EXHIBIT 99.2

QCR Holdings, Inc.
Certification of the Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 111(b) of EESA
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010

I, Todd A. Gipple, the Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of QCR Holdings, Inc. (“QCR”), certify, based on my knowledge, that:

(i) The compensation committee of QCR has discussed, reviewed, and evaluated with senior risk officers at least every six months during any part of the most recently completed fiscal year that was a TARP period (the “applicable period”), senior executive officer (SEO) compensation plans and employee compensation plans and the risks these plans pose to QCR;

(ii) The compensation committee of QCR has identified and limited during the applicable period any features of the SEO compensation plans that could lead SEOs to take unnecessary and excessive risks that could threaten the value of QCR and has identified any features of the employee compensation plans that pose risks to QCR and has limited those features to ensure that QCR is not unnecessarily exposed to risks;

(iii) The compensation committee has reviewed, at least every six months during the applicable period, the terms of each employee compensation plan and identified any features of the plan that could encourage the manipulation of reported earnings of QCR to enhance the compensation of an employee, and has limited such features;

(iv) The compensation committee of QCR will certify to the reviews of the SEO compensation plans and employee compensation plans required under (i) and (iii) above;

(v) The compensation committee of QCR will provide a narrative description of how it limited during the applicable period the features in (A) SEO compensation plans that could lead SEOs to take unnecessary and excessive risks that could threaten the value of QCR; (B) Employee compensation plans that unnecessarily expose QCR to risks; and (C) Employee compensation plans that would encourage the manipulation of reported earnings of QCR to enhance the compensation of an employee;

(vi) QCR has required that bonus payments to SEOs or any of the next twenty most highly compensated employees, as defined in the regulations and guidance established under section 111 of EESA (bonus payments), be subject to a recovery or “clawback” provision during the applicable period if the bonus payments were based on materially inaccurate financial statements or any other materially inaccurate performance metric criteria;

(vii) QCR has prohibited any golden parachute payment, as defined in the regulations and guidance established under section 111 of EESA, to a SEO or any of the next five most highly compensated employees during the applicable period;

(viii) QCR has limited bonus payments to its applicable employees in accordance with section 111 of EESA and the regulations and guidance established thereunder during the applicable period;

(ix) QCR and its employees have complied with the excessive or luxury expenditures policy, as defined in the regulations and guidance established under section 111 of EESA, during the applicable period; and any expenses that, pursuant to the policy, required approval of the board of directors, a committee of the board of directors, an SEO, or an executive officer with a similar level of responsibility were properly approved;

(x) QCR will permit a non-binding shareholder resolution in compliance with any applicable Federal securities rules and regulations on the disclosures provided under the Federal securities laws related to SEO compensation paid or accrued during the applicable period;

(xi) QCR will disclose the amount, nature, and justification for the offering, during the applicable period, of any perquisites, as defined in the regulations and guidance established under section 111 of EESA, whose total value exceeds $25,000 for any employee who is subject to the bonus payment limitations identified in paragraph (viii);

(xii) QCR will disclose whether QCR, the board of directors of QCR, or the compensation committee of QCR has engaged during the applicable period a compensation consultant; and the services the compensation consultant or any affiliate of the compensation consultant provided during this period;

(xiii) QCR has prohibited the payment of any gross-ups, as defined in the regulations and guidance established under section 111 of EESA, to the SEOs and the next twenty most highly compensated employees during the applicable period;

(xiv) QCR has substantially complied with all other requirements related to employee compensation that are provided in the agreement between QCR and Treasury, including any amendments;

(xv) QCR has submitted to Treasury a complete and accurate list of the SEOs and the twenty next most highly compensated employees for the current fiscal year, with the non-SEOs ranked in descending order of level of annual compensation, and with the name, title, and employer of each SEO and most highly compensated employee identified; and

(xvi) I understand that a knowing and willful false or fraudulent statement made in connection with this certification may be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both. (See, for example 18 U.S.C. 1001.)

		By:		/s/ Todd A. Gipple
				Todd A. Gipple
				Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer
				and Chief Financial Officer
				QCR Holdings, Inc.
		Dated: March 7, 2011

APPENDIX A

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

General

Financial institutions, their holding companies and their affiliates are extensively regulated under federal and state law. As a result, the growth and earnings performance of the Company may be affected not only by management decisions and general economic conditions, but also by the requirements of federal and state statutes and by the regulations and policies of various bank regulatory authorities, including the Iowa Superintendent of Banking (the “Iowa Superintendent”), the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (the “DFPR”), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). Furthermore, taxation laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and securities laws administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and state securities authorities have an impact on the business of the Company. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies and accounting rules may be significant, and cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty.

Federal and state banking laws impose a comprehensive system of supervision, regulation and enforcement on the operations of financial institutions, their holding companies and affiliates that is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC-insured deposits and depositors of banks, rather than shareholders. These federal and state laws, and the regulations of the bank regulatory authorities issued under them, affect, among other things, the scope of business, the kinds and amounts of investments banks may make, reserve requirements, capital levels relative to operations, the nature and amount of collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, the ability to merge, consolidate and acquire, dealings with insiders and affiliates and the payment of dividends. In addition, turmoil in the credit markets in recent years prompted the enactment of unprecedented legislation that has allowed the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) to make equity capital available to qualifying financial institutions to help restore confidence and stability in the U.S. financial markets, which imposes additional requirements on institutions in which Treasury invests.

The following is a summary of the material elements of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to the Company and its subsidiaries. It does not describe all of the statutes, regulations and regulatory policies that apply, nor does it restate all of the requirements of those that are described. Moreover, Congress recently enacted fundamental reforms to our bank regulatory framework, the majority of which will be implemented over time by various regulatory agencies, making their impact difficult to predict. See “Financial Regulatory Reform” below.

Financial Regulatory Reform

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) into law. The Dodd-Frank Act represents a sweeping reform of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to financial institutions and capital markets in the United States, certain aspects of which are described below in more detail. The Dodd-Frank Act creates new federal governmental entities responsible for overseeing different aspects of the U.S. financial services industry, including identifying emerging systemic risks. It also shifts certain authorities and responsibilities among federal financial institution regulators, including the supervision of holding company affiliates and the regulation of consumer financial services and products. In particular, and among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act: creates a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection authorized to regulate providers of consumer credit, savings, payment and other consumer financial products and services; narrows the scope of federal preemption of state consumer laws enjoyed by national banks and federal savings associations and expands the authority of state attorneys general to bring actions to enforce federal consumer protection legislation; imposes more stringent capital requirements on bank holding companies and subjects certain activities, including interstate mergers and acquisitions, to heightened capital conditions; significantly expands underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 family residential real property; restricts the interchange fees payable on debit card transactions for issuers with $10 billion in assets or greater; requires the originator of a securitized loan, or the sponsor of a securitization, to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of securitized exposures unless the underlying exposures are qualified residential mortgages or meet certain underwriting standards to be determined by regulation; creates a Financial Stability Oversight Council as part of a regulatory structure for identifying emerging systemic risks and improving interagency cooperation; provides for enhanced regulation of advisers to private funds and of the derivatives markets; enhances oversight of credit rating agencies; and prohibits banking agency requirements tied to credit ratings.

Numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are required to be implemented through rulemaking by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies over the next few years. It is not clear what form such regulations will ultimately take or if certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will be amended prior to their implementation. Furthermore, while the reforms primarily target systemically important financial service providers, their influence is expected to filter down in varying degrees to smaller institutions over time. As a result, in many respects, the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act will not be fully known for years, and no current assurance may be given that the Dodd-Frank Act, or any other new legislative changes, will not have a negative impact on the results of operations and financial condition of the Company and its subsidiaries.

The Increasing Importance of Capital

While capital has historically been one of the key measures of the financial health of both holding companies and depository institutions, its role is becoming fundamentally more important in the wake of the financial crisis. Not only will capital requirements increase, but the type of instruments that constitute capital will also change, and, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, after a phase-in period, bank holding companies will have to hold capital under rules as stringent as those for insured depository institutions. Moreover, the actions of the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors, to reassess the nature and uses of capital in connection with an initiative called “Basel III,” discussed below, will likely have a significant impact on the capital requirements applicable to U.S. bank holding companies and depository institutions.

Required Capital Levels. As indicated above, the Dodd-Frank Act mandates the Federal Reserve to establish minimum capital levels for bank holding companies on a consolidated basis that are as stringent as those required for insured depository institutions. The components of Tier 1 capital will be restricted to capital instruments that are currently considered to be Tier 1 capital for insured depository institutions. As a result, the proceeds of trust preferred securities will be excluded from Tier 1 capital unless such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by bank holding companies with less than $15 billion of assets. As the Company has assets of less than $15 billion, it will be able to maintain its trust preferred proceeds as capital but it will have to comply with new capital mandates in other respects, and it will not be able to raise Tier 1 capital in the future through the issuance of trust preferred securities.

Under current federal regulations, the subsidiary Banks (as defined below) are subject to, and, after a phase-in period, the Company will be subject to, the following minimum capital standards: (i) a leverage requirement consisting of a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets of 3% for the most highly-rated banks and with a minimum requirement of at least 4% for all others; and (ii) a risk-based capital requirement consisting of a minimum ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8% and a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4%. For this purpose, Tier 1 capital consists primarily of common stock, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus less intangible assets (other than certain loan servicing rights and purchased credit card relationships). Total capital consists primarily of Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital, which includes other non-permanent capital items such as certain other debt and equity instruments that do not qualify as Tier 1 capital and a portion of the Banks’ allowances for loan and lease losses.

The capital requirements described above are minimum requirements. Federal law and regulations provide various incentives for banking organizations to maintain regulatory capital at levels in excess of minimum regulatory requirements. For example, a banking organization that is “well-capitalized” may qualify for exemptions from prior notice or application requirements otherwise applicable to certain types of activities, may qualify for expedited processing of other required notices or applications and may accept brokered deposits. Additionally, one of the criteria that determines a bank holding company’s eligibility to operate as a financial holding company (see “Acquisitions, Activities and Changes in Control” below) is a requirement that all of its depository institution subsidiaries be “well-capitalized.” Under the Dodd-Frank Act, that requirement is extended such that, as of July 21, 2011, bank holding companies, as well as their depository institution subsidiaries, will have to be well-capitalized in order to operate as financial holding companies. Under the capital regulations of the Federal Reserve, in order to be “well-capitalized” a banking organization must maintain a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 10% or greater, a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 6% or greater and a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets of 5% or greater.

Higher capital levels may also be required if warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profiles of individual banking organizations. For example, the Federal Reserve’s capital guidelines contemplate that additional capital may be required to take adequate account of, among other things, interest rate risk, or the risks posed by concentrations of credit, nontraditional activities or securities trading activities. Further, any banking organization experiencing or anticipating significant growth would be expected to maintain capital ratios, including tangible capital positions (i.e., Tier 1 capital less all intangible assets), well above the minimum levels.

It is important to note that certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, discussed below, will ultimately establish strengthened capital standards for banks and bank holding companies, will require more capital to be held in the form of common stock and will disallow certain funds from being included in a Tier 1 capital determination. Once fully implemented, these provisions may represent regulatory capital requirements which are meaningfully more stringent than those outlined above.

Prompt Corrective Action. A banking organization’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well. Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

As of December 31, 2010: (i) none of the Banks was subject to a directive from the Federal Reserve to increase capital to an amount in excess of the minimum regulatory capital requirements; (ii) each Bank exceeded its minimum regulatory capital requirements under Federal Reserve capital adequacy guidelines; and (iii) each Bank was “well-capitalized,” as defined by Federal Reserve regulations. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had regulatory capital in excess of the Federal Reserve’s minimum requirements.

Basel III. The current risk-based capital guidelines that apply to the Banks and will apply to the Company are based upon the 1988 capital accord of the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors, as implemented by the U.S. federal banking agencies on an interagency basis. In 2008, the banking agencies collaboratively began to phase-in capital standards based on a second capital accord, referred to as “Basel II,” for large or “core” international banks (generally defined for U.S. purposes as having total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated foreign exposures of $10 billion or more). Basel II emphasized internal assessment of credit, market and operational risk, as well as supervisory assessment and market discipline in determining minimum capital requirements.

On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced agreement to a strengthened set of capital requirements for banking organizations in the United States and around the world, known as Basel III. The agreement is currently supported by the U.S. federal banking agencies. As agreed to, Basel III is intended to be fully-phased in on a global basis on January 1, 2019. However, the ultimate timing and scope of any U.S. implementation of Basel III remains uncertain. As agreed to, Basel III would require, among other things: (i) an increase in minimum required common equity to 7% of total assets; (ii) an increase in the minimum required amount of Tier 1 capital from the current level of 4% of total assets to 8.5% of total assets; (iii) an increase in the minimum required amount of Total Capital, from the current level of 8% to 10.5%. Each of these increased requirements includes 2.5% attributable to a capital conservation buffer to be phased in from January 2016 until January 1, 2019. The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banks maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. There will also be a required countercyclical buffer to achieve the broader goal of protecting the banking sector from periods of excess aggregate credit growth.

Pursuant to Basel III, certain deductions and prudential filters, including noncontrolling interests in financial institutions, mortgage servicing rights and deferred tax assets from timing differences, would be deducted in increasing percentages beginning January 1, 2014, and would be fully deducted from common equity by January 1, 2018. Certain instruments that no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, such as trust preferred securities, also would be subject to phase-out over a 10-year period beginning January 1, 2013.

The Basel III agreement calls for national jurisdictions to implement the new requirements beginning January 1, 2013. At that time, the U.S. federal banking agencies, including the Federal Reserve, will be expected to have implemented appropriate changes to incorporate the Basel III concepts into U.S. capital adequacy standards. Although the Basel III changes, as implemented in the United States, will likely result in generally higher regulatory capital standards, it is difficult at this time to predict how any new standards will ultimately be applied to the Company and the Banks.

The Company

General. The Company, as the sole shareholder of the Banks, is a bank holding company. As a bank holding company, the Company is registered with, and is subject to regulation by, the Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”). In accordance with Federal Reserve policy, and as now codified by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company is legally obligated to act as a source of financial strength to the Banks and to commit resources to support the Banks in circumstances where the Company might not otherwise do so. Under the BHCA, the Company is subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve. The Company is also required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports of the Company’s operations and such additional information regarding the Company and its subsidiaries as the Federal Reserve may require.

Acquisitions, Activities and Change in Control. The primary purpose of a bank holding company is to control and manage banks. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company or any acquisition by a bank holding company of another bank or bank holding company. Subject to certain conditions (including deposit concentration limits established by the BHCA and the Dodd-Frank Act), the Federal Reserve may allow a bank holding company to acquire banks located in any state of the United States. In approving interstate acquisitions, the Federal Reserve is required to give effect to applicable state law limitations on the aggregate amount of deposits that may be held by the acquiring bank holding company and its insured depository institution affiliates in the state in which the target bank is located (provided that those limits do not discriminate against out-of-state depository institutions or their holding companies) and state laws that require that the target bank have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) before being acquired by an out-of-state bank holding company. Furthermore, in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, as of July 21, 2011, bank holding companies must be well-capitalized in order to effect interstate mergers or acquisitions. For a discussion of the capital requirements, see “The Increasing Importance of Capital” above.

The BHCA generally prohibits the Company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to banks and their subsidiaries. This general prohibition is subject to a number of exceptions. The principal exception allows bank holding companies to engage in, and to own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the Federal Reserve prior to November 11, 1999 to be “so closely related to banking ... as to be a proper incident thereto.” This authority would permit the Company to engage in a variety of banking-related businesses, including the ownership and operation of a savings association, or any entity engaged in consumer finance, equipment leasing, the operation of a computer service bureau (including software development), and mortgage banking and brokerage. The BHCA generally does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic activities of non-bank subsidiaries of bank holding companies.

Additionally, bank holding companies that meet certain eligibility requirements prescribed by the BHCA and elect to operate as financial holding companies may engage in, or own shares in companies engaged in, a wider range of nonbanking activities, including securities and insurance underwriting and sales, merchant banking and any other activity that the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines by regulation or order is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity or that the Federal Reserve determines by order to be complementary to any such financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally. The Company has not elected to operate as a financial holding company.

Federal law also prohibits any person or company from acquiring “control” of an FDIC-insured depository institution or its holding company without prior notice to the appropriate federal bank regulator. “Control” is conclusively presumed to exist upon the acquisition of 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of a bank or bank holding company, but may arise under certain circumstances between 10% and 24.99% ownership.

Capital Requirements. Bank holding companies are required to maintain minimum levels of capital in accordance with Federal Reserve capital adequacy guidelines, as affected the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “The Increasing Importance of Capital” above. If capital levels fall below the minimum required levels, a bank holding company, among other things, may be denied approval to acquire or establish additional banks or non-bank businesses.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Events in the U.S. and global financial markets over the past several years, including the deterioration of the worldwide credit markets, have created significant challenges for financial institutions throughout the country. In response to this crisis affecting the U.S. banking system and financial markets, on October 3, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”). The EESA authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to implement various temporary emergency programs designed to strengthen the capital positions of financial institutions and stimulate the availability of credit within the U.S. financial system. Financial institutions participating in certain of the programs established under the EESA are required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance.

The Treasury Capital Purchase Program. On October 14, 2008, the Treasury announced that it would provide Tier 1 capital (in the form of perpetual preferred stock) to eligible financial institutions. This program, known as the Treasury Capital Purchase Program (the “CPP”), allocated $250 billion from the $700 billion authorized by the EESA to the Treasury for the purchase of senior preferred shares from qualifying financial institutions (the “CPP Preferred Stock”). Under the program, eligible institutions were able to sell equity interests to the Treasury in amounts equal to between 1% and 3% of the institution’s risk-weighted assets. The CPP Preferred Stock is non-voting and pays dividends at the rate of 5% per annum for the first five years and thereafter at a rate of 9% per annum. In conjunction with the purchase of the CPP Preferred Stock, the Treasury received warrants to purchase common stock from the participating public institutions with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the preferred stock investment. Participating financial institutions are required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the CPP. These requirements are discussed in more detail in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section in the Company’s proxy statement, which is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.

Pursuant to the CPP, on February 13, 2009, the Company entered into a Letter Agreement with Treasury, pursuant to which the Company issued (i) 38,237 shares of its Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series D and (ii) a warrant to purchase 521,888 shares of the Company’s common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $38.237 million in cash. The Company’s federal regulators, the Treasury and the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General maintain significant oversight over the Company as a participating institution, to evaluate how it is using the capital provided and to ensure that it strengthens its efforts to help its borrowers avoid foreclosure, which is one of the core aspects of the EESA.

Dividend Payments. The Company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders may be affected by both general corporate law considerations and policies of the Federal Reserve applicable to bank holding companies. As a Delaware corporation, the Company is subject to the limitations of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), which allow the Company to pay dividends only out of its surplus (as defined and computed in accordance with the provisions of the DGCL) or if the Company has no such surplus, out of its net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year.

As a general matter, the Federal Reserve indicates that the board of directors of a bank holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce the dividends if: (i) the company’s net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid during that period, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends; (ii) the prospective rate of earnings retention is inconsistent with the company’s capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition; or (iii) the company will not meet, or is in danger of not meeting, its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios. The Federal Reserve also possesses enforcement powers over bank holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries to prevent or remedy actions that represent unsafe or unsound practices or violations of applicable statutes and regulations. Among these powers is the ability to proscribe the payment of dividends by banks and bank holding companies.

Furthermore, with respect to the Company’s participation in the CPP, the terms of the CPP Preferred Stock provide that no dividends on any common or preferred stock that ranks equal to or junior to the CPP Preferred Stock may be paid unless and until all accrued and unpaid dividends for all past dividend periods on the CPP Preferred Stock have been fully paid.

Federal Securities Regulation. The Company’s common stock is registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Consequently, the Company is subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading and other restrictions and requirements of the SEC under the Exchange Act.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses many investor protection, corporate governance and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd-Frank Act will increase stockholder influence over boards of directors by requiring companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, and authorizing the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate and solicit voters for their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. The legislation also directs the Federal Reserve to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to bank holding company executives, regardless of whether the company is publicly traded.

The Banks

General. The Company owns three subsidiary banks (collectively, the “Banks”): Quad City Bank and Trust Company (“Quad City Bank & Trust”) and Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust Company (“Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust”) are chartered under Iowa law (collectively, the “Iowa Banks”) and Rockford Bank and Trust Company (“Rockford Bank & Trust”) is chartered under Illinois law. The deposit accounts of the Banks are insured by the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) to the maximum extent provided under federal law and FDIC regulations. The Banks are also members of the Federal Reserve System (“member banks”).

As Iowa-chartered, FDIC-insured member banks, the Iowa Banks are subject to the examination, supervision, reporting and enforcement requirements of the Iowa Superintendent, as the chartering authority for Iowa banks. As an Illinois-chartered, FDIC-insured member bank, Rockford Bank & Trust is subject to the examination, supervision, reporting and enforcement requirements of the DFPR, as the chartering authority for Illinois banks. The Banks are also subject to the examination, reporting and enforcement requirements of the Federal Reserve, as the primary federal regulator of member banks. In addition, the FDIC, as administrator of the DIF, has regulatory authority over the Banks.

Deposit Insurance. As FDIC-insured institutions, the Banks are required to pay deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system whereby FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to the regulators.

On November 12, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule that required insured depository institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009, their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012. On December 31, 2009, the Banks collectively paid the FDIC $7.8 million in prepaid assessments. The FDIC determined each institution’s prepaid assessment based on the institution’s: (i) actual September 30, 2009 assessment base, increased quarterly by a five percent annual growth rate through the fourth quarter of 2012; and (ii) total base assessment rate in effect on September 30, 2009, increased by an annualized three basis points beginning in 2011. The FDIC began to offset prepaid assessments on March 30, 2010, representing payment of the regular quarterly risk-based deposit insurance assessment for the fourth quarter of 2009. Any prepaid assessment not exhausted after collection of the amount due on June 30, 2013, will be returned to the institution.

Amendments to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act also revise the assessment base against which an insured depository institution’s deposit insurance premiums paid to the DIF will be calculated. Under the amendments, the assessment base will no longer be the institution’s deposit base, but rather its average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity. This may shift the burden of deposit insurance premiums toward those large depository institutions that rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act makes changes to the minimum designated reserve ratio of the DIF, increasing the minimum from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminating the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The FDIC is given until September 3, 2020 to meet the 1.35 reserve ratio target. Several of these provisions could increase the Banks’ FDIC deposit insurance premiums.

The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increases the maximum amount of deposit insurance for banks, savings institutions and credit unions to $250,000 per insured depositor, retroactive to January 1, 2009. Furthermore, the legislation provides that non-interest bearing transaction accounts have unlimited deposit insurance coverage through December 31, 2012. This temporary unlimited deposit insurance coverage replaces the Transaction Account Guarantee Program (“TAGP”) that expired on December 31, 2010. It covers all depository institution noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, but not low interest-bearing accounts. Unlike TAGP, there is no special assessment associated with the temporary unlimited insurance coverage, nor may institutions opt-out of the unlimited coverage.

FICO Assessments. The Financing Corporation (“FICO”) is a mixed-ownership governmental corporation chartered by the former Federal Home Loan Bank Board pursuant to the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 to function as a financing vehicle for the recapitalization of the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. FICO issued 30-year noncallable bonds of approximately $8.1 billion that mature in 2017 through 2019. FICO’s authority to issue bonds ended on December 12, 1991. Since 1996, federal legislation has required that all FDIC-insured depository institutions pay assessments to cover interest payments on FICO’s outstanding obligations. These FICO assessments are in addition to amounts assessed by the FDIC for deposit insurance. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the FICO assessment rate was approximately 0.01% of deposits.

Supervisory Assessments. Each of the Banks is required to pay supervisory assessments to its respective state banking regulator to fund the operations of that agency. The amount of the assessment payable by each Bank is calculated on the basis of that Bank’s total assets. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Iowa Banks paid supervisory assessments to the Iowa Superintendent totaling $153 thousand and Rockford Bank & Trust paid supervisory assessments to the DFPR totaling $46 thousand.

Capital Requirements. Banks are generally required to maintain capital levels in excess of other businesses. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—The Increasing Importance of Capital” above.

Liability of Commonly Controlled Institutions. Under federal law, institutions insured by the FDIC may be liable for any loss incurred by, or reasonably expected to be incurred by, the FDIC in connection with the default of commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institutions or any assistance provided by the FDIC to commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institutions in danger of default. Because the Company controls each of the Banks, the Banks are commonly controlled for purposes of these provisions of federal law.

Dividend Payments. The primary source of funds for the Company is dividends from the Banks. In general, the Banks may only pay dividends either out of their historical net income after any required transfers to surplus or reserves have been made or out of their retained earnings. The Federal Reserve Act also imposes limitations on the amount of dividends that may be paid by state member banks, such as the Banks. Without prior Federal Reserve approval, a state member bank may not pay dividends in any calendar year that, in the aggregate, exceed the bank’s calendar year-to-date net income plus the bank’s retained net income for the two preceding calendar years.

The payment of dividends by any financial institution is affected by the requirement to maintain adequate capital pursuant to applicable capital adequacy guidelines and regulations, and a financial institution generally is prohibited from paying any dividends if, following payment thereof, the institution would be undercapitalized. As described above, each of the Banks exceeded its minimum capital requirements under applicable guidelines as of December 31, 2010. Notwithstanding the availability of funds for dividends, however, the Federal Reserve may prohibit the payment of any dividends by the Banks if the Federal Reserve determines such payment would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice.

Insider Transactions. The Banks are subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal law on “covered transactions” between the Banks and their “affiliates.” The Company is an affiliate of each Bank for purposes of these restrictions, and covered transactions subject to the restrictions include extensions of credit to the Company, investments in the stock or other securities of the Company and the acceptance of the stock or other securities of the Company as collateral for loans made by the Banks. The Dodd-Frank Act enhances the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates as of July 21, 2011, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be maintained.

Certain limitations and reporting requirements are also placed on extensions of credit by the Banks to directors and officers, to directors and officers of the Company, to principal shareholders of the Company and to “related interests” of such directors, officers and principal shareholders. In addition, federal law and regulations may affect the terms upon which any person who is a director or officer of the Company or the Banks or a principal shareholder of the Company may obtain credit from banks with which the Banks maintain correspondent relationships.

Safety and Soundness Standards. The federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines that establish operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of federally insured depository institutions. The guidelines set forth standards for internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, asset quality and earnings.

In general, the safety and soundness guidelines prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals. If an institution fails to comply with any of the standards set forth in the guidelines, the institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan, or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan that has been accepted by its primary federal regulator, the regulator is required to issue an order directing the institution to cure the deficiency. Until the deficiency cited in the regulator’s order is cured, the regulator may restrict the institution’s rate of growth, require the institution to increase its capital, restrict the rates the institution pays on deposits or require the institution to take any action the regulator deems appropriate under the circumstances. Noncompliance with the standards established by the safety and soundness guidelines may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal banking regulators, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.

Branching Authority. The Iowa Banks have the authority under Iowa law to establish branches anywhere in the State of Iowa, subject to receipt of all required regulatory approvals. In 1997, the Company formed a de novo Illinois bank that was merged into Quad City Bank & Trust, resulting in the Quad City Bank & Trust establishing a branch office in Illinois. Under Illinois law, Quad City Bank & Trust may continue to establish offices in Illinois to the same extent permitted for an Illinois bank (subject to certain conditions, including certain regulatory notice requirements). Similarly, Rockford Bank & Trust has the authority under Illinois law to establish branches anywhere in the State of Illinois, subject to receipt of all required regulatory approvals.

Federal law permits state and national banks to merge with banks in other states subject to: (i) regulatory approval; (ii) federal and state deposit concentration limits; and (iii) state law limitations requiring the merging bank to have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) prior to the merger. The establishment of new interstate branches or the acquisition of individual branches of a bank in another state (rather than the acquisition of an out-of-state bank in its entirety) has historically been permitted only in those states the laws of which expressly authorize such expansion. However, the Dodd-Frank Act permits well-capitalized banks to establish branches across state lines without these impediments effective as of the day after its enactment, July 22, 2010.

State Bank Investments and Activities. The Banks are generally permitted to make investments and engage in activities directly or through subsidiaries as authorized by Iowa or Illinois law, as applicable. However, under federal law and FDIC regulations, FDIC-insured state banks are prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, from making or retaining equity investments of a type, or in an amount, that are not permissible for a national bank. Federal law and FDIC regulations also prohibit FDIC-insured state banks and their subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions, from engaging as principal in any activity that is not permitted for a national bank unless the bank meets, and continues to meet, its minimum regulatory capital requirements and the FDIC determines the activity would not pose a significant risk to the deposit insurance fund of which the bank is a member. These restrictions have not had, and are not currently expected to have, a material impact on the operations of the Banks.

Transaction Account Reserves. Federal Reserve regulations, as presently in effect, require depository institutions to maintain reserves against their transaction accounts (primarily NOW and regular checking accounts), as follows: for transaction accounts aggregating more than $10.7 million to $58.8 million, the reserve requirement is 3% of total transaction accounts; and for transaction accounts aggregating in excess of $58.8 million, the reserve requirement is $1.443 million plus 10% of the aggregate amount of total transaction accounts in excess of $58.8 million. The first $10.7 million of otherwise reservable balances are exempted from the reserve requirements. These reserve requirements are subject to annual adjustment by the Federal Reserve. The Banks are in compliance with the foregoing requirements.

Consumer Financial Services. There are numerous developments in federal and state laws regarding consumer financial products and services that impact the Banks’ business. Importantly, the current structure of federal consumer protection regulation applicable to all providers of consumer financial products and services will change on July 21, 2011. In this regard, the Dodd-Frank Act creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “Bureau”) with extensive powers to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The Bureau has broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all providers of consumer products and services, including the Banks, as well as the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The Bureau has examination and enforcement authority over providers with more than $10 billion in assets. Banks and savings institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, like the Banks, will continue to be examined by their applicable bank regulators. The Dodd-Frank Act also generally weakens the federal preemption available for national banks and federal savings associations, and gives state attorneys general the ability to enforce applicable federal consumer protection laws. It is unclear what changes will be promulgated by the Bureau and what effect, if any, such changes would have on the Banks.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains additional provisions that affect consumer mortgage lending. First, the new law significantly expands underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 residential real property and augments federal law combating predatory lending practices. In addition to numerous new disclosure requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including banks and savings associations, in an effort to strongly encourage lenders to verify a borrower’s ability to repay. Most significantly, the new standards limit the total points and fees that the banks and/or a broker may charge on conforming and jumbo loans to 3% of the total loan amount. Also, the Dodd-Frank Act, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve’s final rule on loan originator compensation effective April 1, 2011, prohibits certain compensation payments to loan originators and prohibits steering consumers to loans not in their interest because it will result in greater compensation for a loan originator. These standards may result in a myriad of new system, pricing and compensation controls in order to ensure compliance and to decrease repurchase requests and foreclosure defenses. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act generally requires lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans the lender sells and other asset-backed securities that the securitizer issues if the loans have not complied with the ability to repay standards. The risk retention requirement generally will be 5%, but could be increased or decreased by regulation.

Federal and state laws further impact mortgage foreclosures and loan modifications, many of which laws have the effect of delaying or impeding the foreclosure process. Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate that would amend the Bankruptcy Code to permit bankruptcy courts to compel servicers and homeowners to enter mediation before initiating foreclosure. While legislation compelling loan modifications in Chapter 13 bankruptcies was approved by the House in 2010, the legislation was not approved by the Senate, and the requirement was not included in the Dodd-Frank Act or any other legislative or regulatory reforms. The scope, duration and terms of potential future legislation with similar effect continue to be discussed.

Illinois has enacted several laws that impact the timing of foreclosures and encourage loan modification efforts, and there is momentum for further legislation to prevent foreclosures through loss mitigation and ensure that documents submitted to the court are authentic and free from deceit and fraud. Attorney General Lisa Madigan proposed a foreclosure bill in November 2010, which would require banks, among other requirements, to: (i) comply with applicable federal, State, local or contractual loss mitigation program, and if no program results in a modification, the bank must review the mortgage under the other programs utilized by the bank; (ii) prove that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts; (iii) produce detailed affidavits on efforts to find missing notes; (iv) provide a loss mitigation affidavit describing steps a bank took to assess a mortgage loan’s eligibility for modification under designated federal programs. Proceedings must be stayed until the court determines that a lender has complied with these requirements. The Banks cannot predict whether such legislation will be passed or the impact, if any, it would have on the Banks’ business. In the meantime, the DFPR released a press release on December 14, 2010 seeking voluntary compliance from Illinois lenders and loan servicers to a 9-point affidavit plan to ensure the integrity of foreclosure affidavits.

Furthermore, Quad City Bank & Trust, as an issuer of credit cards to its customers and to the customers of correspondent and agent banks, has been impacted by the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the “CARD Act”), which required management attention and resources to make necessary disclosure and system changes. Among many other requirements, the CARD Act limits pricing flexibility, limits the ability to change rates, fees and other terms (especially on outstanding balances), gives consumers the right to reject many changes, restricts the effectiveness of penalty and risk-based pricing programs, dictates how certain payments are applied (for example to higher APRs before lower APRs), and impacts the time that must be allowed for payment to avoid late fees and to obtain the benefit of a grace period. In addition, significant new disclosure requirements may impact the ways in which consumers use and repay their accounts. The new requirements have prompted Quad City Bank & Trust to realign its practices to compensate for the impact of the CARD Act by adjusting the rates, fees, minimum payments, and other terms on its accounts and the ways in which those accounts are underwritten, managed and processed.

Appendix B

GUIDE 3 INFORMATION

The following tables and schedules show selected comparative financial information required by the Securities and Exchange Commission Securities Act Guide 3, regarding the business of QCR Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periods shown.

I. Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Stockholders Equity; Interest Rates and Interest Differential

A. and B. Consolidated Average Balance Sheets and Analysis of Net Interest Earnings

The information requested is disclosed in Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

C. Analysis of Changes of Interest Income/Interest Expense

The information requested is disclosed in Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

II. Investment Portfolio

A. Investment Securities

The following tables present the amortized cost and fair value of investment securities as of December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008

						Gross				Gross
		Amortized				Unrealized				Unrealized				Fair
		Cost				Gains				(Losses)				Value
		(dollars in thousands)
December 31, 2010
Securities held to maturity:
Other bonds		$	300			$	—			$	—			$	300
Totals		$	300			$	—			$	—			$	300
Securities available for sale:
U.S. gov’t. sponsored agency securities		$	401,711			$	3,219			$	(2,705	)		$	402,225
Municipal securities			20,135				579				(110	)			20,604
Residential mortgage-backed securities			65				6				—				71
Trust preferred securities			86				—				(8	)			78
Other securities			1,415				168				(14	)			1,569
Totals		$	423,412			$	3,972			$	(2,837	)		$	424,547
December 31, 2009
Securities held to maturity:
Other bonds		$	350			$	—			$	—			$	350
Totals		$	350			$	—			$	—			$	350
Securities available for sale:
U.S. gov’t. sponsored agency securities		$	345,623			$	1,525			$	(2,124	)		$	345,024
Municipal securities			22,006				923				(79	)			22,850
Residential mortgage-backed securities			481				15				—				496
Trust preferred securities			200				—				(101	)			99
Other securities			1,642				67				(8	)			1,701
Totals		$	369,952			$	2,530			$	(2,312	)		$	370,170
December 31, 2008
Securities held to maturity:
Other bonds		$	350			$	—			$	—			$	350
Totals		$	350			$	—			$	—			$	350
Securities available for sale:
U.S. Treasury securities		$	4,318			$	71			$	—			$	4,389
Residential mortgage-backed securities			803				6				(1	)			808
U.S. gov’t. sponsored agency securities			220,560				5,773				(90	)			226,243
Municipal securities			23,259				308				(219	)			23,348
Trust preferred securities			200				—				(35	)			165
Other securities			1,133				18				(378	)			773
Totals		$	250,273			$	6,176			$	(723	)		$	255,726

NOTE: Stock of the Federal Home Loan Bank and Federal Reserve Bank are NOT included in the above. The Company reports these investments separately on the consolidated balance sheets. Following is the carrying value as of December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008:

		As of December 31,
		2010				2009				2008
		(dollars in thousands)
Federal Home Loan Bank		$	12,980			$	11,813			$	11,796
Federal Reserve Bank			3,689				3,397				2,264
Totals		$	16,669			$	15,210			$	14,060

B. Investment Securities, Maturities, and Yields

The following table presents the maturity of securities held on December 31, 2010 and the weighted average stated coupon rates by range of maturity:

						Weighted
		Amortized				Average
		Cost				Yield
		(dollars in thousands)
U.S. gov’t. sponsored agency securities:
Within 1 year		$	12,104				3.48	%
After 1 but within 5 years			74,278				2.27	%
After 5 but within 10 years			207,759				2.92	%
After 10 years			107,570				4.39	%
Total		$	401,711				3.21	%
Municipal securities:
Within 1 year		$	1,157				4.50	%
After 1 but within 5 years			5,337				4.60	%
After 5 but within 10 years			5,999				3.86	%
After 10 years			7,642				4.60	%
Total		$	20,135				4.37	%
Residential mortgage-backed securities:
After 1 but within 5 years			65				6.00	%
Trust preferred securities:
After 10 years		$	86				7.80	%
Other bonds:
Within 1 year		$	100				5.30	%
After 1 but within 5 years			150				5.85	%
After 5 but within 10 years			50				5.43	%
Total		$	300				5.60	%
Other securities with no maturity or stated face rate		$	1,415

NOTE: Yields above are computed on a tax equivalent basis.

C. As of December 31, 2010, there were no securities with aggregate book value and market value purchased from a single issuer (as defined by Sction 2(4) of the Securities Act of 1933) that exceeded 10% of stockholders’ equity.

III. Loan/Lease Portfolio

A. Types of Loans/Leases

The information requested is disclosed in Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

B. Maturities and Sensitivities of Loans/Leases to Changes in Interest Rates

The information requested is disclosed in Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

C. Risk Elements

1. Nonaccrual, Past Due and Restructured Loans/Leases

The information requested is disclosed in Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010

2. Potential Problem Loans/Leases.

To management’s best knowledge, there are no such significant loans/leases that have not been disclosed in the table presented in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

3. Foreign Outstandings. None.

4. Loan/Lease Concentrations.

As of December 31, 2010, there was a single concentration of loans/leases exceeding 10% of total loans/leases, which is not otherwise disclosed in Item III. A. That concentration is Lessors of Non-Residential Buildings & Dwellings at 13.2%.

D. Other Interest-Bearing Assets

As of December 31, 2010, there are no interest-bearing assets required to be disclosed in this Appendix.

IV. Summary of Loan/Lease Loss Experience

A. Analysis of the Allowance for Estimated Losses on Loans/Leases

The information requested is disclosed in Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

B. Allocation of the Allowance for Estimated Losses on Loans/Leases

The information requested is disclosed in Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

V. Deposits.

The average amount of and average rate paid for the categories of deposits for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 are included in the consolidated average balance sheets and can be found in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis section of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company has no deposits by foreign depositors in domestic offices as of December 31, 2010.

Included in interest bearing deposits at December 31, 2010, were certificates of deposit totaling $270,663,795 that were $100,000 or greater. Maturities of these certificates were as follows:

		December 31,
		2010
		(Dollars in Thousands)
One to three months		$	92,022
Three to six months			64,779
Six to twelve months			47,646
Over twelve months			66,217
Total certificates of deposit greater than $100,000		$	270,664

VI. Return on Equity and Assets.

The following tables present the return on assets and equity and the equity to assets ratio of the Company:

		Years ended
		December 31,
		2010				2009				2008
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Average total assets		$	1,839,318			$	1,724,647			$	1,552,748
Average equity			131,066				123,814				89,803
Net income attributable to QCR Holdings, Inc.			6,587				1,772				6,709
Return on average assets			0.36	%			0.10	%			0.43	%
Return on average common equity			3.58	%			-2.97	%			7.07	%
Return on average total equity			5.03	%			1.43	%			7.47	%
Dividend payout ratio			14.81	%			-17.39	%			7.48	%
Average equity to average assets ratio			7.13	%			7.18	%			5.78	%

VII. Short Term Borrowings.

The following tables present the information requested on short-term borrowings of the Company:

Short-term borrowings as of December 31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 are summarized as follows:

		2010				2009				2008
Overnight repurchase agreements with customers		$	118,904,499			$	94,089,571			$	68,106,950
Federal funds purchased			22,250,000				56,810,000				33,350,000
		$	141,154,499			$	150,899,571			$	101,456,950

Information concerning overnight repurchase agreements with customers is summarized as follows:

		2010				2009				2008
Average daily balance during the period		$	108,232,012			$	95,831,160			$	74,463,649
Average daily interest rate during the period			0.41	%			0.62	%			1.54	%
Maximum month-end balance during the period		$	135,143,147			$	128,943,849			$	86,536,776
Weighted average rate as of end of period			0.50	%			0.67	%			1.35	%
Securities underlying the agreements as of end of period:
Carrying value		$	157,042,240			$	158,514,084			$	96,137,434
Fair value			157,042,240				158,514,084				96,137,434

Information concerning federal funds purchased is summarized as follows:

		2010				2009				2008
Average daily balance during the period		$	33,896,522			$	17,754,319			$	82,909,624
Average daily interest rate during the period			0.31	%			0.41	%			2.24	%
Maximum month-end balance during the period		$	46,990,000			$	57,150,000			$	144,940,000
Weighted average rate as of end of period			0.27	%			0.35	%			2.41	%