Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

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, 2004

Commission file number: 000-33063

SIERRA BANCORP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(559) 782-4900

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

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

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  ¨

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

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

As of June 30, 2004, the last business day of Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $84 million, based on the closing price reported to the Registrant on that date of $15.85 per share.

Shares of Common Stock held by each officer and director and each person owning more than five percent of the outstanding Common Stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of the affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

The number of shares of Common Stock of the registrant outstanding as of January 31, 2005 was 9,722,612.

Documents Incorporated by Reference: Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to SEC Regulation 14A are incorporated by reference in Part III, Items 10-14.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

General

The Company

Sierra Bancorp (the “Company”) is a California corporation registered as a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and is headquartered in Porterville, California. The Company was incorporated in November 2000 and acquired all of the outstanding shares of Bank of the Sierra (the “Bank”) in August 2001. The Company’s principal subsidiary is the Bank, and the Company exists primarily for the purpose of holding the stock of the Bank and of such other subsidiaries it may acquire or establish. The Company’s only other direct subsidiaries are Sierra Capital Trust I, which was formed in November 2001 solely to facilitate the issuance of capital trust pass-through securities, and Sierra Statutory Trust II, formed in March 2004 also for the purpose of issuing $15 million in variable-rate capital trust pass-through securities. This additional regulatory capital will allow the Company to stay on track with current expansion plans without any impairment of risk-based capital ratios. While current rates and underwriting fees are substantially lower than when the Company issued its first $15 million in 2001, the cost of this money is still higher than the Company would otherwise pay for shorter-term borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Bank or from brokered deposit markets. The issuance of these trust preferred securities has, therefore, slightly increased the Company’s overall funding costs. Pursuant to FASB Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (FIN 46), Sierra Capital Trust I and Sierra Statutory Trust II are not reflected on a consolidated basis in the financial statements of the Company.

The Company’s principal source of income is dividends from the Bank, although supplemental sources of income may be explored in the future. The expenditures of the Company, including (but not limited to) the payment of dividends to shareholders, if and when declared by the Board of Directors, and the cost of servicing debt, will generally be paid from dividends paid to the Company by the Bank.

At December 31, 2004, the Company had consolidated assets of $997 million, deposits of $743 million and shareholders’ equity of $71 million. The Company’s liabilities include $30 million in debt obligations due to Sierra Capital Trust I and Sierra Statutory Trust II, related to capital trust pass-through securities issued by those entities.

References herein to the “Company” include the Company and its consolidated subsidiary, unless the context indicates otherwise.

The Bank

The Bank is a California state-chartered bank headquartered in Porterville, California. It was incorporated in September 1977 and opened for business in January 1978, and has grown to be the largest independent bank headquartered in the South San Joaquin Valley. The Bank is a multi-community independent bank that offers a full range of banking services to individuals and businesses primarily in the central and southern sections of California’s San Joaquin Valley. We operate eighteen full service branch offices throughout this geographic footprint, and have received regulatory approvals for a branch in the city of Reedley and another branch in Bakersfield. The Reedley Branch is expected to commence operations in the third quarter of 2005, and the additional Bakersfield branch should come online in the fourth quarter of 2005. Prior to 1997, Bank of the Sierra expanded its branch network exclusively by establishing de novo full-service branch offices and credit centers. In February 1997 we made our first branch purchase of the Dinuba Office of Wells Fargo Bank. Between February 1997 and September 1999 we opened three additional de novo offices in Tulare, Hanford, and Fresno. In May 2000 we added four branches by the acquisition of Sierra National Bank (“SNB”): one in Bakersfield, another in California City, and two in Tehachapi. The locations of the Bank’s current offices are:

3

Table of Contents

The Bank’s gross loan and lease balances at the end of 2004 totaled $696 million. The Bank’s lending activities are well-diversified and include real estate secured, commercial (including small business), agricultural, and retail loans. Our principal retail lending services include home equity lines, consumer loans, and credit card loans. Agricultural Credit Centers located in Fresno and Porterville provide a complete line of credit services in support of the agricultural activities that are key to the continued economic development of the communities we serve. “Ag lending” clients include a full range of individual farming customers, small business farming organizations, and major corporate farming units.

In addition, we staff our Fresno, Visalia, Porterville, and Bakersfield offices with real estate lending specialists. These officers are responsible for a complete line of land acquisition and development loans, construction loans for residential and commercial development, and multifamily credit facilities. Secondary market services are provided through the Bank’s affiliations with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and various non-governmental programs. In addition, we have an arrangement with Moneyline Lending Services, Inc. (“Moneyline”), whereby Moneyline underwrites single-family mortgage loans for qualifying Bank customers referred to them via Bank-branded delivery channels (i.e., Bank branches, the Bank’s internet site, and a dedicated telephone line).

We also engage in Small Business Administration (“SBA”) lending and have been designated as an SBA Preferred Lender since 1999. Further, Bank of the Sierra is a participant in the SBA’s innovative “Community Express” program, and was fifth in the nation from 1999 through 2003 for the volume of loans produced, behind the likes of banks such as Wells Fargo, Bank One, and J.P. Morgan.

As of December 31, 2004, the percentage of our total loan portfolio for each of the principal areas in which we directed our lending activities were as follows: (i) loans secured by real estate (71.9%); (ii) commercial and industrial

4

Table of Contents

(including SBA) loans (17.1%); (iii) consumer loans (7.0%); (iv) agricultural loans (1.9%); (v) credit cards (1.6%); and (vi) direct finance leases (.5%). Real estate loans and related activities generated total revenue of $33.4 million in 2004 and $28.0 million in 2003. Real-estate secured loans, loan sales, and loan servicing activities generated approximately 54% of our total interest and other income for 2004, and 53% during 2003.

In addition to loans, we offer a wide range of deposit products for retail and business banking markets including checking accounts, interest bearing transaction accounts, savings accounts, time deposit accounts and retirement accounts. Telephone banking and internet banking with bill-pay are options for our deposit customers. We attract deposits through our customer-oriented product mix, competitive pricing, convenient locations, and drive-up banking, all provided with the highest level of customer service. At December 31, 2004 we had 55,833 deposit accounts totaling approximately $743 million, compared to 51,898 deposit accounts totaling approximately $684 million as of December 31, 2003.

We offer a multitude of other products and services to our customers to complement our lending and deposit services. These include installment note collection, cashier’s checks, traveler’s checks, bank-by-mail, ATM, night depository, safe deposit boxes, direct deposit, automated payroll services, electronic funds transfers, on-line banking, and other customary banking services. During the past few years we have added offsite ATMs, thereby increasing consumer convenience by facilitating cash advances and deposit capabilities not otherwise available at non-branch locations. We currently operate seven offsite ATM’s, and also utilize a mobile ATM unit at fairs, exhibitions, and various other community functions within our market area. The most recently opened kiosk-style offsite ATM’s commenced operations in late 2003 and October 2004 in Visalia and Tehachapi, respectively. We have a Spanish language option on our own network of ATMs, and shared ATM and Point of Sale (POS) networks allow our customers access to national and international funds transfer networks. In addition, we have established a convenient customer service group accessible by toll-free telephone to answer questions and assure a high level of customer satisfaction.

In order to provide non-deposit investment options we have developed a strategic alliance with Investment Centers of America, Inc. of Bismarck, North Dakota (“ICA”). Through this arrangement, registered and licensed representatives of ICA provide our customers with convenient access to annuities, insurance products, mutual funds, and a full range of investment products. They conduct business from offices located in our Porterville, Visalia, Tulare, Tehachapi and Fresno branches.

Sierra Real Estate Investment Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (“REIT”) which is a consolidated subsidiary of the Bank, was formed in June 2002 for the primary business purpose of investing in the Bank’s real-estate related assets, and enhancing and strengthening the Bank’s capital position and earnings. Our REIT was capitalized in August 2002, when the Bank exchanged real-estate related assets for 100% of the common and preferred stock of the REIT. The Bank subsequently distributed more than 100 shares of REIT preferred stock among its directors and officers in January of 2003. Management has considered using the REIT to issue additional preferred stock to enhance the Company’s capital, however based on current market conditions and pricing this is an expensive option in comparison to capital trust pass-through securities. Should it ever be determined that the Company cannot include capital trust pass-through securities in regulatory capital, REIT preferred securities could become a viable substitute.

On December 31, 2003, the California Franchise Tax Board issued an opinion listing bank-owned REITs as potentially abusive tax shelters subject to possible penalties, and stating that REIT consent dividends are not deductible for California state income tax purposes. The Company has received advice from its REIT tax advisor (a national accounting firm) that the law has not changed, and the tax opinion it received on the validity of REIT benefits still stands as issued. The Company felt it prudent, however, to reverse REIT tax benefits accrued on its income statement, and the benefit accrued during 2003 was reversed at the end of 2003. During the second quarter of 2004, amended 2002 tax returns were filed eliminating the REIT benefit originally reflected for 2002. The difference plus interest was paid to the California Franchise Tax Board at that time. That amount was also included in the Company’s second quarter 2004 provision for income taxes, net of the associated contingent tax reserve. No assurance can be given that REIT benefits will be available in the future, or that the Company will not be assessed by the Franchise Tax Board for back penalties. It appears that many California banks with REITs, including Bank of the Sierra, have reserved the right to appeal the most recent interpretation of the California Franchise Tax Board, and some have recently initiated a defense of their position that the law was correctly interpreted when REIT tax benefits were initially recognized.

5

Table of Contents

We have not engaged in any material research activities related to the development of new products or services during the last two fiscal years. However, our officers and employees are continually searching for ways to increase public convenience, enhance public access to the electronic payments system, and enable us to improve our competitive position. In January of 2004, for example, we converted our core bank processing and online banking systems to increase efficiency and improve customer service. During 2003 we began offering lease financing as an alternative to loans and implemented an extensive customer service training program, among other things. And, in 2002 the Bank brought its item processing function in-house and simultaneously implemented check imaging, enabling us to take full advantage of electronic check image collection and presentment as the adoption of this technology becomes more widespread. The cost to the Bank for these development, operations, and marketing activities cannot be expressly calculated with any degree of certainty.

We hold no patents or licenses (other than licenses required by appropriate bank regulatory agencies), franchises, or concessions. Our business has a modest seasonal component due to the heavy agricultural orientation of the Central Valley. As our branches in more metropolitan areas such as Fresno and Bakersfield have expanded, however, the agriculture-related base has become less important. We are not dependent on a single customer or group of related customers for a material portion of our deposits, nor is a material portion of our loans concentrated within a single industry or group of related industries. The amounts expended on compliance with new government and regulatory initiatives related to anti-terrorism, corporate responsibility, and customer privacy have not been insignificant; the amount spent specifically for compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 alone totaled close to $300,000 in 2004. However, as far as can be reasonably determined there has been no material effect upon our capital expenditures, earnings, or competitive position as a result of Federal, state, or local environmental regulation.

Recent Developments

In July 2004 the Company’s Board of Directors approved a $1 million limited partnership commitment to The Central Valley Fund, L.P., a Small Business Investment Company formed to invest primarily in California’s Central Valley (Redding to Bakersfield). The fund will provide mezzanine capital for small to mid-sized Central Valley businesses to finance later stage growth, strategic acquisitions, ownership transitions and recapitalizations. Referrals from financial institution limited partners are anticipated. A subscription agreement for the Central Valley Fund was executed in February 2005.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Information on recent accounting pronouncements is contained in Footnote 2 to the Financial Statements.

Competition

The banking business in California in general, and specifically in many of our market areas, is highly competitive with respect to virtually all products and services and has become increasingly more so in recent years. The industry continues to consolidate, and unregulated competitors have entered banking markets with products targeted at highly profitable customer segments. Many largely unregulated competitors are able to compete across geographic boundaries, and provide customers with meaningful alternatives to nearly all significant banking services and products. These competitive trends are likely to continue.

With respect to commercial bank competitors, the business is largely dominated by a relatively small number of major banks with many offices operating over a wide geographic area. For the combined Tulare, Kern, Fresno, and Kings county region, the four counties within which the Company operates, the top seven institutions are all multi-billion dollar entities that control a combined 68.6% of deposit market share based on June 30, 2004 FDIC market share data. Bank of the Sierra, the largest independent community bank on the list, ranks eighth with a 4.6% share of aggregate deposits. In Tulare County, however, where the Bank was originally formed, we rank first for total number of branch locations (9), and second for deposit market share with 17.8% of total deposits, behind only Bank of

6

Table of Contents

America (23.0%). The largest portion of deposits in the combined four-county area also belongs to Bank of America (25.0%), while Wells Fargo is second (12.3%), and Washington Mutual comes in third (9.0%). Union Bank of California, Citibank, Bank of the West, and Fremont Investment & Loan round out the top seven. These banks have, among other advantages, the ability to finance wide-ranging and effective advertising campaigns and to allocate their resources to regions of highest yield and demand. They also have the ability to offer certain services that we do not offer directly but may offer indirectly through correspondent institutions. By virtue of their greater total capitalization, these banks also have substantially higher lending limits than do smaller community banks. For customers whose needs exceed our legal lending limit, we attempt to arrange for loans on a participation basis with other banks.

In addition to other banks, our competitors include savings institutions, credit unions, and numerous non-banking institutions such as finance companies, leasing companies, insurance companies, brokerage firms, and investment banking firms. In recent years, increased competition has also developed from specialized companies that offer wholesale finance, credit card, and other consumer finance services, including on-line banking services and personal financial software. Strong competition for deposit and loan products affects the rates of those products as well as the terms on which they are offered to customers. Mergers between financial institutions have placed additional pressure on other banks within the industry to remain competitive by streamlining their operations, reducing expenses, and increasing revenues. Competition has also intensified due to federal and state interstate banking laws enacted in the mid-1990’s, which permit banking organizations to expand into other states. The relatively large and expanding California market has been particularly attractive to out-of-state institutions. The Financial Modernization Act, effective March 11, 2000 (see “– Regulation and Supervision – Financial Modernization Act”), has made it possible for full affiliations to occur between banks and securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial companies, and has also intensified competitive conditions.

Our credit card business is subject to an even higher level of competitive pressure than our general banking business. There are a number of major banks and credit card issuers that are able to finance highly visible and extremely successful advertising campaigns with which community banks generally do not have the resources to compete. As a result, our credit card accounts and outstanding balances are likely to increase at a slower rate than for nationwide issuers. Additional competition comes from many non-financial institutions, such as retailers that offer credit cards.

Technological innovations have also resulted in increased competition in financial services markets. Such innovation has, for example, made it possible for non-depository institutions to offer customers automated transfer payment services that previously were considered traditional banking products. In addition, many customers now expect a choice of delivery channels, including telephone, mail, home computer, ATMs, self-service branches, and/or in-store branches. Competitors offering such products include traditional banks as well as savings associations, credit unions, brokerage firms, money market and other mutual funds, asset management groups, finance and insurance companies, internet-only financial intermediaries, and mortgage banking firms.

For many years we have countered rising competition by offering a broad array of products in an innovative and flexible manner. We are able to offer our customers community-oriented, personalized service that cannot always be matched by the major banks. We rely on local promotional activity, personal contacts by our officers, directors, employees, and shareholders, and individualized service provided through accommodative policies. This approach appears to be well-received by the populace of the San Joaquin Valley, who appreciate a high-touch, customer-oriented environment in which to conduct their financial transactions. Other competitive advantages include our retention of drive-up teller windows, which have been eliminated by much of the competition, and our “preferred lender” or “PLP” status with the Small Business Administration, which enables us to approve SBA loans faster than many of our competitors. Layered on top of the Company’s traditional personal-contact banking philosophy are sophisticated telephone banking, internet banking, and online bill payment capabilities, which were implemented to meet the needs of customers with electronic access requirements and provide automated 24-hour banking. This high-tech and high-touch approach allows individuals to customize access to the Company to their particular preference.

7

Table of Contents

Employees

As of December 31, 2004 the Company had 253 full-time and 118 part-time employees. On a full time equivalent basis, the Company’s staffing stood at 344 at December 31, 2004, as compared to 326 at December 31, 2003. Staff was added during 2004 for the new office in Clovis, to provide resources in order to maintain satisfactory customer service in growth areas, and to enhance business development activities in certain markets. Our employees are not represented by a union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Management of the Company believes its employee relations are satisfactory.

Regulation and Supervision

The Company and the Bank are subject to significant regulation by federal and state regulatory agencies. The following discussion of statutes and regulations is only a brief summary and does not purport to be complete. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations. No assurance can be given that such statutes or regulations will not change in the future.

The Company

The Company’s stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol BSRR, and as such the Company is subject to Nasdaq rules and regulations including those related to corporate governance. The Company is also subject to the periodic reporting requirements of Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) which requires the Company to file annual, quarterly and other current reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Company is subject to additional regulations including, but not limited to, the proxy and tender offer rules promulgated by the SEC under Sections 13 and 14 of the Exchange Act; the reporting requirements of directors, executive officers and principal shareholders regarding transactions in the Company’s Common Stock and short-swing profits rules promulgated by the SEC under Section 16 of the Exchange Act; and certain additional reporting requirements by principal shareholders of the Company promulgated by the SEC under Section 13 of the Exchange Act. As a publicly traded company which had in excess of $75 million in public float as of June 30, 2004, the Company is classified as an “accelerated filer” as of the end of the year. This means that commencing with its fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, the Company is also subject to the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 with regard to documenting, testing, and attesting to internal controls over financial reporting.

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and is registered as such with the Federal Reserve Board. A bank holding company is required to file with the Federal Reserve Board annual reports and other information regarding its business operations and those of its subsidiaries. It is also subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve Board and is required to obtain Federal Reserve Board approval before acquiring, directly or indirectly, ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank if, after such acquisition, it would directly or indirectly own or control more than 5% of the voting stock of that bank, unless it already owns a majority of the voting stock of that bank.

The Federal Reserve Board has by regulation determined certain activities in which a bank holding company may or may not conduct business. A bank holding company must engage, with certain exceptions, in the business of banking or managing or controlling banks or furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiary banks. The permissible activities and affiliations of certain bank holding companies were expanded in 2000 by the Financial Modernization Act. (See “– Financial Modernization Act” below.)

The Company and the Bank are deemed to be affiliates of each other within the meaning set forth in the Federal Reserve Act and are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. This means, for example, that there are limitations on loans by the Bank to affiliates, and that all affiliate transactions must satisfy certain limitations and otherwise be on terms and conditions at least as favorable to the Bank as would be available for non-affiliates.

The Federal Reserve Board has a policy that bank holding companies must serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. It is the Federal Reserve Bank’s position that bank holding companies

8

Table of Contents

should stand ready to use their available resources to provide adequate capital to their subsidiary banks during periods of financial stress or adversity. Bank holding companies should also maintain the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting their subsidiary banks.

The Federal Reserve Board also has the authority to regulate bank holding company debt, including the authority to impose interest rate ceilings and reserve requirements on such debt. Under certain circumstances, the Federal Reserve Board may require the Company to file written notice and obtain its approval prior to purchasing or redeeming the Company’s equity securities.

The Bank

As a California state-chartered bank whose accounts are insured by the FDIC up to a maximum of $100,000 per depositor, the Bank is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the California Department of Financial Institutions (the “DFI”) and the FDIC. In addition, while the Bank is not a member of the Federal Reserve System, it is subject to certain regulations of the Federal Reserve Board. The regulations of these agencies govern most aspects of the Bank’s business, including the making of periodic reports by the Bank, and the Bank’s activities relating to dividends, investments, loans, borrowings, capital requirements, certain check-clearing activities, branching, mergers and acquisitions, reserves against deposits and numerous other areas. Supervision and examination of the Bank by the FDIC and any legal actions taken by the FDIC with respect thereto are generally intended to protect depositors and are not intended for the protection of shareholders.

The earnings and growth of the Bank are largely dependent on its ability to maintain a favorable differential or “spread” between the yield on its interest-earning assets and the rates paid on its deposits and other interest-bearing liabilities. As a result, the Bank’s performance is influenced by general economic conditions, both domestic and foreign, the monetary and fiscal policies of the federal government, and the policies of the regulatory agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board implements national monetary policies (such as seeking to curb inflation and combat recession) by means of open-market operations in United States Government securities, adjusting the required level of reserves for financial institutions subject to its reserve requirements, and varying the discount rate applicable to borrowings by banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. The actions of the Federal Reserve Board in these areas influence the growth of bank loans, investments and deposits and also affect interest rates charged on loans and deposits. The nature and impact of any future changes in monetary policies cannot be predicted.

Capital Adequacy Requirements

The Company and the Bank are subject to the regulations of the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, respectively, governing capital adequacy. Each of the federal regulators has established risk-based and leverage capital guidelines for the banks or bank holding companies it regulates, which set total capital requirements and define capital in terms of “core capital elements,” or Tier 1 capital; and “supplemental capital elements,” or Tier 2 capital. Tier 1 capital is generally defined as the sum of the core capital elements less goodwill and certain other deductions, notably the unrealized net gains or losses (after tax adjustments) on available for sale investment securities carried at fair market value. The following items are defined as core capital elements: (i) common shareholders’ equity; (ii) qualifying non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus (not to exceed 25% of tier 1 capital); and (iii) minority interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries. At December 31, 2004, 25% of the Company’s Tier 1 capital consisted of trust preferred securities, however no assurance can be given that trust preferred securities will continue to be treated as Tier 1 capital in the future. Tier 2 capital can include: (i) allowance for loan and lease losses (but not more than 1.25% of an institution’s risk-weighted assets); (ii) perpetual preferred stock and related surplus not qualifying as core capital; (iii) hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt instruments; and (iv) term subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock and related surplus (but not more than 50% of Tier 1 capital). The maximum amount of Tier 2 capital that may be recognized for risk-based capital purposes is limited to 100% of Tier 1 capital, net of goodwill.

The minimum required ratio of qualifying total capital to total risk-weighted assets is 8.0% (“Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio”), at least one-half of which must be in the form of Tier 1 capital, and the minimum required ratio of

9

Table of Contents

Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets is 4.0% (“Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio”). Risk-based capital ratios are calculated to provide a measure of capital that reflects the degree of risk associated with a banking organization’s operations for both transactions reported on the balance sheet as assets, and transactions, such as letters of credit and recourse arrangements, which are recorded as off-balance sheet items. Under risk-based capital guidelines, the nominal dollar amounts of assets and credit-equivalent amounts of off-balance sheet items are multiplied by one of several risk adjustment percentages, which range from 0% for assets with low credit risk, such as certain U.S. Treasury securities, to 100% for assets with relatively high credit risk, such as unsecured loans. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the Bank’s Total Risk-Based Capital Ratios were 11.63% and 10.15%, respectively, and its Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratios were 10.48% and 9.17%. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the consolidated Company’s Total Risk-Based Capital Ratios were 13.30% and 10.88%, respectively, and its Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratios were 11.34% and 9.90%.

The risk-based capital requirements also take into account concentrations of credit (i.e., relatively large proportions of loans involving one borrower, industry, location, collateral or loan type) and the risks of “non-traditional” activities (those that have not customarily been part of the banking business). The regulations require institutions with high or inordinate levels of risk to operate with higher minimum capital standards, and authorize the regulators to review an institution’s management of such risks in assessing an institution’s capital adequacy.

Additionally, the risk-based capital regulations include interest rate risk as a factor that the regulators will consider in evaluating a bank’s capital adequacy. Interest rate risk is the exposure of a bank’s current and future earnings and equity capital to unfavorable changes resulting from fluctuations in interest rates. While interest risk is inherent in a bank’s role as financial intermediary, it introduces volatility to earnings and to the economic value of the bank.

The FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board also require the calculation of a leverage capital ratio to supplement risk-based capital guidelines. Banks and bank holding companies that have received the highest rating of the five categories used by regulators to rate banks and are not anticipating or experiencing any significant growth must maintain a ratio of Tier 1 capital (net of all intangibles) to adjusted total assets (“Leverage Capital Ratio”) of at least 3%. All other institutions are required to maintain a leverage ratio of 4% to 5%. Pursuant to federal regulations, banks must maintain capital levels commensurate with the level of risk to which they are exposed, including the volume and severity of problem loans, and federal regulators may set higher capital requirements when a bank’s particular circumstances warrant. The Bank’s Leverage Capital Ratios were 8.48% and 8.20% on December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the consolidated Company’s leverage capital ratios were 9.20% and 8.87%, respectively, exceeding regulatory minimums.

For more information on the Company’s capital, see Part II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Capital Resources. Risk-based capital ratio requirements are discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Prompt Corrective Action Provisions

Federal law requires each federal banking agency to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured financial institutions, including but not limited to those that fall below one or more prescribed minimum capital ratios. The federal banking agencies have by regulation defined the following five capital categories: “well capitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 10%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 6%; and Leverage Ratio of 5%); “adequately capitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 8%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of 4%; and Leverage Ratio of 4%, or 3% if the institution receives the highest rating from its primary regulator); “undercapitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 8%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 4%; or Leverage Ratio of less than 4%, or 3% if the institution receives the highest rating from its primary regulator); “significantly undercapitalized” (Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 6%; Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio of less than 3%; or Leverage Ratio less than 3%); and “critically undercapitalized” (tangible equity to total assets less than 2%). As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, the Bank was deemed to be well capitalized for regulatory capital purposes. A bank may be treated as though it were in the next lower capital category if after notice and the opportunity for a hearing, the appropriate federal agency finds an unsafe or unsound condition or practice so warrants, but no bank may be treated as “critically undercapitalized” unless its actual capital ratio warrants such treatment.

10

Table of Contents

At each successively lower capital category, an insured bank is subject to increased restrictions on its operations. For example, a bank is generally prohibited from paying management fees to any controlling persons or from making capital distributions if to do so would make the bank “undercapitalized.” Asset growth and branching restrictions apply to undercapitalized banks, which are required to submit written capital restoration plans meeting specified requirements (including a guarantee by the parent holding company, if any). “Significantly undercapitalized” banks are subject to broad regulatory authority, including among other things, capital directives, forced mergers, restrictions on the rates of interest they may pay on deposits, restrictions on asset growth and activities, and prohibitions on paying certain bonuses without FDIC approval. Even more severe restrictions apply to critically undercapitalized banks. Most importantly, except under limited circumstances, not later than 90 days after an insured bank becomes critically undercapitalized the appropriate federal banking agency is required to appoint a conservator or receiver for the bank.

In addition to measures taken under the prompt corrective action provisions, insured banks may be subject to potential actions by the federal regulators for unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their businesses or for violations of any law, rule, regulation or any condition imposed in writing by the agency or any written agreement with the agency. Enforcement actions may include the issuance of cease and desist orders, termination of insurance of deposits (in the case of a bank), the imposition of civil money penalties, the issuance of directives to increase capital, formal and informal agreements, or removal and prohibition orders against “institution-affiliated” parties.

Safety and Soundness Standards

The federal banking agencies have also adopted guidelines establishing safety and soundness standards for all insured depository institutions. Those guidelines relate to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan underwriting and documentation, compensation and interest rate exposure. In general, the standards are designed to assist the federal banking agencies in identifying and addressing problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. If an institution fails to meet these standards, the appropriate federal banking agency may require the institution to submit a compliance plan and institute enforcement proceedings if an acceptable compliance plan is not submitted.

Premiums for Deposit Insurance

The FDIC regulations also implement a risk-based premium system, whereby insured depository institutions are required to pay insurance premiums depending on their risk classification. Under this system, insured banks are categorized into one of three capital categories (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, and undercapitalized) and one of three supervisory categories based on federal regulatory evaluations. The three supervisory categories are: financially sound with only a few minor weaknesses (Group A), demonstrates weaknesses that could result in significant deterioration (Group B), and poses a substantial probability of loss (Group C). The capital ratios used by the FDIC to define well capitalized, adequately capitalized and undercapitalized are the same in the FDIC’s prompt corrective action regulations. The current base assessment rates (expressed as cents per $100 of deposits) are summarized as follows:

In addition, banks must pay an amount toward the retirement of Financing Corporation bonds issued in the 1980’s to assist in the recovery of the savings and loan industry. This amount fluctuates but for the first quarter of 2005 is 1.44 cents per $100 of insured deposits.

Community Reinvestment Act

The Bank is subject to certain requirements under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”). The CRA generally requires federal banking agencies to evaluate the record of a financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its

11

Table of Contents

local communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. The CRA further requires the agencies to consider a financial institution’s efforts in meeting its community credit needs when evaluating applications for, among other things, domestic branches, consummating mergers or acquisitions, or holding company formations. In measuring a bank’s compliance with its CRA obligations, the regulators utilize a performance-based evaluation system. They determine CRA ratings based on the bank’s actual lending, service and investment activities, rather than on the extent to which the institution conducts needs assessments, documents community outreach activities or complies with other procedural requirements. In connection with its assessment of CRA performance, the FDIC assigns a rating of “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve” or “substantial noncompliance.” The Bank was last examined for CRA compliance in July 2004 when it received a “satisfactory” CRA Assessment Rating.

Other Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations

The bank regulatory agencies are increasingly focusing attention on compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations. Examination and enforcement has become intense, and banks have been advised to carefully monitor compliance with various consumer protection laws and regulations. The federal Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending issued a policy statement on discrimination in home mortgage lending describing three methods that federal agencies will use to prove discrimination: overt evidence of discrimination, evidence of disparate treatment, and evidence of disparate impact. In addition to CRA and fair lending requirements, the Bank is subject to numerous other federal consumer protection statutes and regulations. Due to heightened regulatory concern related to compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations generally, the Bank may incur additional compliance costs or be required to expend additional funds for investments in the local communities it serves.

Interstate Banking and Branching

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (the “Interstate Banking Act”) regulates the interstate activities of banks and bank holding companies and establishes a framework for nationwide interstate banking and branching. Since June 1, 1997, a bank has generally been permitted to merge with a bank in another state without the need for explicit state law authorization. However, states were given the ability to prohibit interstate mergers with banks in their own state by “opting-out” (enacting state legislation applying equality to all out-of-state banks prohibiting such mergers) prior to June 1, 1997.

Since 1995, adequately capitalized and managed bank holding companies have been permitted to acquire banks located in any state, subject to two exceptions: first, any state may still prohibit bank holding companies from acquiring a bank which is less than five years old; and second, no interstate acquisition can be consummated by a bank holding company if the acquirer would control more than 10% of the deposits held by insured depository institutions nationwide or 30% percent or more of the deposits held by insured depository institutions in any state in which the target bank has branches. A bank may establish and operate de novo branches in any state in which the bank does not already maintain a branch if that state has enacted legislation to expressly permit all out-of-state banks to establish branches in that state.

In 1995 California enacted legislation to implement important provisions of the Interstate Banking Act discussed above and to repeal California’s previous interstate banking laws, which were largely preempted by the Interstate Banking Act.

The changes effected by Interstate Banking Act and California laws have increased competition in the environment in which the Bank operates to the extent that out-of-state financial institutions directly or indirectly enter the Bank’s market areas. It appears that the Interstate Banking Act has contributed to accelerated consolidation within the banking industry.

Financial Modernization Act

Effective March 11, 2000, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also known as the “Financial Modernization Act”) enabled full affiliations to occur between banks and securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial service providers. This legislation permits bank holding companies to become “financial holding companies” and thereby

12

Table of Contents

acquire securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature. A bank holding company may become a financial holding company if each of its subsidiary banks is “well capitalized” and “well managed” under applicable definitions, and has at least a satisfactory rating under the CRA, by filing a declaration that the bank holding company wishes to become a financial holding company. No regulatory approval will be required for a financial holding company to acquire a company, other than a bank or savings association, engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature, as determined by the Federal Reserve Board. The Company has no current intention of becoming a financial holding company, but may do at some point in the future if deemed appropriate in view of opportunities or circumstances at the time.

The Financial Modernization Act defines “financial in nature” to include securities underwriting, dealing and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; insurance underwriting and agency; merchant banking activities; and activities that the Board has determined to be closely related to banking. A national bank (and therefore, a state bank as well) may also engage, subject to limitations on investment, in activities that are financial in nature, other than insurance underwriting, insurance company portfolio investment, real estate development and real estate investment, through a financial subsidiary of the bank, if the bank is well capitalized, well managed and has at least a satisfactory CRA rating. Subsidiary banks of a financial holding company or national banks with financial subsidiaries must continue to be well capitalized and well managed in order to continue to engage in activities that are financial in nature without regulatory actions or restrictions, which could include divestiture of financial subsidiaries. In addition, a financial holding company or a bank may not acquire a company that is engaged in activities that are financial in nature unless each of the subsidiary banks of the financial holding company or the bank has a CRA rating of satisfactory or better.

The Financial Modernization Act also imposes extensive requirements on financial institutions with respect to the privacy of customer information, and modifies other existing laws, including those related to community reinvestment.

USA Patriot Act of 2001

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”). Enacted in response to the terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, the Patriot Act is intended to strengthen the ability of U.S. law enforcement agencies and intelligence communities to work cohesively to combat terrorism on a variety of fronts. The impact of the Act on financial institutions is significant and wide ranging. The Act contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws and requires various regulations applicable to financial institutions, including:

The Company has incorporated the requirements of the Patriot Act into its operating procedures, and while these requirements have resulted in an additional time burden the financial impact on the Company is difficult to quantify.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley”) was enacted to increase corporate responsibility, provide for enhanced penalties for accounting and auditing improprieties at publicly traded companies, and protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures pursuant to the securities laws. Sarbanes-Oxley includes important new requirements for public companies in the areas of financial disclosure, corporate governance, and the independence, composition and responsibilities of audit committees. Among other things, Sarbanes-Oxley mandates chief executive and chief financial officer certifications of periodic financial reports, additional financial disclosures concerning off-balance sheet items, and speedier transaction reporting requirements for executive officers,

13

Table of Contents

directors and 10% shareholders. In addition, penalties for non-compliance with the Exchange Act were heightened. SEC rules promulgated pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley impose obligations and restrictions on auditors and audit committees intended to enhance their independence from management, and include extensive additional disclosure, corporate governance and other related rules. Sarbanes-Oxley represents significant federal involvement in matters traditionally left to state regulatory systems, such as the regulation of the accounting profession, and to state corporate law, such as the relationship between a board of directors and management and between a board of directors and its committees.

The Company has not experienced any significant difficulties in complying with Sarbanes-Oxley. However, the Company has incurred, and expects to continue to incur, significant costs in connection with its compliance with Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires management to undertake an assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting and requires the Company’s auditors to attest to, and report on, management’s assessment and the operating effectiveness of these controls. The amount spent specifically for compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 totaled close to $300,000 in 2004.

Other Pending and Proposed Legislation

Other legislative and regulatory initiatives which could affect the Company, the Bank and the banking industry in general are pending, and additional initiatives may be proposed or introduced before the United States Congress, the California legislature and other governmental bodies in the future. Such proposals, if enacted, may further alter the structure, regulation and competitive relationship among financial institutions, and may subject the Bank to increased regulation, disclosure and reporting requirements. In addition, the various banking regulatory agencies often adopt new rules and regulations to implement and enforce existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether, or in what form, any such legislation or regulations may be enacted or the extent to which the business of the Company or the Bank would be affected thereby.

RISK FACTORS

Statements and financial discussion and analysis by management contained throughout this report that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from forward-looking statements herein include, without limitation, the factors set forth below.

Poor Economic Conditions in Our Market Areas May Cause Us to Suffer Higher Default Rates on Our Loans and Leases. A substantial majority of our assets and deposits are generated in the San Joaquin Valley in central California. As a result, poor economic conditions in this region could cause us to incur losses associated with higher default rates and decreased collateral values in our loan portfolio. The local economy currently appears to be experiencing a moderate expansion, and while the Company expects continued improvement, no assurance can be given that this will occur.

The San Joaquin Valley has not experienced the same type of growth that has historically occurred in other areas of California, especially those where high-tech industries have taken hold. While this fact minimized the negative impact of the most recent recession, unemployment levels are still relatively high. In the Visalia-Tulare-Porterville Metropolitan Statistical Area (“MSA”), for example, which is our geographic center and the base of our agriculturally oriented communities, the unemployment rate has consistently averaged around 15.5% for the past several years. While unemployment levels remain relatively high in all of the Company’s markets, in recent years some areas in the south and central San Joaquin Valley have experienced substantial commercial growth. The area’s relatively inexpensive real estate and central proximity to both Southern and Northern California have attracted a growing number of warehouse and distribution facilities, as well as manufacturing, health, and other service companies. The low cost of housing has also drawn retirees from more expensive areas of California.

14

Table of Contents

Poor Economic Conditions Affecting the Agricultural Industry Could Have an Adverse Effect on Our Customers and Their Ability to Make Payments to Us. The Company’s balance of non-performing assets has been relatively high in years past due in large part to persistent agricultural difficulties. Furthermore, a sizable portion of our total loan portfolio consists of loans to borrowers either directly or indirectly involved in the agricultural industry. While a great number of our borrowers may not be individually involved in agriculture, many of the jobs in the San Joaquin Valley are ancillary to the regular production, processing, marketing and sales of agricultural commodities. The ripple effect of lower commodity prices for milk, nuts, olives, grapes, oranges and tree fruit has a tendency to depress land prices, lower borrower income, and decrease collateral values. Weather patterns in particular are of critical importance to row crop, tree fruit, and orange production. A degenerative cycle of weather and commodity prices can impact consumer purchasing power, which has the potential to create further unemployment throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Global competition is another significant issue affecting the agricultural industry. Because of increased global competition and other factors, excess supply and low prices currently characterize the markets for many agricultural products. If current agricultural conditions do not improve, our level of non-performing assets could increase. Such conditions have affected and may continue to adversely affect our borrower base and, by extension, our business.

Concentrations of Real Estate Loans Could Subject Us to Increased Risks in the Event of a Real Estate Recession or Natural Disaster. Our loan portfolio is heavily concentrated in real estate loans, particularly commercial real estate. At December 31, 2004, 72% of our loan portfolio consisted of loans secured by real estate. Between the end of 2000 and the end of 2004, our loans secured by commercial/professional office properties (including construction and development loans) increased from 39% to 48% of total loans, while loans secured by residential properties have decreased from 24% to 18%. In the early 1990’s, the entire state of California experienced an economic recession that particularly impacted real estate values and resulted in increases in the level of delinquencies and losses for many financial institutions. Much of our market area seems to have been insulated from the significant fluctuations in real estate prices experienced by other parts of California over the past few decades. However, if a similar real estate recession affects our market areas in the future, the collateral for many of our loans could be reduced in value and the ability of some of our borrowers to pay could decline. Similarly, the occurrence of a natural disaster like those California has experienced in the past, including earthquakes, brush fires, and flooding, could impair the value of the collateral we hold for real estate secured loans and negatively impact our results of operations.

We May Have Difficulty Managing Our Growth. Management intends to leverage the Company’s current infrastructure to grow assets, and the addition of new branches has been tentatively planned, although no assurance can be given that this strategy will result in significant growth. Our ability to manage growth will depend primarily on our ability to:

If we fail to achieve these objectives in an efficient and timely manner we may experience disruptions in our business plans, and our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our Earnings are Subject to Interest Rate Risk. The earnings of most financial institutions depend largely on the relationship between the cost of funds, primarily deposits and borrowings, and the yield on earning assets such as loans and investment securities. This relationship, known as the interest rate spread, is subject to fluctuation and is affected by economic, regulatory and competitive factors that influence interest rates, the volume and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, and the level of non-performing assets. Many of these factors are beyond our control. Fluctuations in interest rates affect the demand of customers for our products and services, and the Company is subject to interest rate risk to the degree that our interest-bearing liabilities re-price or mature more slowly or more rapidly or on a different basis than our interest-earning assets. Given the current volume, mix, and re-pricing characteristics of the Company’s interest-bearing liabilities and interest-earning assets, our interest rate

15

Table of Contents

spread should not change significantly if interest rates rise or fall. However, there are scenarios where fluctuations in interest rates in either direction could have a negative effect on net income. For example, if funding rates rise faster than asset yields in a rising rate environment (i.e., if basis compression occurs), or if we do not actively manage certain loan index rates in a declining rate environment, we would be negatively impacted.

We Operate in a Competitive Market Dominated by Banks and Other Financial Services Providers, Many of Which Have Lower Cost Structures and Offer More Services. In California generally, and in our primary service area specifically, branches of major banks dominate the commercial banking industry. By virtue of their larger capital base, such institutions have substantially greater lending limits than we do, and perform certain functions for their customers, including trust services and international banking, which we are not equipped to offer directly (but some of which we offer indirectly through correspondent relationships). Many of these banks also operate with economies of scale that result in lower operating costs relative to revenue generated.

We also compete with other financial institutions such as savings and loan associations, credit unions, thrift and loan companies, mortgage companies, securities brokerage companies and insurance companies, and with quasi-financial institutions such as money market funds for deposits and loans. Financial services like ours are increasingly offered over the Internet on a national and international basis, and we compete with providers of these services as well. Ultimately, competition can drive down our interest margins and reduce our profitability. It can also make it more difficult for us to continue to increase the size of our loan and deposit portfolios.

You May Have Difficulty Selling Your Shares in the Future If a More Active Trading Market for Our Stock Does Not Develop. Although Sierra Bancorp’s Common Stock has been listed on the Nasdaq National Market since August 10, 2001 (the effective date of the holding company reorganization) and Bank of the Sierra’s Common Stock was previously listed on the Nasdaq National Market since June 10, 1999, trading in our stock has not been extensive and cannot be characterized as amounting to an active trading market.

We May Experience Loan and Lease Losses in Excess of Our Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses. We are careful in our loan underwriting process in order to limit the risk that borrowers might fail to repay; nevertheless, losses can and do occur. We create an allowance for estimated loan and lease losses in our accounting records, based on estimates of the following:

We maintain an allowance for loan and lease losses at a level that we believe is adequate to absorb any specifically identified losses as well as any other losses inherent in our loan portfolio. However, changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates, that are beyond our control, may cause our actual loan losses to exceed our current allowance estimates. If actual losses exceed the amount reserved, it will have a negative impact on our profitability. In addition, the FDIC and the DFI, as part of their supervisory functions, periodically review our allowance for loan and lease losses. Such agencies may require us to increase our provision for loan and lease losses or to recognize further losses, based on their judgments, which may be different from those of our management. Any increase in the allowance required by the FDIC or the DFI could also hurt our business.

Our Directors and Executive Officers Control a Near-Majority of Our Stock, and Your Interests May Not Always be the Same as Those of the Board and Management. As of December 31, 2004, our directors and executive officers, together with their affiliates, beneficially owned approximately 48% of the Bank’s outstanding voting stock (including vested option shares). As a result, if all of these shareholders were to take a common position, they could most likely control the outcome of most corporate actions, such as:

16

Table of Contents

In some situations, the interests of our directors and executive officers may be different from yours. However, our Board of Directors and executive officers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the shareholders, rather than in their own best interests, when considering a proposed business combination or any of these types of matters.

Provisions in Our Articles of Incorporation Will Delay or Prevent Changes in Control of Our Corporation or Our Management. These provisions make it more difficult for another company to acquire us, which could reduce the market price of our common stock and the price that you receive if you sell your shares in the future. These provisions include the following:

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

The Company’s administrative headquarters is located at 86 North Main Street, Porterville, California, and is leased through April 2014 from parties unrelated to the Company. It consists of approximately 37,000 square feet in a three-story building of which the Company is sole occupant, and the rent as of December 31, 2004 was $11,082 per month. The Company also owns unencumbered property on which 13 of its 18 current branches are located, including the branches in Porterville, Lindsay, Exeter, Three Rivers, Dinuba, Tulare, Hanford, Tehachapi, and California City. One of the Fresno branches is owned while the other is leased from unrelated parties, as is the case in Bakersfield. Both Visalia branches and the Clovis branch are leased from unrelated parties. In addition, the Company operates a technology center in Porterville which consists of approximately 12,000 square feet in a freestanding single-story building that is leased from unrelated parties. The Bank has six remote ATM locations leased from unrelated parties, although the amount of monthly rent at these locations is minimal.

Management believes that the Company’s existing back office facilities are adequate to accommodate the Company’s operations for the immediately foreseeable future, although limited branch expansion is planned.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, the Company is a party to claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. After taking into consideration information furnished by counsel to the Company as to the current status of these claims or proceedings to which the Company is a party, management is of the opinion that the ultimate aggregate liability represented thereby, if any, will not have a material adverse affect on the financial condition of the Company.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

Not applicable.

17

Table of Contents

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS

(a) Market Information

Sierra Bancorp’s Common Stock trades on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol BSRR, and the CUSIP number for our stock is #82620P102. Trading in the Common Stock of the Company has not been extensive and such trades cannot be characterized as amounting to an active trading market. Management is aware of the following securities dealers which make a market in the Company’s stock: Brokerage America, New York; Citigroup Global Markets, New York; FTN Midwest Research, Memphis; GVR Company, Chicago; Hill, Thompson, Magid and Co., Chicago; Hoefer & Arnett, San Francisco; Howe Barnes Investments, Chicago; Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, New York; Knight Securities, Jersey City, New Jersey; Merrill Lynch, New York; Monroe Securities, Chicago; Morgan Stanley, New York; Sandler O’Neill, New York; The Seidler Companies, Inc., Big Bear, California; Susquehanna Capital Group, Pennsylvania (the “Securities Dealers”); and UBS Capital Markets, Jersey City, New Jersey.

The following table summarizes trades of the Company’s Common Stock, setting forth the approximate high and low sales prices and volume of trading for the periods indicated, based upon information provided by public sources.

(b) Holders

On February 20, 2005 there were approximately 2,228 shareholders of the Company’s Common Stock. Shareholders of record at the Company’s stock transfer agent totaled 674, while street name holders totaled about 1,554.

(c) Dividends

As a bank holding company that currently has no significant assets other than its equity interest in the Bank, the Company’s ability to declare dividends depends primarily upon dividends it receives from the Bank. The Bank’s dividend practices in turn depend upon legal restrictions, the Bank’s earnings, financial position, current and anticipated capital requirements, and other factors deemed relevant by the Bank’s Board of Directors at that time.

The Company paid cash dividends totaling $3.5 million, or $0.37 per share in 2004, and $3.3 million or $0.36 per share in 2003, representing 34% and 38%, respectively, of the prior year’s earnings. The Company’s general dividend policy is to pay cash dividends at approximate peer levels, provided that such payments do not adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and are not overly restrictive to its growth capacity. However, no assurance can be given that earnings and/or growth expectations in any given year will justify the payment of such a dividend.

During any period in which the Company has deferred payment of interest otherwise due and payable on its subordinated debt securities, it may not make any dividends or distributions with respect to its capital stock (see “Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Capital Resources”).

18

Table of Contents

The power of the Bank’s Board of Directors to declare cash dividends is also subject to statutory and regulatory restrictions which limit the amount available for cash dividends depending upon the earnings, financial condition and cash needs of the Bank, as well as general business conditions. Under California banking law, the Bank may declare dividends in an amount not exceeding the lesser of its retained earnings or its net income for the last three years (reduced by dividends paid during such period) or, with the prior approval of the California Commissioner of Financial Institutions, in an amount not exceeding the greatest of (i) the retained earnings of the Bank, (ii) the net income of the Bank for its last fiscal year, or (iii) the net income of the Bank for its current fiscal year. The payment of any cash dividends by the Bank will depend not only upon the Bank’s earnings during a specified period, but also on the Bank meeting certain regulatory capital requirements.

The Company’s ability to pay dividends is also limited by state corporation law. The California General Corporation Law prohibits the Company from paying dividends on the Common Stock unless: (i) its retained earnings, immediately prior to the dividend payment, equals or exceeds the amount of the dividend or (ii) immediately after giving effect to the dividend the sum of the Company’s assets (exclusive of goodwill and deferred charges) would be at least equal to 125% of its liabilities (not including deferred taxes, deferred income and other deferred liabilities) and the current assets of the Company would be at least equal to its current liabilities, or, if the average of its earnings before taxes on income and before interest expense for the two preceding fiscal years was less than the average of its interest expense for the two preceding fiscal years, at least equal to 125% of its current liabilities.

(d) Stock Repurchases

The Company has a stock repurchase program that has been in effect since July 1, 2003, which allows the repurchase of up to 250,000 shares at management’s discretion. The following table provides information concerning the Company’s repurchases of its Common Stock during the fourth quarter of 2004:

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table presents selected historical financial information concerning the Company¹, which should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial statements, including the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” included elsewhere herein. The selected financial data as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2004, is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes which are included in this Annual Report. The selected financial data for prior years is derived from our audited financial statements which are not included in this Annual Report.

19

Table of Contents

Selected Financial Data

As of and for the years ended December 31,

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

20

Table of Contents

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

This discussion presents Management’s analysis of the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003, and the results of operations for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company and the Notes related thereto presented elsewhere in this Form 10-K Annual Report (see Item 8 below).

Statements contained in this report or incorporated by reference that are not purely historical are forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, including the Company’s expectations, intentions, beliefs, or strategies regarding the future. All forward-looking statements concerning economic conditions, growth rates, income, expenses, or other values as may be included in this document are based on information available to the Company on the date noted, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. It is important to note that the Company’s actual results could materially differ from those in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include but are not limited to fluctuations in interest rates, inflation, government regulations, economic conditions, customer disintermediation and competitive product and pricing pressures in the geographic and business areas in which the Company conducts its operations.

Critical Accounting Policies

The Company’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. The financial information contained within these statements is, to a significant extent, based on approximate measures of the financial effects of transactions and events that have already occurred. Critical accounting policies are those that involve the most complex and subjective decisions and assessments, and have the greatest potential impact on the Company’s stated results of operations. In Management’s opinion, the Company’s critical accounting policies deal with the following areas: The establishment of the Company’s allowance for loan losses, as explained in detail in the “Provision for Loan Losses” and “Allowance for Loan Losses” sections of this discussion and analysis; loan origination costs, which are estimated in aggregate by loan type based on an annual evaluation of expenses (primarily salaries and benefits) associated with successful loan originations and are allocated to individual loans as they are booked, but can actually vary significantly for individual loans depending on the characteristics of such loans; estimated residual values on leases, which have the potential to vary significantly from actual market values at lease termination; and depreciation expense, especially on technology equipment due to the potential impact of unexpected changes in the useful life of such equipment.

Summary of Performance

The Company achieved record earnings in 2004. In fact, net income has increased in 20 of the last 21 years. Net income in 2004 was $13.3 million, an increase of almost $3.0 million, or 29%, over the $10.4 million in net earnings recognized in 2003. Net income in 2003 was $1.5 million higher than 2002 net earnings of $8.8 million. Net income per basic share was $1.41 for 2004, as compared to $1.12 during 2003 and $0.96 in 2002. The Company’s Return on Average Assets was 1.47% and Return on Average Equity was 20.50% in 2004, as compared to 1.43% and 18.34%, respectively in 2003, and 1.32% and 17.59%, respectively for 2002.

The most significant single event impacting the Company’s results of operations and financial condition in 2004 was the implementation of a leverage strategy. This involved the purchase of over $100 million in mortgage-backed securities that are guaranteed by agencies of the Federal Government, with the bulk of the purchase occurring on April 20, 2004. The purchase was financed primarily with collateralized borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”), with original maturities ranging from overnight to five years. The leverage transaction also included the purchase of more than $4 million in FHLB stock, a dividend-yielding investment that was necessary to facilitate the increased level of borrowings from that institution. Based on the expected average life of the mortgage-backed securities, we anticipate the return of the majority of invested principal within five years and thus effectively view this as a five-year strategy.

21

Table of Contents

The net interest margin for this transaction averaged an annualized 175 basis points during 2004, although it fluctuates with variances in the amortization of purchase premiums caused by changes in the level of prepayments on the mortgage-backed securities. Net interest income generated by the transaction in 2004 was $1.2 million, which boosted the Company’s return on average equity by almost 100 basis points. Because of the addition of a significant level of assets, however, return on average assets for 2004 was approximately 4 basis points lower than it otherwise would have been.

Projected cash flows on the asset and liability sides of the leverage transaction have been matched as closely as possible, however the principal on the mortgage-backed securities could prepay either slower or faster than expected. This introduces a certain level of interest rate risk into the transaction. While no assurance can be given that any specific level of income will be maintained, management evaluated potential risks and rewards and concluded that it was in the best interest of the Company to implement this strategy. It is possible that should interest rate conditions be conducive to a similar undertaking in the future, the Company could purchase additional securities as the balance invested under the current strategy declines.

The following are other noteworthy factors relevant to the Company’s results of operations for the most recent three years:

22

Table of Contents

The following are important factors in understanding our financial condition and liquidity, which remain strong:

Results of Operations

The Company earns income from two primary sources. The first is net interest income, which is interest income generated by earning assets less interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities. The second is non-interest income, which primarily consists of customer service charges and fees but also comes from non-customer sources such as loan sales, bank-owned life insurance, and gains on sales from the Company’s investment portfolio. The majority of the Company’s non-interest expenses are operating costs that relate to providing a full range of banking services to our customers.

23

Table of Contents

Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin

Net interest income was $43.7 million in 2004, compared to $35.7 million in 2003 and $33.0 million in 2002. This represents an increase of 22% in 2004 over 2003, and an increase of 8% in 2003 over 2002. The level of net interest income depends on several factors in combination, including growth in earning assets, yields on earning assets, the cost of interest-bearing liabilities, the relative volume of total earning assets and total interest-bearing liabilities, and the mix of products which comprise the Company’s earning assets, deposits, and other interest-bearing liabilities.

The following Volume and Rate Variances table sets forth the dollar difference in interest earned and paid for each major category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities for the noted periods, and the amount of such change attributable to changes in average balances (volume) or changes in average interest rates. Volume variances are equal to the increase or decrease in the average balance times the prior period rate, and rate variances are equal to the increase or decrease in the average rate times the current period average balance. Variances attributable to both volume and rate changes and the variance created by the additional day in 2004 (a leap year) have been allocated to the change in rate.

24

Table of Contents

As shown in the table, volume variances in 2004 relative to 2003 contributed $8.0 million to net interest income, while unfavorable changes in interest rates offset the favorable volume variance by $90,000 for a net increase of $7.9 million in net interest income. The positive volume variance is mainly due to growth in average earning assets, but the volume variance is also impacted by fluctuations in the relative levels of non-earning assets (including cash and due from banks) and non-interest liabilities (including demand deposits). Average non-earning assets fell to 10% of average total assets in 2004 from 12% in the previous year. The average balance of demand deposits, shareholders’ equity and other liabilities kept pace with growth in average assets, and was at 32% of total average assets for both 2004 and 2003. The reduction in the relative level of non-earning assets contributed to the Company’s profitability in 2004. Note that the volume increase in earning assets added $9.4 million to interest income, while the volume increase in interest-bearing liabilities added only $1.3 million to interest expense.

The impact of the leverage strategy can be seen in taxable investments on the asset side, and short-term and long-term borrowings on the liability side. It contributed to the positive volume variance, but had a negative impact on the rate variance. Without the leverage strategy the net rate variance would have been positive, since rate variances caused loan income to decline by only $153,000 but contributed to a $1.1 million drop in interest expense paid on deposits.

25

Table of Contents

The following Distribution, Rate and Yield table shows, for each of the past three years, the annual average balance for each principal balance sheet category, and the amount of interest income or interest expense associated with that category. This table also shows the yields earned on each component of the Company’s investment and loan portfolio, the average rates paid on each segment of the Company’s interest bearing liabilities, and the Company’s net interest margin. The Company’s net interest margin, which is tax-equivalent net interest income expressed as a percentage of average earning assets, was 5.46% in 2004. This represents a decline of 24 basis points relative to the 5.71% margin reported for 2003.

26

Table of Contents