undercapitalized,” and an institution that has a tangible equity capital to assets ratio equal to or less than 2.0% is deemed to be “critically undercapitalized.” For purposes of the regulation, the term “tangible equity” includes core capital elements counted as Tier 1 Capital for purposes of the risk-based capital standards plus the amount of outstanding cumulative perpetual preferred stock (including related surplus), minus all intangible assets with certain exceptions. A depository institution may be deemed to be in a capitalization category that is lower than is indicated by its actual capital position if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating. An institution that is categorized as undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized is required to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan to its appropriate federal banking agency.

Under FDICIA, a bank holding company must guarantee that a subsidiary depository institution meets its capital restoration plan, subject to certain limitations. The obligation of a controlling bank holding company under FDICIA to fund a capital restoration plan is limited to the lesser of 5.0% of an undercapitalized subsidiary’s assets and the amount required to meet regulatory capital requirements. An undercapitalized institution is also generally prohibited from increasing its average total assets, making acquisitions, establishing any branches, or engaging in any new line of business, except in accordance with an accepted capital restoration plan or with the approval of the FDIC. In addition, the appropriate federal banking agency is given authority with respect to any undercapitalized depository institution to take any of the actions it is required to or may take with respect to a significantly undercapitalized institution as described below if it determines “that those actions are necessary to carry out the purpose” of FDICIA.

If a depository institution fails to meet regulatory capital requirements, the regulatory agencies can require submission and funding of a capital restoration plan by the institution, place limits on its activities, require the raising of additional capital and, ultimately, require the appointment of a conservator or receiver for the institution. The obligation of a controlling FHC under FDICIA to fund a capital restoration plan is limited to the lesser of five percent of an undercapitalized subsidiary’s assets or the amount required to meet regulatory capital requirements. If the controlling FHC fails to fulfill its obligations under FDICIA and files (or has filed against it) a petition under the Federal Bankruptcy Code, the FDIC’s claim may be entitled to a priority in such bankruptcy proceeding over third party creditors of the bank holding company.

For those institutions that are significantly undercapitalized or undercapitalized and either fail to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fail to implement an approved capital restoration plan, the appropriate federal banking agency must require the institution to take one or more of the following actions: (i) sell enough shares, including voting shares, to become adequately capitalized; (ii) merge with (or be sold to) another institution (or holding company), but only if grounds exist for

6

Table of Contents

appointing a conservator or receiver; (iii) restrict certain transactions with banking affiliates as if the “sister bank” exception to the requirements of Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act did not exist; (iv) otherwise restrict transactions with bank or non-bank affiliates; (v) restrict interest rates that the institution pays on deposits to prevailing rates in the institution’s region; (vi) restrict asset growth or reduce total assets; (vii) alter, reduce, or terminate activities; (viii) hold a new election of directors; (ix) dismiss any director or senior executive officer who held office for more than 180 days immediately before the institution became undercapitalized, provided that in requiring dismissal of a director or senior officer, the agency must comply with certain procedural requirements, including the opportunity for an appeal in which the director or officer will have the burden of proving his or her value to the institution; (x) employ “qualified” senior executive officers; (xi) cease accepting deposits from correspondent depository institutions; (xii) divest certain non-depository affiliates which pose a danger to the institution; or (xiii) be divested by a parent holding company. In addition, without the prior approval of the appropriate federal banking agency, a significantly undercapitalized institution may not pay any bonus to any senior executive officer or increase the rate of compensation for such an officer without regulatory approval. At December 31, 2003, the Company and the Bank were both “well capitalized” and were not subject to any of the foregoing restrictions.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”) and the regulations of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC implementing that act are intended to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of their local community or communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such financial institutions. The CRA and its implementing regulations provide that the appropriate regulatory authority will assess the records of regulated financial institutions in satisfying their continuing and affirmative obligations to help meet the credit needs of their local communities as part of their regulatory examination of the institution. The results of such examinations are made public and are taken into account upon the filing of any application to establish a domestic branch or to merge or to acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of a bank. In the case of a bank holding company, the CRA performance record of the banks involved in the transaction are reviewed in connection with the filing of an application to acquire ownership or control of shares or assets of a bank or to merge with any other bank holding company. An unsatisfactory record can substantially delay or block the transaction. The Bank’s most recent CRA examination was on February 1, 2003 and the bank received a “Satisfactory” rating.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 provides that deposits and certain claims for administrative expenses and employee compensation against an insured depository institution would be afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims against such an institution in the “liquidation or other resolution” of such an institution by any receiver.

FDIC Insurance Assessments

Pursuant to FDICIA, the FDIC adopted a risk-based assessment system for insured depository institutions that takes into account the risks attributable to different categories and concentrations of assets and liabilities. The risk-based system, which went into effect on January 1, 1994, assigns an institution to one of three capital categories: (i) well capitalized; (ii) adequately capitalized; and (iii) undercapitalized. These three categories are substantially similar to the prompt corrective action categories described above, with the “undercapitalized” category including institutions that are undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized for prompt corrective action purposes. An institution is also assigned by the FDIC to one of three supervisory subgroups within each capital group. The supervisory subgroup to which an institution is assigned is based on a supervisory evaluation provided to the FDIC by the institution’s primary federal regulator and information which the FDIC determines to be relevant to the institution’s financial condition and the risk posed to the deposit insurance funds (which may include, if applicable, information provided by the institution’s state supervisor). An institution’s insurance assessment rate is then determined based on the capital category and supervisory category to which it is assigned. Under the final risk-based assessment system, there are nine assessment risk classifications (i.e., combinations of capital groups and supervisory subgroups) to which different assessment rates are applied.

The Bank is assessed at the well-capitalized level where the premium rate is currently zero. Like all insured banks, the Bank also must pay a quarterly assessment of approximately $.02 per $100 of assessable deposits to pay off bonds that were issued in the late 1980’s by a government corporation, the Financing Corporation, to raise funds to cover costs of the resolution of the savings and loan crisis.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order, or condition imposed by the FDIC.

7

Table of Contents

Capital Adequacy

The Company and the Bank are required to comply with the capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. There are two basic measures of capital adequacy for bank holding companies that have been promulgated by the Federal Reserve: a risk-based measure and a leverage measure. All applicable capital standards must be satisfied for a bank holding company to be considered in compliance.

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

The minimum guideline for the ratio of total capital (“Total Capital”) to risk-weighted assets (including certain off-balance sheet items, such as standby letters of credit) is 8.0%. At least half of the Total Capital must be composed of common equity, undivided profits, minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, and a limited amount of cumulative perpetual preferred stock, less goodwill and certain other intangible assets (“Tier 1 Capital”). The remainder may consist of subordinated debt, other preferred stock, and a limited amount of loan loss reserves. The minimum guideline for the Tier 1 Capital ratio is 4.0%. At December 31, 2003, the Company’s consolidated Tier 1 Capital and Total Capital ratios were 8.79% and 11.11%, respectively.

In addition, the Federal Reserve has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies. These guidelines provide for a minimum ratio of Tier 1 Capital to average assets, less goodwill and certain other intangible assets (the “Leverage Ratio”), of 4.0% for bank holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating. All other bank holding companies generally are required to maintain a Leverage Ratio of at least 4.0%, plus an additional cushion of 100 to 200 basis points. The Company’s Leverage Ratio at December 31, 2003, was 7.28%.

The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies 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. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve has indicated that it will consider a “tangible Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio” (deducting all intangibles) and other indicators of capital strength in evaluating proposals for expansion or new activities.

The Bank is subject to risk-based and leverage capital requirements adopted by the FDIC, which are substantially similar to those adopted by the Federal Reserve. The Bank was in compliance with applicable minimum capital requirements as of December 31, 2003. Neither the Company nor the Bank has been advised by any federal banking agency of any violations of specific minimum capital ratio requirement applicable to it.

Failure to meet capital guidelines could subject a bank to a variety of enforcement remedies, including the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC, and to certain restrictions on its business.

Safety and Soundness Standards

Main Street Bank is a Georgia chartered commercial bank and subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance and the FDIC.

The FDIC and the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance regularly examine the operations of the Bank and are given the authority to approve or disapprove mergers, consolidations, and the establishment of branches and similar corporate actions. The FDIC and the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance also have the power to prevent the continuance or development of unsafe or unsound banking practices or other violations of law.

FDIA, as amended by FDICIA and the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to prescribe standards, by regulations or guidelines, relating to internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, stock valuation and compensation, fees and benefits and such other operational and managerial standards as the agencies deem appropriate. The federal bank regulatory agencies adopted in 1995 a set of guidelines prescribing safety and soundness standards pursuant to FDICIA, as amended.

The guidelines establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified

8

Table of Contents

in the guidelines. The guidelines prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director, or principal stockholder. In addition, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an agency to order an institution that has been given notice by an agency that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an acceptable compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution is subject under the “prompt corrective action” provisions of FDICIA. If an institution fails to comply with such an order, the agency may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties. The federal bank regulatory agencies also proposed guidelines for asset quality and earnings standards.

Other Legislation

USA Patriot Act: On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”). The USA Patriot Act is intended to allow the federal government to address terrorist threats through enhanced domestic security measures, expanded surveillance powers, increased information sharing and broadened anti-money laundering requirements. Title III of the USA Patriot Act takes measures intended to encourage information sharing among bank regulatory agencies and law enforcement bodies. Certain provisions of Title III impose affirmative obligations on a broad range of financial institutions, including banks, thrifts, brokers, dealers, credit unions, money transfer agents and parties registered under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Among its provisions, the USA Patriot Act requires each financial institution: (i) to establish an anti-money laundering program, (ii) to establish due diligence policies, procedures and controls with respect to its private banking accounts and correspondent banking accounts involving foreign individuals and certain foreign banks and (iii) to avoid establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing correspondent accounts in the United States for, or on behalf of, a foreign bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. In addition, the USA Patriot Act contains a provision encouraging cooperation among financial institutions, regulatory authorities and law enforcement authorities with respect to individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. The federal banking agencies have begun proposing and implementing regulations interpreting the USA Patriot Act. Compliance with the USA Patriot Act did not have a significant impact on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act: On July 30, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), which is intended to address systemic and structural weaknesses of the capital markets in the United States that were perceived to have contributed to recent corporate scandals. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act creates the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) to oversee the conduct of audits of public companies. The duties of PCAOB include (i) registering public accounting firms that prepare audit reports, (ii) establishing auditing, quality control, ethics, independence and other standards for the preparation of audit reports, (iii) conducting inspections of registered public accounting firms and (iv) otherwise promoting high professional standards among, and improving the quality of audit services offered by auditors of public companies. The PCAOB will be funded from assessments on public companies and will be subject to the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act attempts to strengthen the independence of public company auditors by, among other things, (i) prohibiting public company auditors from providing certain non-audit services to their audit clients, (ii) requiring a company’s audit committee to preapprove all audit and non-audit services being provided by its independent auditor, (iii) requiring the rotation of audit partners and (iv) prohibiting an auditor from auditing a client that has as its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief accounting officer or controller a person that was employed by the auditor during the previous year.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also attempts to enhance the responsibility of corporate management by, among other things, (i) requiring the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of public companies to provide certain certifications in their periodic reports regarding the accuracy of the periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (ii) prohibiting officers and directors of public companies from fraudulently influencing an accountant engaged in the audit of the company’s financial statements, (iii) requiring chief executive officers and chief financial officers to forfeit certain bonuses in the event of a misstatement of financial results, (iv) prohibiting officers and directors found to be unfit from serving in a similar capacity with other public companies, (v) prohibiting officers and directors from trading in the company’s equity securities during pension blackout periods and (vi) requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue standards of professional conduct for attorneys representing public companies. In addition, public companies whose securities are listed on a national securities exchange or association must satisfy the following additional requirements: (i) the company’s audit committee must appoint and oversee the company’s auditors, (ii) each member of the company’s audit committee must be independent, (iii) the

9

Table of Contents

company’s audit committee must establish procedures for receiving complaints regarding accounting, internal accounting controls and audit-related matters, (iv) the company’s audit committee must have the authority to engage independent advisors and (v) the company must provide appropriate funding to its audit committee, as determined by the audit committee.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act contains several provisions intended to enhance the quality of financial disclosures of public companies, including provisions that (i) require that financial disclosures reflect all material correcting adjustments identified by the company’s auditors, (ii) require the disclosure of all material off-balance sheet transactions, (iii) require the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules regarding the use by public companies of pro forma financial information, (iv) with certain limited exceptions, including an exception for financial institutions making loans in compliance with federal banking regulations, prohibit public companies from making personal loans to its officers and directors, (v) with certain limited exceptions, require directors, officers and principal shareholders of public companies to report changes in their ownership in the company’s securities within two business days of the change, (vi) require a company’s management to provide a report of its assessment of the internal controls of the company in its annual report, (vii) require public companies to adopt codes of conduct for senior financial officers and (viii) require companies to disclose whether the company’s audit committee has a financial expert as a member.

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission is directed to adopt rules designed to protect the independence of research analysts and to require research analysts to disclose conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also directs that certain studies be conducted by the Comptroller General and the Securities and Exchange Commission, including studies regarding the function of credit rating agencies and the role of investment banks and financial advisers might have on earnings.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act imposes criminal liability for certain acts, including altering documents involving federal investigations, bankruptcy proceedings, corporate audits and increases the penalties for certain offenses, including mail and wire fraud. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act gives added protection to corporate whistle-blowers.

Although the Company has incurred additional expense in complying with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder, such compliance has not had a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Other: The United States Congress continues to consider a number of wide-ranging proposals for altering the structure, regulation, and competitive relationships of the nation’s financial institutions. It cannot be predicted whether or in what form further legislation may be adopted or the extent to which the business of the Company may be affected thereby.

Risk Factors

Credit Risk and Loan Concentration: A major risk facing lenders is the risk of losing principal and interest as a result of a borrower’s failure to perform according to the terms of the loan agreement, or “credit risk.” Real estate loans include residential mortgages and construction and commercial loans secured by real estate. The Company’s credit risk with respect to its real estate loans relates principally to the value of the underlying collateral. The Company’s credit risk with respect to its commercial loans relates principally to the general creditworthiness of the borrowers, who primarily are individuals and small and medium-sized businesses in the Company’s primary service areas. There can be no assurance that the allowance for loan losses will be adequate to cover future losses in the existing loan portfolios. Loan losses exceeding the Company’s historical rates could have a material adverse affect on the results of operations and financial condition of the Company.

Potential Impact of Change in Interest Rates: The potential of the Company depends to a large extent upon its net interest income, which is the difference between interest income on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investments, and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. The net interest income of the Company would be adversely affected if changes in market interest rates resulted in the interest-bearing assets of the Company being reduced because of softening loan demand. In addition, a decline in interest rates may result in greater than normal prepayments of the higher interest-bearing obligations held by the Company.

Management Information Systems: The sophistication and level of risk of the Company’s business requires the utilization of thorough and accurate management information systems. Failure of management to effectively implement, maintain, update and utilize updated management information systems could prevent management from recognizing in a timely manner deterioration in the performance of its business, particularly its loan portfolios. Such failure to effectively implement, maintain, update and utilize comprehensive management information systems could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations and financial condition of the Company.

10

Table of Contents

Merger Integration: A risk facing financial institutions is the successful integration of an acquired institution’s staff, accounts, and products. Failure of management to effectively integrate all aspects of an acquired institution could lead to higher than anticipated account run-off, lower than anticipated profits from these acquired institutions, and could have a material adverse effect on the operating results and financial conditions of the Company.

Potential Impact of Significant Growth: The Company has grown loans, deposits, fee businesses, and employees rapidly both organically and through acquisition. The ability of the Company to manage this growth in a disciplined manner is imperative. The Company must thoroughly plan on how to support this growth from a human resources, training, operational, financial and technology standpoint. The failure to successfully manage this growth could have a material adverse effect on the operating results and financial conditions of the company.

Adverse Economic Conditions: The Company’s major lending activities are real estate and commercial loans. Residential mortgage loans are also produced for resale. An increase in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on the housing industries and consumer spending generally. In addition, an increase in interest rates could cause a decline in the value of residential mortgages. These events could adversely affect the results of operations and financial condition of the Company.

Governmental Regulation – Banking: The Company and the Bank are subject to extensive supervision, regulation and control by several Federal and State governmental agencies, including the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance. Future legislation, regulations and government policy could adversely affect the Company and the financial institutions industry as a whole, including the cost of doing business. Although the impact of such legislation, regulation and policies cannot be predicted, future changes may alter the structure of and competitive relationships among financial institutions.

Consumer and Debtor Protection Laws: The Company is subject to numerous Federal and State consumer protection laws that impose requirements related to offering and extending credit. The United States Congress and state governments may enact laws and amend existing laws to regulate further the consumer industry or to reduce finance charges or other fees or charges applicable to credit card and other consumer revolving loan accounts. Such laws, as well as any new laws or rulings which may be adopted, may adversely affect the Company’s ability to collect on account balances or maintain previous levels of finance charges and other fees and charges with respect to the accounts. Any failure by the Company to comply with such legal requirements also could adversely affect its ability to collect the full amount of the account balances. Changes in federal and state bankruptcy and debtor relief laws could adversely affect the results of operations and financial condition of the Company if such changes result in, among other things, additional administrative expenses and accounts being written off as uncollectible.

Composition of Real Estate Loan Portfolio: The real estate loan portfolio of the Company includes residential mortgages and construction and commercial loans secured by real estate. The Company generates most of its real estate mortgage loans in Georgia. Therefore, conditions of this real estate market could strongly influence the level of the Company’s non-performing mortgage loans and the results of operations and financial condition of the Company. Real estate values and the demand for mortgages and construction loans are affected by, among other things, changes in general or local economic conditions, changes in governmental rules or policies, the availability of loans to potential purchasers, and acts of nature. Although the Company’s underwriting standards are intended to protect the Company against adverse general and local real estate trends, declines in real estate markets could adversely impact the demand for new real estate loans, and the value of the collateral securing the Company’s loans.

Website Availability of Reports Filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission

The Company maintains an Internet website located at www.mainstreetbank.com on which, among other things, the Company makes available, free of charge, various reports that it files with, or furnishes to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including its Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports. These reports are made available as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports are filed with, or furnished to the SEC.

11

Table of Contents

Item 2. Properties

The Company’s corporate headquarters are located at 676 Chastain Road, Kennesaw, Georgia. The main office of the Bank is located at 1134 Clark Street, Covington, Georgia. The Bank leases space for its headquarters and various support functions. These support functions include: an operations center, bank headquarters, and accounting facilities.

The Bank has 25 branch offices located in Barrow, Clarke, Cobb, DeKalb, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Newton, Rockdale and Walton counties, Georgia, 19 of which are owned and 6 of which are leased. Deposit and loan operations, proof, information technology, and purchasing are located in leased space at 2118 Usher Street in Covington, Georgia. Human Resources, Accounting, Credit and Compliance are in leased space at 1122 Pace Street in Covington, Georgia. The Bank’s corporate headquarters is in leased space at 1121 Floyd Street, Covington, Georgia. The bank also leases a building in Covington, Georgia, adjacent to the owned facility on Pace Street, which serves as the location of the Branch Operations and Treasury departments.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Neither the registrant nor its subsidiaries are a party to, nor is any of their property the subject of, any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine proceedings incidental either to the business of the Company, or to the knowledge of the management of the registrant are any such proceedings contemplated or threatened against it or its subsidiaries. From time to time, the Bank is a party to legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business, wherein it enforces its security interest.

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

No matter was submitted to a vote of security holders by solicitation of proxies or otherwise during the fourth quarter of 2003.

12

Table of Contents

PART II

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

Market Prices. Our common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol “MSBK.”

The following table sets forth the high and low closing prices and the end of the quarter closing price of the common stock of the Parent Company and the dividends paid thereon during the periods indicated:

As of January 31, 2004, there were approximately 1,888 shareholders of record of the Parent Company’s common stock. The Company believes that there are a significant number of shares of Common Stock held either in nominee name or street name brokerage accounts and consequently, the Company is unable to determine the number of beneficial owners of the Common Stock.

Dividend Policy and History. Neither the Company’s articles of incorporation nor the bylaws set forth any restriction on the ability of the Company to issue dividends to its shareholders. The Georgia Business Corporation Code, though, forbids any distribution which, after being given effect, would leave the Company unable to pay its debts as they become due in the usual course of business. Additionally, the Georgia Business Corporation Code provides that no distribution shall be made if, after giving it effect, the corporation’s total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities plus the amount that would be needed to satisfy any preferential dissolution rights.

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries. Substantially all of the Company’s revenues result from amounts paid as dividends to the Company by its subsidiaries. The Bank is subject to statutory and regulatory limitations on the payment of dividends to the Company, and the Company is subject to statutory and regulatory limitations on dividend payments to its shareholders.

If in the opinion of the federal banking regulators, a depository institution under its jurisdiction is engaged in or is about to engage in an unsafe or unsound practice, the regulatory authority may require, after notice and hearing, that the institution cease and desist from the practice. The Federal banking agencies have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a depository institution’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under FDICIA, a depository institution may not pay any dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized. The federal agencies have also issued policy statements that provide that bank holding companies and insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings.

The Georgia Financial Institutions Code and the Georgia Banking Department’s regulations provide:

The payment of dividends by the Company may also be affected or limited by other factors, such as a requirement by the Federal Reserve to maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines.

13

Table of Contents

Recent sales of unregistered securities. On January 9, 2004 the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of BMIA. As consideration for this acquisition, the Company issued 271,111 shares of its common stock to the shareholders of BMIA in a transaction that was exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. These shares are the subject of an effective registration statement on Form S-3.

Equity Compensation Plans. The following table sets forth information relating to the Company’s equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2003:

14

Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

15

Table of Contents

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following is management’s discussion and analysis of certain significant factors which have affected the Company’s financial position at December 31, 2003 as compared to December 31, 2002 and a comparison of operating results for the periods ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001. These comments should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes appearing elsewhere herein.

Executive Overview

2003 was both an exciting and challenging year for Main Street Banks, Inc. The company experienced tremendous growth and change during the year. The year began with the successful integration of the John’s Creek acquisition which closed on December 11, 2002. That event was followed by the successful acquisition and conversion of First Colony Bancshares.

In addition to the two acquisitions, Main Street also opened the Lawrenceville, Buckhead, and Dunwoody Banking Centers, and consolidated four smaller facilities for efficiency reasons: Midway, Lawrenceville North, Central Lawrenceville, and the Kroger Banking Center in Covington.

During 2003, the company also established a commercial real estate division, Piedmont Settlement Services, and MSB Payroll Solutions, LLC.

The strong 2003 operating results were highlighted by:

During 2004 the Company faces many risks and a great deal of competition. Key objectives and principles have been established to manage risks and maintain solid financial results. The following principles are of the greatest concern to management and are reflected in management’s decision making in daily decisions and in long-term strategic planning:

Additionally, in January 2004, the company, acquired and successfully integrated the BMIA. The acquisition will continue to allow the Company to diversify its income stream. Furthermore, the company has announced three new banking centers located in Midtown (Atlanta), Galleria (Cobb County, GA), and Marietta, GA to aid in future growth.

The Bank constantly analyzes its branch network and has announced the future closing of the Barrett Parkway branch in order to improve the bank’s overall efficiency.

Additionally, the Company will continue to commit resources to both MSB Payroll Solutions, LLC and Piedmont Settlement Services to further enhance fee income and diversify the Company’s revenue stream.

16

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Policies

The accounting and reporting policies of the Company and its subsidiaries are in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and conform to general practices within the banking industry. The Company’s significant accounting policies are described in the notes to the consolidated financial statements. Certain accounting policies require management to make significant estimates and assumptions, which have a material impact on the carrying value of certain assets and liabilities and the results of operations, and the Company considers these to be critical accounting policies. The estimates and assumptions used are based on historical experience and other factors, which management believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ significantly from these estimates and assumptions, which could have a material impact on the carrying value of assets and liabilities at the balance sheet dates and results of operations for the reporting periods.

The Company believes the following are critical accounting policies that require the most significant estimates and assumptions that are particularly susceptible to a significant change in the preparation of the Company’s financial statements.

Allowance for Loan Losses: An allowance for loan losses is based on management’s opinion of an amount that is adequate to absorb losses inherent in the existing loan portfolio. The allowance for loan losses is established through a provision for losses based on management’s evaluation of current economic conditions. The evaluation, which includes a review of all loans on which full collection may not be reasonably assumed, considers, among other matters, the fair market value or the estimated net realizable value of the underlying collateral, management’s estimate of probable credit losses, historical loan loss experience, and other factors that warrant recognition in providing for an adequate loan loss allowance.

Goodwill: In our financial statements, we have recorded $96.2 million of goodwill and other intangible assets, which represents the amount by which the price we paid for acquired businesses exceeds the fair value of tangible assets acquired plus the liabilities assumed. The determination of whether these assets are impaired involved significant judgments based upon management’s short and long-term projections of future performance. Certain of these forecasts reflect assumptions regarding our ability to sustain or increase business. Changes in strategy and/or market conditions may result in changes to recorded asset balances.

On at least an annual basis, we conduct an evaluation to assess whether the fair value of our recorded goodwill and other intangible assets exceeds the carrying value. We compare the aggregate fair value and carrying value for impairment. As long as the aggregate fair value exceeds the aggregate carrying value, no impairment is recognized in our financial statements. For the year ended December 31, 2003, management determined that there was no impairment of goodwill or intangible assets.

Net Income and Earnings per Share

The Company’s net income was $26.7 million, $20.5 million, and $14.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002, and 2001, respectively. Basic earnings per share were $1.49, $1.30, and $0.92 for the same periods, respectively, and diluted earnings per share were $1.44, $1.26 and $0.89 for the same periods. Earnings growth from 2001 to 2002 and from 2002 to 2003 resulted principally from merger activity and an increase in non-interest income fueled mainly by insurance agency income, mortgage origination fees, and service charges on deposit accounts. Earnings growth was further augmented by an increase in net interest income, which was directly related to an increase in the Company’s earning assets.

Earning Assets and Liabilities

Average earning assets in 2003 increased 38.5% over 2002 due principally to a 46.9% increase in total loans, offset partially by a 41.8% decrease in Federal Funds sold and Securities purchased under resell agreements. The average earning assets mix in 2003 changed from 2002 with loans at 82.6% and 77.8% for 2003 and 2002, respectively, and total investment securities at 15.9% and 17.1% for 2003 and 2002, respectively. The mix of earning assets is monitored on a continuous basis in order to place the Company in a position to react to interest rate movements and to maximize the return on earning assets.

17

Table of Contents

The following table presents the total dollar amount of average balances, interest income from average interest-earning assets and the resultant yields, as well as the interest expense on average interest-bearing liabilities, expressed both in dollars and rates.

18

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

For the year ending December 31, 2003, Main Street Banks, Inc. reported net income of $26.7 million ($1.44 per diluted share) compared with net income of $20.5 million ($1.26 per diluted share) and $14.3 million ($0.89 per diluted share) reported in 2002 and 2001 respectively.

The primary factors that impacted the financial results in 2003 were as follows:

The Company’s total assets increased $590.0 million or 42.7% since December 2002, due primarily to the acquisition of First Colony. Federal funds sold decreased $22.8 million primarily due to an increase in loan demand. Loans, net of allowance for loan loss, increased 46.9% or $454.3 million since December 2002, while the investment portfolio increased $65.0 million. Both increases are due primarily to the First Colony acquisition. Goodwill increased by $79.7 million, also as a result of the First Colony acquisition. Total deposits increased by 29.2% or $329.5 million due primarily to the First Colony acquisition, an ongoing deposit campaign, limited use of brokered and national deposits, and seasonal public funds.

Return on average assets for the year ended December 31, 2003 was 1.57%. This compares to 1.71% for the same period in 2002. Return on average equity for the year ended December 31, 2003 was 15.8% on average equity of $168.5 million. This compares to 18.3% on average equity of $111.6 million for the same period in 2002.

Net Interest Income: Net interest income for 2003 was $71.4 million compared to $54.3 million in 2002, an increase of 31.4% or $17.1 million. The increase in net interest income was largely the result of overall balance sheet growth and the corresponding increase in average interest earning assets, which grew 38.5% over the December 31, 2002 level. Growth in average loans of $402.5 million or 47.0% provided the bulk of the increase in earning assets and contributed most significantly to the growth in net interest income. In a steadily declining interest rate environment, yields on earning assets declined throughout the year. Interest on earning assets yielded 6.48% in 2003 versus 7.29% in 2002, an 81 basis point decrease. The cost of interest bearing liabilities decreased 68 basis points from 2.76% to 2.08% for the comparable period.

The following schedule presents the dollar amount of changes in interest income and interest expense for the major components of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and distinguishes between the change related to higher outstanding balances and the change in interest rates. For purposes of this table, changes attributable to both rate and volume, which cannot be segregated, have been allocated to rate.

19

Table of Contents

Provision for Loan Losses: Management’s policy is to maintain the allowance for loan losses at a level sufficient to absorb estimated losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The allowance is increased by the provision for loan losses and decreased by charge-offs, net of recoveries. The allowance for loan losses is established through a provision for losses based on management’s evaluation of loan portfolio data, specific loan allowance, and current economic conditions. The evaluation, which includes a review of all loans on which full collection may not be reasonably assumed, considers among other matters, economic conditions, the fair market value or the estimated net realizable value of the underlying collateral, management’s estimate of probable credit losses, historical loan loss experience, and other factors that warrant recognition in providing for an adequate loan loss allowance. As these factors change, the level of loan loss provision changes. The allowance for loan losses at December 31, 2003 was $21.2 million, representing 1.47% of outstanding loans, compared to $14.6 million or 1.48% of outstanding loans as of December 31, 2002. The 2003 provision of $5.2 million was $1.2 million higher than the provision of $4.0 million in 2002. This exceeded the provision of $2.5 million recorded in 2001. Net loans charged off in 2003 were $2.9 million compared to $2.9 million in 2002 and $1.3 million in 2001.

Non-interest Income: For 2003, non-interest income totaled $24.3 million, an increase of $5.2 million over non-interest income of $19.1 million in 2002, which represented a 27.6% increase. The growth in fee income was primarily fueled by the growth in demand deposit accounts. Other increases are also attributed to the growth in the Company’s mortgage, and insurance business lines as well as the Company’s income from bank owned life insurance.

The following table presents the major categories of non-interest income: