A cautionary note about forward-looking statements: In its oral and written communication, First Financial Corporation from time to time includes forward-looking statements, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements can include statements about estimated cost savings, plans and objectives for future operations and expectations about performance, as well as economic and market conditions and trends. They often can be identified by the use of words such as "expect," "may," "could," "intend," "project," "estimate," "believe" or "anticipate" or words of similar import. By their nature, forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors. Actual results may differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statement. First Financial Corporation may include forward-looking statements in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in other written materials such as this Annual Report and in oral statements made by senior management to analysts, investors, representatives of the media and others. It is intended that these forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and First Financial Corporation undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which the forward-looking statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

 

The discussion in Item 1A (Risk Factors) and Item 7 (Management's Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, lists some of the factors which could cause actual results to vary materially from those in any forward-looking statements. Other uncertainties which could affect First Financial Corporation's future performance include the effects of competition, technological changes and regulatory developments; changes in fiscal, monetary and tax policies; market, economic, operational, liquidity, credit and interest rate risks associated with First Financial Corporation's business; inflation; competition in the financial services industry; changes in general economic conditions, either nationally or regionally, resulting in, among other things, credit quality deterioration; and changes in securities markets. Investors should consider these risks, uncertainties and other factors in addition to those mentioned by First Financial Corporation in its other filings from time to time when considering any forward-looking statement.

 

 

First Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) is a financial holding company. The Corporation was originally organized as an Indiana corporation in 1984 to operate as a bank holding company.

 

The Corporation, which is headquartered in Terre Haute, Indiana, offers a wide variety of financial services including commercial, mortgage and consumer lending, lease financing, trust account services, depositor services and insurance services through its four subsidiaries. At the close of business in 20182020 the Corporation and its subsidiaries had 816917 full-time equivalent employees.

 

First Financial Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) is the largest bank in Vigo County, Ind. It operates 11ten full-service banking branches within the county; three in Clay County, Ind.; one in Daviess County, Ind.; one in Gibson County, Ind.; one in Greene County, Ind.; threetwo in Knox County, Ind.; four in Parke County, Ind.; one in Putnam County, Ind., four in Sullivan County, Ind.; one in Vanderburgh, County.County, Ind.; four in Vermillion County, Ind.; four in Champaign County, Illinois; one in Clark County, Ill.; three in Coles County, Ill.; two in Crawford County, Ill.; two in Franklin County, Ill.; one in Jasper County, Ill.; two in Jefferson County, Ill.; one in Lawrence County, Ill.; two in Livingston County, Illinois;Ill.; two in Marion County, Ill.; one in Montgomery County, Ill.; three in McLean County, Illinois;Ill.; two in Richland County, Ill.; six in Vermilion County, Ill.; and one in Wayne County, Ill.Ill; two in Calloway County, Kentucky; three in Christian County, Ky; two in Fulton County, Ky; two in Marshall County, Ky; one in Todd County, Ky; one in Trigg County, Ky; three in Cheatham County, Tennessee; one in Houston County, Tn; and three in Montgomery County, Tn. There are three loan production offices, one in Marion County, Indiana; one in Rutherford County, Tennessee; and one in Williamson County, Tn. In addition to its branches, it has a main office in downtown Terre Haute and a 50,000-square-foot commercial building on South Third Street in Terre Haute, which serves as the Corporation's operations center and provides additional office space. The Morris Plan Company of Terre Haute, Inc. (“Morris Plan”) has one office and is located in Vigo County. First Chanticleer Corporation has one building located in Terre Haute, Indiana. FFB Risk Management Co., Inc. located in Las Vegas, Nevada is a captive insurance subsidiary which insures various liability and property damage policies for First Financial Corporation subsidiaries.

 

 

First Financial Bank and Morris Plan face competition from other financial institutions. These competitors consist of commercial banks, a mutual savings bank and other financial institutions, including consumer finance companies, insurance companies, brokerage firms and credit unions.

The Corporation's business activities are centered in west-central Indiana, east-central Illinois, western Kentucky, and east-central Illinois.middle and western Tennessee. The Corporation has no foreign activities other than periodically investing available funds in time deposits held in foreign branches of domestic banks.

 

The Corporation and its subsidiaries operate in highly regulated environments and are subject to supervision and regulation by several governmental regulatory agencies, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), and the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (the “DFI”). The laws and regulations established by these agencies are generally intended to protect depositors, not shareholders. Changes in applicable laws, regulations, governmental policies, income tax laws and accounting principles may have a material effect on the Corporation’s business and prospects. The following summary is qualified by reference to the statutory and regulatory provisions discussed.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or “Dodd-Frank”), which was enacted in July 2010, significantly restructured the financial regulatory regime in the United States. Although the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions that have received the most public attention generally have been those applying to or more likely to affect larger institutions such as bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, it contains numerous other provisions that affect all bank holding companies and banks, including the Corporation, the Bank, and Morris Plan, some of which are described in more detail below.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal financial regulatory agencies to adopt rules that prohibit banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment companies (defined as hedge funds and private equity funds). The statutory provision is commonly called the “Volcker Rule”. Although the Corporation is continuing to evaluate the impact of the Volcker Rule and the final rules adopted thereunder, the Corporation does not currently anticipate that the Volcker Rule will have a material effect on the operations of the Bank, Morris Plan, or their respective subsidiaries, as the Corporation does not engage in the businesses prohibited by the Volcker Rule. The Corporation may incur costs to adopt additional policies and systems to ensure compliance with the Volcker Rule, but any such costs are not expected to be material.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”), created by the Dodd-Frank Act, is responsible for administering federal consumer financial protection laws. The CFPB, which began operations on July 21, 2011, is an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve and has broad rule-making, supervisory and examination authority to set and enforce rules in the consumer protection area over financial institutions that have assets of $10 billion or more. The CFPB also has data collecting powers for fair lending purposes for both small business and mortgage loans, as well as authority to prevent unfair, deceptive and abusive practices. Abusive acts or practices are defined as those that:

The CFPB has the authority to investigate possible violations of federal consumer financial law, hold hearings and commence civil litigation. The CFPB can issue cease-and-desist orders against banks and other entities that violate consumer financial laws. The CFPB may also institute a civil action against an entity in violation of federal consumer financial law in order to impose a civil penalty or an injunction.

In July 2013, the federal banking agencies published the Basel III Capital Rules establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations. The rules implement the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework known as “Basel III” for strengthening international capital standards as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Basel III Capital Rules became effective on January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period) and, among other things, introduced a new capital measure known as “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), which generally consists of common equity Tier 1 capital instruments and related surplus, retained earnings, and common equity Tier 1 minority interests, minus certain adjustments and deductions.

The Basel III Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1. Under the former capital standards, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income items included in capital were

excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. Under the Basel III Capital Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive items are not excluded; however, non-advanced approaches banking organizations, including the Corporation, may make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Corporation, the Bank and Morris Plan all made this election in order to avoid significant variations in the level of capital depending upon the impact of interest rate fluctuations on the fair value of the Corporation’s available-for-sale securities portfolio. The Basel III Capital Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities, as Tier 1 capital of bank holding companies, subject to phase-out. The Corporation has no trust preferred securities. Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 began on January 1, 2015 and will be phased-in over a four-year period (beginning at 40% on January 1, 2015 and an additional 20% per year thereafter).

The Basel III Capital Rules prescribe a standardized approach for risk weightings that expand the risk-weighting categories from the current four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories. Specifics changes from former capital rules impacting the Corporation’s determination of risk-weighted assets include, among other things:

When fullyFully phased in on January 1, 2019, the Basel III Capital Rules will require the Corporation and its banking subsidiaries to maintain:

The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer (or below the combined capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, when the latter is applied) will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall. The implementation of the capital conservation buffer began on January 1, 2016 at the 0.625% level and will be phased in over a four-year period (increasing by that amount on each subsequent January 1, until it reachesreached 2.5% on January 1, 2019).

Under the Basel III Capital Rules, the minimum capital ratios as of January 1, 20182019 are as follows:

Certain regulatory capital ratios for the Corporation as of December 31, 2018,2020, are shown below:

Certain regulatory capital ratios for the Bank as of December 31, 2018,2020, are shown below:

Certain regulatory capital ratios for Morris Plan as of December 31, 2018,2020, are shown below:

In general, the Act limits the business of bank holding companies to banking, managing or controlling banks and other activities that the Federal Reserve has determined to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. In addition, bank holding companies that qualify and elect to be financial holding companies such as the Corporation, may engage in any activity, or acquire and retain the shares of a company engaged in any activity, that is either (i) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity (as determined by the Federal Reserve in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury) or (ii) complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally (as solely determined by the Federal Reserve), without prior approval of the Federal Reserve.

Bank holding companies are prohibited, with certain limited exceptions, from engaging in activities other than those of banking or of managing or controlling banks. They are also prohibited from acquiring or retaining direct or indirect ownership or control of voting shares or assets of any company which is not a bank or bank holding company, other than subsidiary companies furnishing services to or performing services for their subsidiaries, and other subsidiaries engaged in activities which the Federal Reserve determines to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be incidental to these operations. The Bank Holding Company Act does not place territorial restrictions on the activities of such nonbanking-related activities.

Bank holding companies which meet certain management, capital, and Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”) standards may elect to become a financial holding company, which would allow them to engage in a substantially broader range of nonbankingnon-banking activities than is permitted for a bank holding company, including insurance underwriting and making merchant banking investments in commercial and financial companies.

The Corporation is a financial holding company (“FHC”) within the meaning of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (“GLB Act”). The GLB Act restricts the business of FHC’s to financial and related activities, and provides the following:

As a qualified FHC, the Corporation is eligible to engage in, or acquire companies engaged in, the broader range of activities that are permitted by the GLB Act. These activities include those that are determined to be “financial in nature,” including insurance underwriting, securities underwriting and dealing, and making merchant banking investments in commercial and financial companies. If any of the Corporation’s banking subsidiaries ceases to be “well capitalized” or “well managed” under applicable regulatory standards, the Federal Reserve Board may, among other things, place limitations on the Corporation’s ability to conduct these broader financial activities or, if the deficiencies persist, require the divestiture of the banking subsidiary. In addition, if any of the Corporation’s banking subsidiaries receives a rating of less than satisfactory under the CRA, the Corporation would be prohibited from engaging in any additional activities other than those permissible for bank holding companies that are not financial holding companies. The Corporation’s banking subsidiaries currently meet these capital, management and CRA requirements.

Morris Plan is an Indiana-chartered institution and is subject to the supervision of the FDIC and the DFI, whose examiners conduct periodic examinations of Morris Plan. Morris Plan must undergo regular on-site examinations by the FDIC and the DFI and must submit quarterly and annual reports to the FDIC and the DFI concerning its activities and financial condition.

The deposits of the Bank and Morris Plan are insured by the FDIC and are subject to the FDIC's rules and regulations respecting the insurance of deposits. See “Deposit Insurance”.

In connection with the Dodd-Frank Act’s requirement that insurance assessments be based on assets, the FDIC bases assessments on an institution’s average consolidated assets (less average tangible equity) as opposed to its deposit level. This may shift the burden of deposit premiums toward larger depository institutions which rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits.

Under the FDIC’s risk-based assessment system, insured institutions are required to pay deposit insurance premiums based on the risk that each institution poses to the DIF. An institution’s risk to the DIF is measured by its regulatory capital levels, supervisory evaluations, and certain other factors. An institution’s assessment rate depends upon the risk category to which it is assigned. As noted above, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC will calculate an institution’s assessment level based on its total average consolidated assets during the assessment period less average tangible equity (i.e., Tier 1 capital) as opposed to an institution’s deposit level which was the previous basis for calculating insurance assessments. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, institutions will be placed into one of four risk categories for purposes of determining the institution’s actual assessment rate. The FDIC will determine the risk category based on the institution’s capital position (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, or undercapitalized) and supervisory condition (based on exam reports and related information provided by the institution’s primary federal regulator). The Bank paid a total FDIC assessment of $912$296 thousand and Morris Plan paid a total FDIC assessment of $17$20 thousand in 2018.2020.

In addition to the FDIC insurance premiums, the Bank and the Morris Plan are required to make quarterly payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation (“FICO”), an agency of the Federal government established to recapitalize a predecessor deposit insurance fund. These assessments will continue until the FICO bonds are repaid.

        

Extensions of credit by the Bank or Morris Plan to their executive officers, directors, certain principal shareholders, and their related interests must:

The Dodd-Frank Act also included specific changes to the law related to the definition of a “covered transaction” in Sections 23A and 23B and limitations on asset purchases from insiders. With respect to the definition of a “covered transaction,” the Dodd-Frank Act now defines that term to include the acceptance of debt obligations issued by an affiliate as collateral for an institution’s loan or extension of credit to another person or company. In addition, a “derivative transaction” with an affiliate is now deemed to be a “covered transaction” to the extent that such a transaction causes an institution or its subsidiary to have a credit exposure to the affiliate. A separate provision of the Dodd-Frank Act states that an insured depository institution may not “purchase an asset from, or sell an asset to” a bank insider (or their related interests) unless (1) the transaction is conducted on market terms

Federal law generally prohibits the Bank or Morris Plan from paying a dividend to the Corporation if it would thereafter be undercapitalized. The FDIC may prevent a financial institution from paying dividends if it is in default of payment of any assessment due to the FDIC. In addition, payment of dividends by a bank may be prevented by the applicable federal regulatory authority if such payment is determined, by reason of the financial condition of such bank, to be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

The federal banking regulators have also issued regulations revising the risk-based capital standards to include a supervisory framework for measuring market risk. The effect of these regulations is that any bank holding company or bank which has significant exposure to market risk must measure such risk using its own internal model, subject to the requirements contained in the regulations, and must maintain adequate capital to support that exposure. These regulations apply to any bank holding company or bank whose trading activity equals 10% or more of its total assets, or whose trading activity equals $1 billion or more. Examiners may require a bank holding company or bank that does not meet the applicability criteria to comply with the capital requirements if necessary for safety and soundness purposes. These regulations contain supplemental rules to determine qualifying and excess capital, calculate risk-weighted assets, calculate market risk-equivalent assets and calculate risk-based capital ratios adjusted for market risk.

A bank will be (i) “well capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a common equity tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.5% or greater and a leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater, and is not subject to any order or written directive by any such regulatory authority to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure; (ii) “adequately capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater, a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5% or greater and a leverage ratio of 4.0% or greater and is not “well capitalized”; (iii) “undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5%, or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%; (iv) “significantly undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.5%, a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0%, or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%; and (v) “critically undercapitalized” if the institution’s tangible equity is equal to or less than 2.0% of average quarterly tangible assets. An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose

The FDIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” “Undercapitalized” institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The agencies may not accept such a plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with such capital restoration plan. The bank holding company must also provide appropriate assurances of performance. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5.0% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized and (ii) the amount which is necessary (or would have been

necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards applicable with respect to such institution as of the time it fails to comply with the plan. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.”

“Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator.

The appropriate federal banking agency may, under certain circumstances, reclassify a well-capitalized insured depository institution as adequately capitalized. The FDIA provides that an institution may be reclassified if the appropriate federal banking agency determines (after notice and opportunity for hearing) that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or deems the institution to be engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice.

The appropriate agency is also permitted to require an adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution to comply with the supervisory provisions as if the institution were in the next lower category (but not treat a significantly undercapitalized institution as critically undercapitalized) based on supervisory information other than the capital levels of the institution.

The Corporation believes that, as of December 31, 2018,2020, the Bank and Morris Plan were each “well capitalized” based on the aforementioned ratios.

The Federal Reserve Board, OCC and FDIC have issued a comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. These three principles are incorporated into the proposed joint compensation regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act, discussed above.

The Federal Reserve Board will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Corporation, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

The CFPB has issued a final rule that implements the Dodd-Frank Act’s ability-to-repay requirements, and clarifies the presumption of compliance for “qualified mortgages.”  Further, the final rule also clarifies that qualified mortgages do not include “no-doc” loans and loans with negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, terms in excess of 30 years, or points and fees paid by the borrower that exceed 3% of the loan amount, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, for qualified mortgages, the monthly payment must be calculated on the highest payment that will occur in the first five years of the loan, and the borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio generally may not be more than 43%. The final rule also provides that certain mortgages that satisfy the general product feature requirements for qualified mortgages and that also satisfy the underwriting requirements of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (while they operate under federal conservatorship or receivership) or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, or Department of Agriculture or Rural Housing Service are also considered to be qualified mortgages. This second category of qualified mortgages will phase out as the aforementioned federal agencies issue their own rules regarding qualified mortgages, the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ends, and, in any event, after seven years.

As set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, subprime (or higher-priced) mortgage loans are subject to the ability-to-repay requirement, and the final rule provides for a rebuttable presumption of lender compliance for those loans. The final rule also applies the ability-to-repay requirement to prime loans, while also providing a conclusive presumption of compliance (i.e., a safe harbor) for prime loans that are also qualified mortgages. Additionally, the final rule generally prohibits prepayment penalties (subject to certain exceptions) and sets forth a 3-year record retention period with respect to documenting and demonstrating the ability-to-repay requirement and other provisions.

Federal law extensively regulates other various aspects of the banking business such as reserve requirements. Current federal law also requires banks, among other things to make deposited funds available within specified time periods. In addition, with certain exceptions, a bank and a subsidiary may not extend credit, lease or sell property or furnish any services or fix or vary the consideration for the foregoing on the condition that (i) the customer must obtain or provide some additional credit, property or services from, or to, any of them, or (ii) the customer may not obtain some other credit, property or service from a competitor, except to the extent reasonable conditions are imposed to assure the soundness of credit extended.

The deposit operations also are subject to the:

The federal banking agencies have established guidelines which prescribe standards for depository institutions relating to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, compensation fees and benefits, and management compensation. The agencies may require an institution which fails to meet the standards set forth in the guidelines to submit a compliance plan. Failure to submit an acceptable plan or adhere to an accepted plan may be grounds for further enforcement action.

As noted above, the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has authority for amending existing consumer compliance regulations and implementing new such regulations. In addition, the Bureau has the power to examine the compliance of financial institutions with an excess of $10 billion in assets with these consumer protection rules. The Bank’s and Morris Plan’s compliance with consumer protection rules will be examined by the OCC and the FDIC, respectively, since neither the Bank nor Morris Plan meet this $10 billion asset level threshold.

In addition, regulators may commence enforcement actions against institutions and institution-affiliated parties. Possible enforcement actions include the termination of deposit insurance. Furthermore, regulators may issue cease-and-desist orders to, among other things, require affirmative action to correct any harm resulting from a violation or practice, including restitution, reimbursement, indemnifications or guarantees against loss. A financial institution may also be ordered to restrict its growth, dispose of certain assets, rescind agreements or contracts, or take other actions as determined by the regulator to be appropriate.

The Corporation files annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Such reports, proxy statements and other information can be read and copied at the public reference facilities maintained by the Securities and Exchange Commission at the Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Information regarding the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the Securities and Exchange Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330. The Securities and Exchange Commission maintains a web site (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy statements, and other information. The Corporation’s filings are also accessible at no cost on the Corporation's website at www.first-online.com.

 An investment in the Corporation’s common stockCorporation involves risk, some of which, including market, liquidity, credit, operational, legal, compliance, reputational, and strategic risks, could be substantial and is subject to risks inherent toin our business. This risk also includes the Corporation’s business. The materialpossibility that the value of the investment could decrease considerably, you could lose all or part of your investment, and dividends or other distributions concerning the investment could be reduced or eliminated. Discussed below are the most significant risks and uncertainties that management believes could adversely affect our financial results and condition, as well as the Corporation are described below.value of, and return on, an investment in the Corporation. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information included or incorporated by reference in this report.

Unlike larger banking organizations that are more geographically diversified, the Corporation’s operations are currently concentrated in west central Indiana, and east central Illinois, (operations are anticipated to expand into western Kentucky, and middle and western Tennessee, assuming completionand most of the acquisition of HopFed Bancorp, Inc., as discussed below).our customers are located in these markets. The economic conditions in these local markets may be different from, and in some instances be worse than, the economic conditions in the U.S. as a whole. As a result of this geographic concentration, the Corporation’s financial results depend largely upon economic conditions in these market areas. Deterioration in economic conditions in the Corporation’s markets could result in one or more of the following:following, which may adversely affect our business:

The Corporation faces substantial competition in all areas of its operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. SuchOur competitors include banks, and many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, factoring companies, financial technology companies, and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory, and technological changes and continued consolidation. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting), and merchant banking. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of the Corporation’s competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than the Corporation can.

The Corporation’s ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken the Corporation's competitive position, which could adversely affect the Corporation's growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation's financial condition and results of operations.

 

The Corporation generally seeks merger or acquisition partners that are culturally similar and have experienced management and possess either significant market presence or have potential for improved profitability through financial management, economies of scale, or expanded services. Acquiring other banks, businesses, or branches involves various risks commonly associated with acquisitions, including, among other things:

Acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and market values and, therefore, some dilution of the Corporation’s tangible book value and net income per common share may occur in connection with any future transaction. Furthermore, failure to realize the expected revenue increases, cost savings, increases in geographic or product presence, and/or other projected benefits from an acquisition could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.

General market price declines or market volatility in the future could adversely affect the price of the Corporation’s common stock and may make it more difficult for shareholders to resell their common stock when they want and at prices they find attractive. The Corporation’s common stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors, including:

As such, the market price of the Corporation’s common stock may not accurately reflect the underlying value of the stock, and investors should consider this before relying on the market prices of the Corporation’s common stock when making an investment decision.

 

(a) As of March 1, 20192021 shareholders owned 12,287,64913,524,070 shares of the Corporation's common stock. The stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “THFF”. On March 1, 2019,2021, approximately 4,9277,043 shareholders of record held our common stock.

 

Historically, the Corporation has paid cash dividends semi-annually and currently expects that comparable cash dividends will continue to be paid in the future. The following table gives quarterly high and low trade prices and dividends per share during each quarter for 20182020 and 2017.2019.