Simmons First National
Annual Report 2011

Plain-text annual report

SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL CORPORATION 2 0 11 A N N U A L R E P O R T A STRONg CONSERvATIvE CULTURE COMMITTEd TO ThE dELIvERy OF qUALITy CUSTOMER SERvICE. S I M M O N S F I R S T N A T I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 2 0 1 1 A N N U A L R E P O R T J. Thomas May Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 1 LETTER TO ShAREhOLdERS 2011 hAS bEEN A gOOd yEAR CONSIdERINg ThE ChALLENgES IN ThE INdUSTRy. While the economy has recovered from the depths of the “Great Recession”, the level of the recovery has been disappointing with many calling it a jobless recovery similar to 1980. Generally speaking, our banking operations have performed very well in seven of our eight banks, with the one challenged bank beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel in the overbuilt market of Northwest Arkansas. Historically low interest rates have resulted in margin pressure, primarily based on high levels of liquidity and low reinvestment rates in our securities portfolio. Likewise, the pressure was compounded due to low loan demand throughout our banking network. During the year we completed our three year focus on improving efficiency. Bank Director magazine “Bank Performance Scorecard: Top 150 Banks” Simmons First ranked 32nd Overall, we project $5 million in annual expense savings and revenue out of the top 150 largest publicly traded banks in the nation. enhancements going forward. The state of the economy and efficiency improvements have impacted our earnings with “core” net income totaling $25 million or an ROAA of .77%. These earnings produced a “core” EPS of $1.45 compared to $1.51 in 2010, down approximately 4%. Fortunately, we continue to have an impeccably strong balance sheet when compared to our peer, with asset quality in the 82nd percentile, risk-based capital in the 94th percentile, and high levels of liquidity. Obviously, we are well positioned for rising interest rates; however the Federal Reserve seems content with keeping interest rates low for the foreseeable future based on the softness of the economy, level of unemployment and European Sovereign Debt Crisis. 2 LETTER TO ShAREhOLdERS continued Based on our conservative philosophy, we will continue to be patient relative to waiting for an improved economy and not try to outguess the market by expanding our maturities in the securities portfolio. Certainly we will not lower our credit standards in an effort to create new loan growth. We, like the rest of the banking industry, are prepared to meet the loan demand that will be generated when consumers and small businesses regain lost confidence in the economy and our government’s willingness to deal with fiscal policy. Meanwhile, as we patiently wait for real loan demand, we will continue our ongoing efforts to create 2010 KBW Bank Honor Roll: Successful Navigators Through the Financial Storm Simmons First was one new efficiencies in what we have come to call our right sizing initiative, of the top 40 publicly traded banks in the nation with assets greater than $500 million based on Capital, Asset Quality and Earnings. which includes closing branches that do not meet our benchmarks relative to daily transactions and overall contribution to profits. In addition, we currently have approximately $50 million in excess capital in which we hope to deploy by consummating the acquisition of closed banks through the “FDIC acquisition program”. Our strategy is to use this program to enable us to expand beyond the borders of Arkansas, which we did in acquiring Southwest Community Bank in Springfield, Missouri in May, 2010 and Security Savings Bank in Olathe, Kansas, with banking facilities in Olathe, Overland Park, Leawood, Wichita and Salina, Kansas in October 2010. Each of these markets are extremely good in per-capita income, population growth and a diversified economic base. While we have not consummated a purchase in 2011, we were active in performing due diligence on three banks. We bid unsuccessfully on two banks during the year, but remain cautiously optimistic that we will be successful in leveraging the remaining capital by acquiring approximately $1 billion to $1.5 billion in new assets. Our hope is to find acquisition opportunities that will complement our existing footprints in Missouri and Kansas, and we would like to enter new markets in Oklahoma and Tennessee. 3 2011 Bank & Thrift Sm-All Stars During this past year, many good recognitions have come our way. We received high rankings in three different publications, Research Depar tment Richard Repetto, CFA Principal Jeffery J. Harte Principal relative to our financial strength post the recession. Mark Fitzgibbon, CFA Principal & Director of Research Research Depar tment Mark Fitzgibbon, CFA Principal & Director of Research + Midwest Banks & Thrifts R. Scott Siefers 212-466-7924 Brad J. Milsaps, CFA 404-442-2857 Daniel Arnold 212-466-7922 Andrew Liesch, CFA 415-978-5031 Alex Kovtun 212-466-7918 Richard Repetto, CFA Principal + Asset Manager Michael S. Kim 212-466-7722 Jeffery J. Harte Principal + eFinance Richard Repetto, CFA 212-466-7906 Michael Adams, CFA 212-466-7962 + Midwest Banks & Thrifts R. Scott Siefers 212-466-7924 Brad J. Milsaps, CFA 404-442-2857 Daniel Arnold 212-466-7922 Andrew Liesch, CFA 415-978-5031 Alex Kovtun 212-466-7918 + Northeast Banks & Thrifts Mark Fitzgibbon, CFA 212-466-7925 Joseph Fenech 212-466-7938 Frank Schiraldi, CFA 212-466-7931 Casey Orr 212-466-8061 Alex Twerdahl 212-466-7916 Michael Sarcone 212-466-7966 Matt Forgotson 212-466-8064 + Financial Technology Christopher Donat, CFA 212-466-8068 + Asset Manager Michael S. Kim 212-466-7722 + Insurance Paul Newsome 312-281-3445 + eFinance Edward Shields 312-281-3487 Richard Repetto, CFA 212-466-7906 John Barnidge 312-281-3412 Michael Adams, CFA 212-466-7962 In particular, we were recognized by Bank Directors magazine “Bank Performance Scorecard Top 150 Banks”, KBW Bank Honor Roll: Successful Navigators Through the Financial Storm and Sandler O’Neill + Partners’ “2011 Bank & Thrift SM-All Stars”. + Southeast/Southwest Banks & Thrifts Kevin Fitzsimmons 212-466-7909 Joseph Fenech 212-466-7938 Brad J. Milsaps, CFA 404-442-2857 Casey Orr 212-466-8061 Will Curtiss 212-466-8060 Michael Sarcone 212-466-7966 + Northeast Banks & Thrifts Mark Fitzgibbon, CFA 212-466-7925 Joseph Fenech 212-466-7938 Frank Schiraldi, CFA 212-466-7931 Casey Orr 212-466-8061 Alex Twerdahl 212-466-7916 Michael Sarcone 212-466-7966 Matt Forgotson 212-466-8064 + Southeast/Southwest Banks & Thrifts Kevin Fitzsimmons 212-466-7909 Joseph Fenech 212-466-7938 Brad J. Milsaps, CFA 404-442-2857 Casey Orr 212-466-8061 Will Curtiss 212-466-8060 Michael Sarcone 212-466-7966 + West Coast Banks & Thrifts Tim O’Brien 415-978-5033 Aaron Deer 415-978-5032 Joseph Fenech 212-466-7938 Brad J. Milsaps, CFA 404-442-2857 Andrew Liesch, CFA 415-978-5031 + Investment, Global, and Trust Banks Jeffery Harte 312-281-3443 Devin Ryan 212-466-8063 Ted Holzman 312-281-3417 + Investment, Global, and Trust Banks Jeffery Harte 312-281-3443 Devin Ryan 212-466-8063 Ted Holzman 312-281-3417 + Real Estate Alexander Goldfarb 212-466-7937 James Milam 212-466-8066 Andrew Schaffer 212-466-8062 + Real Estate Alexander Goldfarb 212-466-7937 James Milam 212-466-8066 Andrew Schaffer 212-466-8062 + Insurance Paul Newsome 312-281-3445 Edward Shields 312-281-3487 John Barnidge 312-281-3412 + Specialty Finance & Mortgage REITs Michael Taiano 212-466-7930 Michael Sarcone 212-466-7966 + Financial Technology Christopher Donat, CFA 212-466-8068 + Atlanta + Boston + Chicago + San Francisco New York & T h r i f t 2 0 1 1 B a n k S m A l l - 2 0 1 1 B a n k & T h r i f t S m - A l l S t a r s + West Coast Banks & Thrifts Tim O’Brien 415-978-5033 Aaron Deer 415-978-5032 Joseph Fenech 212-466-7938 Brad J. Milsaps, CFA 404-442-2857 Andrew Liesch, CFA 415-978-5031 + Specialty Finance & Mortgage REITs Michael Taiano 212-466-7930 Michael Sarcone 212-466-7966 S t a r s Stars” Sandler O’Neill + Partners “2011 Bank & Thrift SM-All Simmons First was selected as Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. ~ BKJ Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. ~ OZRK Cardinal Financial Corporation ~ CFNL Cass Information Systems, Inc. ~ CASS Century Bancorp, Inc. ~ CNBKA Citizens & Northern Corporation ~ CZNC Community Bank System, Inc. ~ CBU Eagle Bancorp, Inc. ~ EGBN F.N.B. Corporation ~ FNB Hingham Institution for Savings ~ HIFS Independent Bank Corp. ~ INDB Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. ~ BKJ Investors Bancorp, Inc. (MHC) ~ ISBC Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. ~ OZRK Lakeland Financial Corporation ~ LKFN Cardinal Financial Corporation ~ CFNL Cass Information Systems, Inc. ~ CASS Century Bancorp, Inc. ~ CNBKA Citizens & Northern Corporation ~ CZNC Community Bank System, Inc. ~ CBU Eagle Bancorp, Inc. ~ EGBN F.N.B. Corporation ~ FNB Hingham Institution for Savings ~ HIFS Independent Bank Corp. ~ INDB Investors Bancorp, Inc. (MHC) ~ ISBC Lakeland Financial Corporation ~ LKFN and $2 billion. 2011 Bank & Thrift Sm-All Stars MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. ~ MOFG Northrim BanCorp, Inc. ~ NRIM Oritani Financial Corp. ~ ORIT Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. ~ PPBI Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation ~ PGC S.Y. Bancorp, Inc. ~ SYBT Simmons First National Corporation ~ SFNC SVB Financial Group ~ SIVB United Financial Bancorp, Inc. ~ UBNK Valley National Bancorp ~ VLY ViewPoint Financial Group, Inc. ~ VPFG MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. ~ MOFG Washington Trust Bancorp, Inc. ~ WASH Northrim BanCorp, Inc. ~ NRIM Oritani Financial Corp. ~ ORIT Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. ~ PPBI Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation ~ PGC S.Y. Bancorp, Inc. ~ SYBT Simmons First National Corporation ~ SFNC SVB Financial Group ~ SIVB United Financial Bancorp, Inc. ~ UBNK Valley National Bancorp ~ VLY ViewPoint Financial Group, Inc. ~ VPFG Washington Trust Bancorp, Inc. ~ WASH traded banks and thrifts with one of the top 25 of 486 publicly market caps between $50 million © Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P. All rights reserved. Sandler O'Neill does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that Sandler O'Neill may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of the report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. Please see "Important Disclosures" and the analyst certifications in the Appendix of this report. We believe that each of these recognitions represent a commentary about our conservative culture; patience as to when and how to expand, + Atlanta + Boston + Chicago + San Francisco New York © Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P. All rights reserved. Sandler O'Neill does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that Sandler O'Neill may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of the report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. Please see "Important Disclosures" and the analyst certifications in the Appendix of this report. the belief that we are well-positioned to take advantage of rising interest rates, and an expected return to traditional acquisitions as regulatory reform and new capital requirements ultimately result in many community banks seeking acquisition partners. Concerning traditional acquisitions, we continue to believe that our strategy of maintaining separate charters will make us an acquirer of choice because these banks will be able to continue to have a large amount of autonomy. We believe the next eighteen to twenty-four months (2012 and 2013) will enable us to complete our FDIC acquisition strategy. We believe then there will be increased merger interest on behalf of many community banks in 2014 and beyond. We firmly believe that a major part of our future will be centered around being a consolidator of community bank acquisitions in our current three state footprint. Our current infrastructure will easily support a $5 billion banking organization with only minor adjustments to fixed costs, thus our acquisition strategy will be a major part of our focus over the next four year period. 4 LETTER TO ShAREhOLdERS continued As we look back over the past four years, we attribute a large part of our success to our that understands governance responsibilities and are extremely talented and well known throughout culture. It is that conservative culture that has enabled Arkansas and beyond. This last year, we lost one of our company to be around for 109 years, and to have Arkansas’s most talented business men, Stanley Reed, paid dividends for 102 consecutive years. As a public to a tragic car accident that took his life way too company, we are responsible and accountable to early. Mr. Reed lived a life built on his faith, his family long term decisions, thus it is our culture, patience and and his commitment to get involved to make a strong team that drives our total decision making difference. Mr. Reed was one of Arkansas’s most process. We believe that sacrificing short term earnings, talented ambassadors serving the farmers of our as we have done since the beginning of the “great state, higher education, philanthropy, insurance, and recession,” is acceptable since we have correspondingly banking. Needless to say, we were blessed to have enhanced the strength of the balance sheet during Mr. Reed as a director for six years, and I personally these uncertain times. We will continue to prepare was fortunate to have he and his wife Charlene ourselves as a team to think in terms of the long-term as friends for over twenty years. A recent memorial interest of all of our shareholders. We are constantly said it best of Mr. Reed, “He was a Humanitarian, reminded that “things don’t just happen, people make Philanthropist, Visionary, and Exemplary Man of them happen”. We have a management team that is Faith. He inspired us to do our best, be our best, second to none, and we have a Board of Directors give our best.” STANLEy REEd “He was a Humanitarian, Philanthropist, Visionary, and Exemplary Man of Faith. He inspired us to do our best, be our best, give our best.” 5 Our future is bright because we have built a franchise around a strong conservative culture and a very talented young team of executives that will lead our company into this rapidly changing industry. We will continue to have a Board of Directors that will continue to be focused on enhancing shareholders value in the long-term. Our earnings and dividend history speaks for itself, but spending too much time looking in the rear view mirror and dwelling on what was, is not always healthy. With the industry changing, it is incumbent on our Boards of Directors, management team and associates to use the best from the past, but to be proactive in planning for the future. Mr. Louis Ramsay, former Chairman and CEO, once said, “We don’t do extraordinary things, we do ordinary things in an extraordinary way.” That is who we were in the past, and that is who we must continue to be in the future. Delivering quality customer service is essential, but it is not enough. We must use new technology and new product delivery systems in order to provide state-of-the- “ThE INdUSTRy IS ChANgINg, ANd I AM CONFIdENT ThAT wE ARE STRATEgICALLy POSITIONEd TO TAkE AdvANTAgE OF ThOSE ChANgES.” art products and services. The industry is changing, and I am confident that we are strategically positioned to take advantage of those changes, which include finding new merger partners, meeting the banking needs of Generation Y, and last but not least, remembering what got us to where we are today - and that is a strong conservative culture that is committed to the delivery of quality customer service. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make strategic decisions, which will hopefully produce a return on your investment that will meet or exceed your expectations. J. Thomas May Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 6 CORPORATE ExECUTIvE OFFICERS dAvId bARTLETT President & Chief Operating Officer MARTy CASTEEL Executive Vice President & Secretary bOb FEhLMAN Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer RObERT dILL Executive Vice President & Marketing Director 7 AFFILIATE ExECUTIvE OFFICERS LEFT TO RIghT - SEATEd Steve Trusty • Tom Spillyards • Freddie Black LEFT TO RIghT - STANdINg Robert Robinson, IV • Barry Ledbetter • Glenn Rambin • Brooks Davis • Ron Jackson FREddIE bLACk bARRy LEdbETTER TOM SPILLyARdS Chairman & CEO President & CEO Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas Simmons First Bank President & CEO Simmons First Bank bROOkS dAvIS President & CEO of Northeast Arkansas of Northwest Arkansas gLENN RAMbIN STEvE TRUSTy Simmons First Bank of Searcy President President & CEO RON JACkSON Chairman & CEO Simmons First National Bank Simmons First Bank RObERT RObINSON, Iv of Hot Springs Simmons First Bank of Russellville President & CEO Simmons First Bank of El Dorado 8 SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL CORPORATION bOARd OF dIRECTORS LEFT TO RIghT SEATEd George A. Makris, Jr. • Harry L. Ryburn • J. Thomas May • Sharon L. Gaber, Ph.D. • Eugene Hunt STANdINg Edward Drilling • Robert L. Shoptaw • Steven A. Cossé • William E. Clark, II W. Scott McGeorge • Henry F. Trotter, Jr. • Jerry Watkins 9 wILLIAM E. CLARk, II gEORgE A. MAkRIS, JR. Advisory Director Chairman & Chief Executive Officer President hENRy F. TROTTER, JR. Clark Contractors, LLC M. K. Distributors, Inc. President Trotter Auto Group STEvEN A. COSSé J. ThOMAS MAy Retired Executive Vice President Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Consultant to the Board & General Counsel Murphy Oil Corporation Simmons First National Corporation JERRy wATkINS Retired Executive w. SCOTT MCgEORgE Murphy Oil Corporation EdwARd dRILLINg President President AT&T Arkansas Pine Bluff Sand & Gravel hARRy L. RybURN, d.d.S. ShARON L. gAbER, Ph.d. Provost & Vice Chancellor RObERT L. ShOPTAw Chairman of the Board Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield For Academic Affairs University of Arkansas EUgENE hUNT Attorney Hunt Law Firm “wITh ThE INdUSTRy ChANgINg, IT IS INCUMbENT ON OUR bOARdS OF dIRECTORS, MANAgEMENT TEAM ANd ASSOCIATES TO USE ThE bEST FROM ThE PAST, bUT TO bE PROACTIvE IN PLANNINg FOR ThE FUTURE.” – J. ThOMAS MAy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Shareholders may obtain a copy of the Company’s annual report as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Form 10-K) by writing to Marty D. Casteel, Secretary, Simmons First National Corporation, P. O. Box 7009, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611-7009, or on the Company’s website at simmonsfirst.com. Simmons First National Corporation is an Equal Opportunity Employer. 10 AFFILIATE bOARd OF dIRECTORS SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL bANk Board of Directors Met L. Jones, II General Manager Dickey Machine Works John Lytle, M.D. Orthopedic Surgeon Clarence Roberts, III Sherman Hiatt Retired President Mayor Roberts Brothers Tire Service, Inc. City of Charleston Phyllis S. Thomas Secretary/Treasurer Harbor Oaks Clay Hiatt Investments Joe Larkin Advisory Director Emeritus Joe S. Hiatt Pharmacist/Owner Medi-Sav Pharmacy SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF hOT SPRINgS Board of Directors Sara Barnett CPA Consultant David L. Bartlett Chairman South Arkansas Orthopedic Center Retired Banker/Rancher Simmons First Bank of Hot Springs J. Thomas May Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Simmons First National Bank CONwAy ARkANSAS REgION Advisory Board of Directors Steve W. “Bo” Conner SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF EL dORAdO Board of Directors Aubra Anthony, Jr. President & Chief Executive Officer Anthony Forest Products Company David L. Bartlett President & Chief Operating Officer Simmons First National Corporation Partner Conner & Sartain, P.A. Ritchie Howell Community President Conway Arkansas Region Simmons First National Bank Bill Johnson Retired Community Chairman Conway Arkansas Region Simmons First National Bank Steven A. Cossé Retired Executive Vice President & General Counsel Murphy Oil Corporation Beverly Morrow Vice President TLM Management A.W. Nelson, Jr. President A.W. Nelson, Jr. Architect, P.A. Mary Pringos President Phillips Planting Co., Inc. H. Glenn Rambin President Charles Nabholz Chairman Simmons First National Bank The Nabholz Group T. Alan Gober CPA Evers, Cox & Gober P.L.L.C. Clifton Roaf, D.D.S. Dentist Phillip Stone, M.D. President Phil Herring President Adam B. Robinson, Jr. President Ralph Robinson & Son, Inc. Steven C. Wade Community Chairman Central Arkansas Region Harry L. Ryburn, D.D.S. Simmons First National Bank Denny McConathy Retired President Cross Oil and Refining Company, Inc. Conway Emergency Physicians Group Herring Furniture Company Steven W. Trusty Mark Shelton, III President M.A. Shelton Farming Company, Inc. H. Ford Trotter, III General Manager Trotter Auto Group Advisory Directors Robert E. Dreher, Jr. Partner Dreher & Sons Charles Nabholz Chairman The Nabholz Group wESTERN ARkANSAS REgION Advisory Board of Directors Larry L. Bates Kenneth P. Oliver, Jr. Retired President El Dorado Glass & Mirror Community Chairman Company, Inc. Western Arkansas Region Simmons First Bank of Russellville Simmons First National Bank Robert L. Robinson, IV Michael F. Flynn Community President President & Chief Executive Officer Simmons First Bank of El Dorado Western Arkansas Region Floyd M. Thomas, Jr. Simmons First National Bank Partner Joe S. Hiatt Retired Banker/Rancher Margie Hiatt Retired Banker Thomas, Hickey & Shepherd, LLP Attorneys Larkin M. Wilson, III, D.D.S. Dentist Stuart A. Fleischner, D.D.S. Co-owner Hot Springs National Park Dental Group Louis F. Kleinman Chairman Falk Supply Company James B. Newman President Douglass-Newman Insurance Agency Lance A. Porter, D.D.S. Owner Porter Dental Health Clinic, P.A. Sam P. Stathakis, Jr. President Merritt Wholesale Distributors President & Chief Executive Officer Simmons First Bank of Hot Springs Advisory Directors John D. Selig Retired Vice President Weyerhaeuser Gene Thomason Retired President SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF NORThEAST ARkANSAS Nick J. Nabholz Business Development Officer Nabholz Construction SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF SEARCy Board of Directors Richard Cargile Board of Directors David L. Bartlett Thomas W. Spillyards President & Chief Executive Officer Owner President & Chief Operating Officer Simmons First National Corporation Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas Cargile Insurance Agency Brooks Davis 11 Tommy R. Jarrett President Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas Beverly Mihalyka Secretary/Treasurer Chicot Irrigation, Inc. Barry K. Ledbetter President & Chief Executive Officer James L. Tull, CPA Chief Financial Officer President & Chief Executive Officer Jerry Selby Simmons First Bank of Searcy Partner Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas Ben Owens, Jr., M.D. Physician/Partner Clopton Clinic David Pyle, M.D. Vice President, Medical Affairs St. Bernards Regional Healthcare Jim Scurlock President Scurlock Industries of Jonesboro, Inc. Berl A. “Skipper” Smith Attorney/CPA Rainwater & Cox, Inc. Mark Wimpy Self Employed Farmer SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF NORThwEST ARkANSAS Board of Directors David L. Bartlett President & Chief Operating Officer Simmons First National Corporation Dennis H. Ferguson Executive Vice President Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas Clark Irwin Senior Vice President of Commodity Sales Tyson Foods Sonya Jones Retired Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates Four Star Partnership Farms Advisory Director Martin Gilbert Retired Attorney SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF RUSSELLvILLE Board of Directors Leon Anderson Nationwide Representative Nationwide Insurance Company Terry G. Bowie Retired Entergy Corporation Keith B. Cogswell, III President Cogswell Motors, Inc. Ronald B. Jackson Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Simmons First Bank of Russellville Allen Laws, III Attorney Laws Law Firm, P.A. Edward R. Stingley, III Real Estate Sales Associate Century 21 Harve J. Taylor Owner/President H. J. Taylor & Associates, Inc. Advisory Director Gene Thomason Retired President Simmons First Bank of Russellville Dennis R. Donovan Consultant Al Fowler Retired Administrator Searcy Medical Center Joe Giezeman Consultant David Johnston Owner Ag Chem Direct, Inc./Lake Ice Company H. Glenn Rambin President Simmons First National Bank Robert Underwood Owner Underwood Construction/ Underwood Properties SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF SOUTh ARkANSAS Board of Directors Robert G. Bridewell, Sr. Attorney Robert G. Bridewell, Sr., P.A. Freddie G. Black Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas James Haddock Attorney James Haddock, P.A. N. Craig Hunt Executive Vice President Simmons First National Bank Harold Smith President & Chief Executive Officer Silviland, Inc. dUMAS REgION Advisory Board of Directors Freddie G. Black Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas C. Kelly Farmer Consultant ARKAT Feeds, Inc. Martin Henry Farmer M & A Farms Bill Teeter Farmer Bill Teeter Farms Guy P. Teeter Farmer Guy Teeter Farms Teresa L. Wood Senior Vice President Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas Advisory Director Emeritus A.O. French, Jr. Retired Farmer French Planting Company 12 ExECUTIvE MANAgEMENT SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL CORPORATION J. Thomas May Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Sharon K. Burdine Senior Vice President & Human Resources Director David L. Bartlett President & Chief Operating Officer Tina M. Groves Senior Vice President & Manager Corporate Audit Robert A. Fehlman Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Marty D. Casteel Executive Vice President & Secretary Robert C. Dill Executive Vice President & Marketing Director David W. Garner Senior Vice President & Controller Kevin J. Archer Senior Vice President, Special Services & Compliance Lisa W. Hunter Senior Vice President, Cash Management & Retail Delivery Amy W. Johnson Senior Vice President & Assistant Marketing Director SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL bANk J. Thomas May Chairman & Chief Executive Officer W. Greg Bell Senior Vice President, Commercial & Agriculture Loans H. Glenn Rambin President David C. Bush Senior Vice President, Bank Card Marty D. Casteel Executive Vice President, Consumer Banking Group Joel W. Cheatham Senior Vice President, Mortgage Banking Robert C. Dill Executive Vice President, Marketing Group Joe W. Clement, III President, Simmons First Trust Company, N. A. N. Craig Hunt Executive Vice President, Specialty Banking Group Shirley E. Crow Senior Vice President, Manager Glenda K. Tolson Executive Vice President & Cashier, of Loan Administration Operations Group; Secretary Amy W. Johnson Senior Vice President, Marketing Group David W. Garner Senior Vice President, Finance Group Richard W. Johnson President, Simmons First Investment Group Craig S. Attwood Senior Vice President, Indirect Lending David W. Rushing Senior Vice President, Operations Group SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL bANk REgIONS Donald L. Britnell ARkANSAS Central Arkansas Region Community Executive Steven C. Wade Community Chairman Western Arkansas Region Larry L. Bates Community Chairman Michael F. Flynn Community President Charles J. Brown Senior Vice President C. Adam Mitchell Community Executive Conway Arkansas Region Ritchie D. Howell Community President North Arkansas Region Stephen J. Smith Community President kANSAS Patrick J. Anderson Kansas Chairman Wichita Kansas Region Andrea Scarpelli Community President Kansas City Kansas Region Patrick J. Anderson Kansas Chairman Cris D. Smith Senior Vice President Salina Kansas Region Chris Yohe Community Executive MISSOURI Springfield Missouri Region Jefferson C. McNatt Community President Joseph B. Renner Senior Vice President SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF EL dORAdO SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF NORThwEST ARkANSAS Robert L. Robinson, IV President & Chief Executive Officer Thomas W. Spillyards President & Chief Executive Officer L. S. Brown Senior Vice President Dennis H. Ferguson Executive Vice President A. J. Lockwood, Jr. Senior Vice President Linda A. Hankins Senior Vice President SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF hOT SPRINgS David L. Bartlett Chairman Steven W. Trusty President & Chief Executive Officer Christopher W. White Senior Vice President SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF RUSSELLvILLE Ronald B. Jackson Chairman & Chief Executive Officer R. Scott Hill Community President-Russellville Denton Tumbleson Community President-Clarksville SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF NORThEAST ARkANSAS SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF SEARCy Barry K. Ledbetter President & Chief Executive Officer Brooks Davis President & Chief Executive Officer Wayne F. Bond Senior Vice President Kent P. Bridger Senior Vice President SIMMONS FIRST bANk OF SOUTh ARkANSAS Tony L. Futrell Senior Vice President Freddie G. Black Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Jerry K. Morgan Senior Vice President Tommy R. Jarrett President Linda S. Moreland Senior Vice President William F. Wisener Senior Vice President Teresa L. Wood Senior Vice President CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Certain statements contained in this Annual Report may not be based on historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking statements may be identified by reference to a future period(s) or by the use of forward-looking terminology, such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “foresee,” “believe,” “may,” “might,” “will,” “would,” “could” or “intend,” future or conditional verb tenses, and variations or negatives of such terms. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, those relating to the Company’s future growth, revenue, assets, asset quality, profitability and customer service, critical accounting policies, net interest margin, non-interest revenue, market conditions related to the Company’s stock repurchase program, allowance for loan losses, the effect of certain new accounting standards on the Company’s financial statements, income tax deductions, credit quality, the level of credit losses from lending commitments, net interest revenue, interest rate sensitivity, loan loss experience, liquidity, capital resources, market risk, earnings, effect of pending litigation, acquisition strategy, legal and regulatory limitations and compliance and competition. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and may not be realized due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation: the effects of future economic conditions, governmental monetary and fiscal policies, as well as legislative and regulatory changes; the risks of changes in interest rates and their effects on the level and composition of deposits, loan demand and the values of loan collateral, securities and interest sensitive assets and liabilities; the costs of evaluating possible acquisitions and the risks inherent in integrating acquisitions; the effects of competition from other commercial banks, thrifts, mortgage banking firms, consumer finance companies, credit unions, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, money market and other mutual funds and other financial institutions operating in our market area and elsewhere, including institutions operating regionally, nationally and internationally, together with such competitors offering banking products and services by mail, telephone, computer and the Internet; the failure of assumptions underlying the establishment of reserves for possible loan losses, fair value for covered loans, covered other real estate owned and FDIC indemnification asset; and those factors set forth under Item 1A. Risk- Factors of this report and other cautionary statements set forth elsewhere in this report. Many of these factors are beyond our ability to predict or control. In addition, as a result of these and other factors, our past financial performance should not be relied upon as an indication of future performance. We believe the expectations reflected in our forward-looking statements are reasonable, based on information available to us on the date hereof. However, given the described uncertainties and risks, we cannot guarantee our future performance or results of operations and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, and all written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified in their entirety by this section. PART I ITEM 1. BUSINESS Company Overview Simmons First National Corporation (the “Company) is a multi-bank financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. The Company is headquartered in Arkansas with total assets of $3.3 billion, loans of $1.7 billion, deposits of $2.7 billion and equity capital of $408 million as of December 31, 2011. We own eight community banks that are strategically located throughout Arkansas and conduct our operations through 88 offices, of which 84 are branches, or “financial centers,” located in 47 communities in Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas. We seek to build shareholder value by (i) focusing on strong asset quality, (ii) maintaining strong capital (iii) managing our liquidity position, (iv) improving our efficiency through specific initiatives and (v) opportunistically growing our business, both organically and through potential Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”)-assisted transactions and traditional private community bank acquisitions. We believe the depth and experience of our corporate executive management team and the management teams and directors of each of our community banks has allowed us to achieve excellent asset quality, a strong capital position and increased liquidity, even in the current challenging economic climate. 1 Community Bank Strategy Our community banks feature locally based management and boards of directors, community-focused growth strategies, and flexibility in pricing of loans and deposits. Our community banks are supported by our main subsidiary bank, Simmons First National Bank (“SFNB” or “lead bank”), which allows our community banks to provide products and services, such as a bank-issued credit card, that are usually offered only by larger banks. We believe that our enterprise-wide support system enables us to “out-product” our smaller, community bank competitors while our local focus allows us to “out-service” our larger interstate bank competitors. Our community banking business model involves some additional administrative costs as a result of maintaining multiple bank charters, but has allowed us to maintain strong management at the local level to meet the needs of local customers while ensuring good asset quality. In addition we, along with our lead bank, provide efficiencies through consolidated back office support for information systems, loan review, compliance, human resources, accounting and internal audit. Likewise, through a standardizing initiative, our banks share a common name, signage and products that enable us to maximize our branding and overall marketing strategy. Growth Strategy Over the past 20 years, as we have expanded our markets and services, our growth strategy has evolved and diversified. From 1989 through 1991, in addition to our internal branching expansion, we acquired nine branches from the Resolution Trust Corporation, the federal agency that oversaw the sale or liquidation of assets of closed savings and loans institutions. From 1995 to 2005, our strategic focus was on creating geographic diversification throughout Arkansas, driven primarily by acquisitions of other banking institutions. During this period we completed acquisitions of nine financial institutions and a total of 20 branches from five other banking institutions, some of which allowed us to enter key growth markets such as Conway, Hot Springs, Russellville, Searcy and Northwest Arkansas. In 2005, we initiated a de novo branching strategy to enter selected new Arkansas markets and to complement our presence in existing markets. From 2005 to 2008, we opened 12 new financial centers, a regional headquarters in Northwest Arkansas and a corporate office in Little Rock. We substantially completed our de novo branching strategy in 2008. In late 2007, as we anticipated deteriorating economic conditions, we concentrated on maintaining our strong asset quality, building capital and improving our liquidity position. We intensified our focus on loan underwriting and on monitoring our loan portfolio in order to maintain asset quality, which is well above our peer group and the industry average. From late 2007 to December 31, 2009, our liquidity position (net overnight funds sold) improved by approximately $150 million as a result of a strategic initiative to introduce deposit products that grew our core deposits in transaction and savings accounts and improved our deposit mix. Transaction and savings deposits increased from 48% of total deposits as of December 31, 2007, to 62% of total deposits as of December 31, 2009, to 63% of total deposits as of December 31, 2010, and to 67% of total deposits as of December 31, 2011. Our capital levels have remained strong during the recent economic downturn. As part of our strategic focus on building capital, we suspended our stock repurchase program in July 2008. Additionally, despite our strong capital position, in October 2008 we applied, and were one of the earliest banks approved, for funding of up to $60 million under the U.S. Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program, referred to as the “CPP.” After careful consideration and analysis, we believed there had been considerable improvement in the economic indicators since October 2008 and we determined that participation in the CPP was not necessary nor in the best interest of our shareholders. We notified the Treasury in July 2009 that we did not intend to participate in the CPP. On August 26, 2009, we filed a shelf registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The shelf registration statement will allow us to raise capital from time to time, up to an aggregate of $175 million, through the sale of common stock, preferred stock, or a combination thereof, subject to market conditions. Specific terms and prices will be determined at the time of any offering under a separate prospectus supplement that we will be required to file with the SEC at the time of the specific offering. In December 2009, we completed a secondary stock offering by issuing a total of 3,047,500 shares of common stock, including the over-allotment, at a price of $24.50 per share, less underwriting discounts and commissions. The net proceeds of the offering after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses were approximately $70.5 million. Subsequent to the stock offering, we have approximately $100 million available from our shelf registration for future offerings. The excess capital positions us to continue to take advantage of 2 unprecedented acquisition opportunity through FDIC-assisted transactions of failed banks. We continue to actively pursue the right opportunities that meet our strategic plan regarding mergers and acquisitions. In 2010, we expanded outside the borders of Arkansas by acquiring two failed institutions through FDIC-assisted transactions. The first was a $100 million failed bank located in Springfield, Missouri and the second was a $400 million failed thrift located in Olathe, Kansas. On both transactions, we entered into a loss share agreement with the FDIC, which provides significant protection of 80% of covered assets. As part of the acquisitions, we recognized a pre-tax bargain purchase gain of $3.0 million and $18.3 million, respectively, on the Missouri and Kansas transactions. In September 2011, we reinstated our stock repurchase program as we continue to have one of the strongest capital positions within our peer group. A portion of our capital has been allocated for our acquisition program, and we plan to leave this portion available for this purpose. However, we plan to utilize a portion of our annual earnings to repurchase shares from time to time at prevailing market prices, through open market or unsolicited negotiated transactions, depending upon market conditions. Acquisition Strategy We believe we are strategically positioned to leverage our strong capital position to grow through acquisitions. In the near term, the disruptions in the financial markets continue to create opportunities for strong financial institutions to acquire selected assets and deposits of failed banks through FDIC-assisted transactions. We intend to continue focusing our near term acquisition strategy on such transactions. We also believe that the challenging economic environment combined with more restrictive bank regulatory reform will cause many financial institutions to seek merger partners in the intermediate future. We believe our community bank model, strong capital and successful acquisition history position us as a purchaser of choice for community banks seeking a strong partner. We expect that our primary geographic target area for acquisitions, both FDIC-assisted and negotiated, will continue within a 325 mile radius of central Arkansas. Our first priority will be to focus on acquisitions within Arkansas while also seeking acquisitions within our target area in states contiguous to Arkansas. The senior management teams of both our parent company and lead bank have had extensive experience during the past twenty years in acquiring banks, branches and deposits and post-acquisition integration of operations. We believe this experience positions us to successfully acquire and integrate banks on both an FDIC-assisted and unassisted basis. With respect to FDIC-assisted transactions:  We believe one of our key strengths is our management depth at the community bank level that will enable us to redeploy our human resources to integrate and operate an acquired institution’s business with minimal disruption to our existing operations. From our management pool we have assembled an in-house acquisition team to focus on evaluating and executing FDIC-assisted transactions.  We have retained a consultant with FDIC-assisted transaction experience that has supplemented our management’s acquisition experience with additional training focused on the unique aspects of acquiring, converting and integrating banks through FDIC-assisted transactions. With respect to negotiated community bank acquisitions:  We have historically retained the target institution’s senior management and have provided them with an appealing level of autonomy post-integration. We intend to continue to pursue negotiated community bank acquisitions and we believe that our history with respect to such acquisitions has positioned us as an acquirer of choice for community banks.  We encourage acquired community banks, their boards and associates to maintain their community involvement, while empowering the banks to offer a broader array of financial products and services. We believe this approach leads to enhanced profitability after the acquisition. Efficiency Initiatives In 2008, we began two significant initiatives to improve our operating performance by implementing cost efficiencies and selected revenue enhancements. These initiatives have led to cost savings and revenue enhancements in 2010 and 2011 are expected to lead to further improvements in years beyond. 3 Our first such initiative was an effort to leverage our corporate buying power to renegotiate our existing vendor contracts at lower prices and to maximize the return on our investment in technology. We began to benefit from operating expense savings as a result of more favorable contract terms with our vendors in 2009 with the full annualized benefits substantially realized in 2011. Our second initiative, which is larger in scope, was to identify and implement process improvements. We have reviewed our business processes in an effort to improve our profitability while preserving the quality of our customer service. The scope of this initiative includes implementing revenue enhancements, further consolidating back office processes and refining our organizational structure. We began implementing this initiative in 2010, continued throughout 2011 and intend to finalize implementation in 2012. We have experienced savings and additional revenue and expect to experience significant savings and revenue enhancements as this initiative takes full effect. Subsidiary Banks Our lead bank, SFNB, is a national bank which has been in operation since 1903. As of December 31, 2011, SFNB had total assets of $1.8 billion, total loans of $0.9 billion and total deposits of $1.5 billion. Simmons First Trust Company N.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of SFNB, performs the trust and fiduciary business operations for SFNB and for us. Simmons First Investment Group, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of SFNB, is a broker-dealer registered with the SEC and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and performs the broker-dealer operations for SFNB. The following table shows our community subsidiary banks other than the lead bank: Subsidiary Year Acquired Primary Market Northeast Arkansas 1984 Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas Southeast Arkansas Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas 1984 Northwest Arkansas Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas 1995 Russellville, Arkansas 1997 Simmons First Bank of Russellville Searcy, Arkansas 1997 Simmons First Bank of Searcy 1999 Simmons First Bank of El Dorado South central Arkansas 2004 Hot Springs, Arkansas Simmons First Bank of Hot Springs Deposits As of December 31, 2011 Assets Loans (In thousands) $340,348 $259,573 $295,025 162,715 190,727 201,781 249,938 134,421 185,652 112,226 145,701 195,091 231,965 128,412 170,987 82,697 135,301 97,238 96,169 84,265 69,665 Our subsidiary banks provide complete banking services to individuals and businesses throughout the market areas they serve. These banks offer consumer (credit card and other consumer), real estate (construction, single family residential and other commercial) and commercial (commercial, agriculture and financial institutions) loans, checking, savings and time deposits, trust and investment management services and securities and investment services. Loan Risk Assessment As part of our ongoing risk assessment, the Company has an Asset Quality Review Committee of management that meets quarterly to review the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. The Committee reviews the status of past due, non-performing and other impaired loans, reserve ratios, and additional performance indicators for all of its subsidiary banks. The allowance for loan losses is determined based upon the aforementioned performance factors, and adjustments are made accordingly. Also, an unallocated reserve is established to compensate for the uncertainty in estimating loan losses, including the possibility of improper risk ratings and specific reserve allocations. The Boards of Directors of each of our subsidiary banks review the adequacy of its allowance for loan losses on a monthly basis giving consideration to past due loans, non-performing loans, other impaired loans, and current economic conditions. Our loan review department monitors each of its subsidiary bank's loan information monthly. In addition, the loan review department prepares an analysis of the allowance for loan losses for each subsidiary bank twice a year, and reports the results to our Audit and Security Committee. In order to verify the accuracy of the monthly analysis of the allowance for loan losses, the loan review department performs an on-site detailed review of each subsidiary bank's loan files on a semi-annual basis. Additionally, we have instituted a Special Asset Committee for the purpose of reviewing criticized loans in regard to collateral adequacy, workout strategies and proper reserve allocations. The Board of Directors has delegated oversight of assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements to the Loss Share Loan Committee, comprised of the Corporate CEO, President and an Executive Vice President, along with several 4 SFNB executives. The Board authorizes the Committee to transact loan origination, renewal and workout procedures relative to FDIC-assisted acquisitions. Duties of the Committee shall be carried out in accordance with the Purchase and Assumption Agreements executed between the Bank and the FDIC. Competition There is significant competition among commercial banks in our various market areas. In addition, we also compete with other providers of financial services, such as savings and loan associations, credit unions, finance companies, securities firms, insurance companies, full service brokerage firms and discount brokerage firms. Some of our competitors have greater resources and, as such, may have higher lending limits and may offer other services that we do not provide. We generally compete on the basis of customer service and responsiveness to customer needs, available loan and deposit products, the rates of interest charged on loans, the rates of interest paid for funds, and the availability and pricing of trust and brokerage services. Principal Offices and Available Information Our principal executive offices are located at 501 Main Street, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601, and our telephone number is (870) 541-1000. We also have corporate offices in Little Rock, Arkansas. We maintain a website at http://www.simmonsfirst.com. On this website under the section “Investor Relations”, we make our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission available free of charge, along with other Company news and announcements. Employees As of February 3, 2012, the Company and its subsidiaries had approximately 1,075 full time equivalent employees. None of the employees is represented by any union or similar groups, and we have not experienced any labor disputes or strikes arising from any such organized labor groups. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. Executive Officers of the Company The following is a list of all executive officers of the Company. The Board of Directors elects executive officers annually. NAME AGE POSITION YEARS SERVED J. Thomas May David L. Bartlett Robert A. Fehlman Marty D. Casteel Robert C. Dill David W. Garner Kevin J. Archer Sharon K. Burdine Tina M. Groves 65 60 47 60 68 42 48 46 42 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer President and Chief Operating Officer Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Executive Vice President and Secretary Executive Vice President, Marketing Senior Vice President and Controller Senior Vice President/Credit Policy and Risk Assessment Senior Vice President and Human Resources Director Senior Vice President/Manager, Audit/Compliance 25 15 23 23 45 14 16 14 6 5 Board of Directors of the Company The following is a list of the Board of Directors of the Company as of December 31, 2011, along with their principal occupation. NAME PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION William E. Clark, II Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Clark Contractors, LLC Steven A. Cossé Edward Drilling Sharon L. Gaber Eugene Hunt George A. Makris, Jr. J. Thomas May W. Scott McGeorge Executive Vice President and General Counsel (retired) Murphy Oil Corporation President AT&T Arkansas Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs University of Arkansas Attorney Hunt Law Firm President M.K. Distributors, Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Simmons First National Corporation President Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company Harry L. Ryburn Orthodontist (retired) Robert L. Shoptaw Chairman of the Board Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield SUPERVISION AND REGULATION The Company The Company, as a bank holding company, is subject to both federal and state regulation. Under federal law, a bank holding company generally must obtain approval from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("FRB") before acquiring ownership or control of the assets or stock of a bank or a bank holding company. Prior to approval of any proposed acquisition, the FRB will review the effect on competition of the proposed acquisition, as well as other regulatory issues. The federal law generally prohibits a bank holding company from directly or indirectly engaging in non-banking activities. This prohibition does not include loan servicing, liquidating activities or other activities so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. Bank holding companies, including Simmons First National Corporation, which have elected to qualify as financial holding companies, are authorized to engage in financial activities. Financial activities include any activity that is financial in nature or any activity that is incidental or complimentary to a financial activity. As a financial holding company, we are required to file with the FRB an annual report and such additional information as may be required by law. From time to time, the FRB examines the financial condition of the Company and its subsidiaries. The FRB, through civil and criminal sanctions, is authorized to exercise enforcement powers over bank holding companies (including financial holding companies) and non-banking subsidiaries, to limit activities that represent unsafe or unsound practices or constitute violations of law. We are subject to certain laws and regulations of the state of Arkansas applicable to financial and bank holding companies, including examination and supervision by the Arkansas Bank Commissioner. Under Arkansas law, a financial or bank holding company is prohibited from owning more than one subsidiary bank, if any subsidiary bank 6 owned by the holding company has been chartered for less than five years and, further, requires the approval of the Arkansas Bank Commissioner for any acquisition of more than 25% of the capital stock of any other bank located in Arkansas. No bank acquisition may be approved if, after such acquisition, the holding company would control, directly or indirectly, banks having 25% of the total bank deposits in the state of Arkansas, excluding deposits of other banks and public funds. Legislation enacted in 1994 allows bank holding companies (including financial holding companies) from any state to acquire banks located in any state without regard to state law, provided that the holding company (1) is adequately capitalized, (2) is adequately managed, (3) would not control more than 10% of the insured deposits in the United States or more than 30% of the insured deposits in such state, and (4) such bank has been in existence at least five years if so required by the applicable state law. Subsidiary Banks During the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company realigned the regulatory oversight for its affiliate banks in order to create efficiencies through regulatory standardization. We operate as a multi bank holding company and over the years, have acquired several banks. In accordance with the corporate strategy of leaving the bank structure unchanged, each acquired bank stayed intact as did its regulatory structure. As a result, the Company’s eight affiliate banks were regulated by the Arkansas State Bank Department, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and/or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”). Following the regulatory realignment, the lead bank remained a national bank regulated by the OCC while the other seven affiliate banks became state member banks and with the Arkansas State Bank Department as their primary regulator and the Federal Reserve as their federal regulator. The lending powers of each of the subsidiary banks are generally subject to certain restrictions, including the amount, which may be lent to a single borrower. All of our subsidiary banks are members of the FDIC, which provides insurance on deposits of each member bank up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund. For this protection, each bank pays a statutory assessment to the FDIC each year. Federal law substantially restricts transactions between banks and their affiliates. As a result, our subsidiary banks are limited in making extensions of credit to the Company, investing in the stock or other securities of the Company and engaging in other financial transactions with the Company. Those transactions that are permitted must generally be undertaken on terms at least as favorable to the bank as those prevailing in comparable transactions with independent third parties. Potential Enforcement Action for Bank Holding Companies and Banks Enforcement proceedings seeking civil or criminal sanctions may be instituted against any bank, any financial or bank holding company, any director, officer, employee or agent of the bank or holding company, which is believed by the federal banking agencies to be violating any administrative pronouncement or engaged in unsafe and unsound practices. In addition, the FDIC may terminate the insurance of accounts, upon determination that the insured institution has engaged in certain wrongful conduct or is in an unsound condition to continue operations. Risk-Weighted Capital Requirements for the Company and the Subsidiary Banks Since 1993, banking organizations (including financial holding companies, bank holding companies and banks) were required to meet a minimum ratio of Total Capital to Total Risk-Weighted Assets of 8%, of which at least 4% must be in the form of Tier 1 Capital. A well-capitalized institution is one that has at least a 10% "total risk-based capital" ratio. For a tabular summary of our risk-weighted capital ratios, see "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Capital" and Note 20, Stockholders’ Equity, of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. A banking organization's qualifying total capital consists of two components: Tier 1 Capital and Tier 2 Capital. Tier 1 Capital is an amount equal to the sum of common shareholders' equity, hybrid capital instruments (instruments with characteristics of debt and equity) in an amount up to 25% of Tier 1 Capital, certain preferred stock and the minority interest in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries. For bank holding companies and financial holding companies, goodwill (net of any deferred tax liability associated with that goodwill) may not be included in Tier 1 Capital. Identifiable intangible assets may be included in Tier 1 Capital for banking organizations, in accordance with 7 certain further requirements. At least 50% of the banking organization's total regulatory capital must consist of Tier 1 Capital. Tier 2 Capital is an amount equal to the sum of the qualifying portion of the allowance for loan losses, certain preferred stock not included in Tier 1, hybrid capital instruments (instruments with characteristics of debt and equity), certain long-term debt securities and eligible term subordinated debt, in an amount up to 50% of Tier 1 Capital. The eligibility of these items for inclusion as Tier 2 Capital is subject to certain additional requirements and limitations of the federal banking agencies. Under the risk-based capital guidelines, balance sheet assets and certain off-balance sheet items, such as standby letters of credit, are assigned to one of four-risk weight categories (0%, 20%, 50%, or 100%), according to the nature of the asset, its collateral or the identity of the obligor or guarantor. The aggregate amount in each risk category is adjusted by the risk weight assigned to that category to determine weighted values, which are then added to determine the total risk-weighted assets for the banking organization. For example, an asset, such as a commercial loan, assigned to a 100% risk category, is included in risk-weighted assets at its nominal face value, but a loan secured by a one-to-four family residence is included at only 50% of its nominal face value. The applicable ratios reflect capital, as so determined, divided by risk-weighted assets, as so determined. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act ("FDICIA"), enacted in 1991, requires the FDIC to increase assessment rates for insured banks and authorizes one or more "special assessments," as necessary for the repayment of funds borrowed by the FDIC or any other necessary purpose. As directed in FDICIA, the FDIC has adopted a transitional risk-based assessment system, under which the assessment rate for insured banks will vary according to the level of risk incurred in the bank's activities. The risk category and risk-based assessment for a bank is determined from its classification, pursuant to the regulation, as well capitalized, adequately capitalized or undercapitalized. FDICIA substantially revised the bank regulatory provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and other federal banking statutes, requiring federal banking agencies to establish capital measures and classifications. Pursuant to the regulations issued under FDICIA, a depository institution will be deemed to be well capitalized if it significantly exceeds the minimum level required for each relevant capital measure; adequately capitalized if it meets each such measure; undercapitalized if it fails to meet any such measure; significantly undercapitalized if it is significantly below any such measure; and critically undercapitalized if it fails to meet any critical capital level set forth in regulations. The federal banking agencies must promptly mandate corrective actions by banks that fail to meet the capital and related requirements in order to minimize losses to the FDIC. The FDIC and OCC advised the Company that the subsidiary banks have been classified as well capitalized under these regulations. The federal banking agencies are required by FDICIA to prescribe standards for banks and bank holding companies (including financial holding companies) relating to operations and management, asset quality, earnings, stock valuation and compensation. A bank or bank holding company that fails to comply with such standards will be required to submit a plan designed to achieve compliance. If no plan is submitted or the plan is not implemented, the bank or holding company would become subject to additional regulatory action or enforcement proceedings. A variety of other provisions included in FDICIA may affect the operations of the Company and the subsidiary banks, including new reporting requirements, revised regulatory standards for real estate lending, "truth in savings" provisions, and the requirement that a depository institution give 90 days prior notice to customers and regulatory authorities before closing any branch. FDIC Deposit Insurance Assessments On October 16, 2008, in response to the problems facing the financial markets and the economy, the FDIC published a restoration plan (“Restoration Plan”) designed to replenish the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) such that the reserve ratio would return to 1.15 percent within five years. On December 16, 2008, the FDIC adopted a final rule increasing risk-based assessment rates uniformly by seven basis points, on an annual basis, for the first quarter 2009. On February 27, 2009, the FDIC concluded that the problems facing the financial services sector and the economy at large constituted extraordinary circumstances and amended the Restoration Plan and extended the time within which the reserve ratio would return to 1.15 percent from five to seven years (“Amended Restoration Plan”). In May 2009, 8 Congress amended the statutory provision governing establishment and implementation of a Restoration Plan to allow the FDIC eight years to bring the reserve ratio back to 1.15 percent, absent extraordinary circumstances. On May 22, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule imposing a five basis point special assessment on each insured depository institution's assets minus Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009. The special assessment was collected on September 30, 2009. In a final rule issued on September 29, 2009, the FDIC amended the Amended Restoration Plan as follows:  The period of the Amended Restoration Plan was extended from seven to eight years.  The FDIC announced that it will not impose any further special assessments under the final rule it adopted in May 2009.  The FDIC announced plans to maintain assessment rates at their current levels through the end of 2010. The FDIC also immediately adopted a uniform three basis point increase in assessment rates effective January 1, 2011 to ensure that the DIF returns to 1.15 percent within the Amended Restoration Plan period of eight years.  The FDIC announced that, at least semi-annually following the adoption of the Amended Restoration Plan, it will update its loss and income projections for the DIF. The FDIC also announced that it may, if necessary, adopt a new rule prior to the end of the eight-year period to increase assessment rates in order to return the reserve ratio to 1.15 percent. On November 12, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule to require insured institutions to prepay their quarterly risk-based deposit insurance assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, on December 30, 2009. Our payment was $11.2 million. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), which was signed into law on July 21, 2010, changes how the FDIC will calculate future deposit insurance premiums payable by insured depository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act directs the FDIC to amend its assessment regulations so that future assessments will generally be based upon a depository institution’s average total consolidated assets minus the average tangible equity of the insured depository institution during the assessment period, whereas assessments were previously based on the amount of an institution’s insured deposits. The minimum deposit insurance fund rate will increase from 1.15% to 1.35% by September 30, 2020, and the cost of the increase will be borne by depository institutions with assets of $10 billion or more. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides the FDIC with discretion to determine whether to pay rebates to insured depository institutions when its deposit insurance reserves exceed certain thresholds. Previously, the FDIC was required to give rebates to depository institutions equal to the excess once the reserve ratio exceeded 1.50%, and was required to rebate 50% of the excess over 1.35% but not more than 1.5% of insured deposits. The FDIC adopted a final rule on February 7, 2011 that implements these provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act On July 21, 2010, the President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act, which significantly changes the regulation of financial institutions and the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act includes provisions affecting large and small financial institutions alike, including several provisions that profoundly affect how community banks, thrifts, and small bank and thrift holding companies are regulated in the future. Among other things, these provisions abolish the Office of Thrift Supervision and transfer its functions to the other federal banking agencies, relax rules regarding interstate branching, allow financial institutions to pay interest on business checking accounts, and impose new capital requirements on bank and thrift holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act also made permanent the temporary increase in deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 that was included in the EESA, and extends until December 31, 2012 the period during which the FDIC will provide unlimited deposit insurance for "noninterest bearing transaction accounts". Effective July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. On June 29, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board set the interchange rate cap at $0.24 per transaction. While the restrictions on interchange fees do not apply to banks that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10 billion, the rule has affected the competitiveness of debit cards issued by smaller banks and has negatively impacted our earnings. 9 The Dodd-Frank Act also established the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB”) as an independent entity within the Federal Reserve, which will be given the authority to promulgate consumer protection regulations applicable to all entities offering consumer financial services or products, including banks. Additionally, the Dodd- Frank Act includes a series of provisions covering mortgage loan origination standards affecting, among other things, originator compensation, minimum repayment standards, and pre-payment penalties. The Dodd-Frank Act contains numerous other provisions affecting financial institutions of all types, many of which may have an impact on our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways. Because many of the regulations required to implement the Dodd-Frank Act have not yet been issued, the statute’s effect on the financial services industry in general, and on us in particular, is uncertain at this time. The Dodd-Frank Act is likely to affect our cost of doing business, however, and may limit or expand the scope of our permissible activities and affect the competitive balance within our industry and market areas. Our management is actively reviewing the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and assessing its probable impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Basel Committee On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee, announced agreement on the calibration and phase – in arrangements for a strengthened set of capital requirements, known as Basel III. Basel III increases the minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio to 4.5%, net of regulatory deductions, and introduces a capital conservation buffer of an additional 2.5% of common equity to risk- weighted assets, raising the target minimum common equity ratio to 7% . This capital conservation buffer also increases the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio from 6% to 8.5% and the minimum total capital ratio from 8% to 10.5%. In addition, Basel III introduces a countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital for periods of excess credit growth. Basel III also introduces a non-risk adjusted Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3%, based on a measure of total exposure rather than total assets, and new liquidity standards. The Basel III capital and liquidity standards will be phased in over a multi-year period. The final package of Basel III reforms was submitted to the Seoul G20 Leaders Summit in November 2010 for endorsement by G20 leaders, and then will be subject to individual adoption by member nations, including the United States. The Federal Reserve will likely implement changes to the capital adequacy standards applicable to the Company and our subsidiary banks in light of Basel III. Pending Legislation Because of concerns relating to competitiveness and the safety and soundness of the banking industry, Congress often considers a number of wide-ranging proposals for altering the structure, regulation, and competitive relationships of the nation’s financial institutions. We cannot predict whether or in what form any proposals will be adopted or the extent to which our business may be affected. ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS Risks Related to Our Industry Our business may be adversely affected by conditions in the financial markets and general economic conditions. From 2007 through 2009, the United States was in a recession. Although there are some indicators of improvement, business activity across a wide range of industries and regions has been greatly reduced and local governments and many businesses are having difficulty due to the lack of consumer spending, the lack of liquidity in the credit markets and high unemployment. Market conditions have also led to the failure or merger of a number of prominent financial institutions. Financial institution failures or near-failures have resulted in further losses as a consequence of defaults on securities issued by them and defaults under contracts entered into with such entities as counterparties. Furthermore, declining asset values, defaults on mortgages and consumer loans, and the lack of market and investor confidence, as well as other factors, have all combined to increase credit default swap spreads, to cause rating agencies to lower credit ratings, and to otherwise increase the cost and decrease the availability of liquidity, despite very significant declines in Federal Reserve borrowing rates and other government actions. Some banks and other lenders have suffered significant losses and have become reluctant to lend, even on a secured basis, due to the increased risk of default 10 and the impact of declining asset values on the value of collateral. The foregoing has significantly weakened the strength and liquidity of some financial institutions worldwide. The Company’s financial performance generally, and in particular the ability of borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the states of Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas, and in the United States as a whole. A favorable business environment is generally characterized by, among other factors, economic growth, efficient capital markets, low inflation, high business and investor confidence and strong business earnings. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by: declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence; limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital; increases in inflation or interest rates; natural disasters; or a combination of these or other factors. The business environment in Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas could continue to deteriorate. There can be no assurance that these business and economic conditions will improve in the near term. The continuation of these conditions could adversely affect the credit quality of our loans and our results of operations and financial condition. Recent legislative and regulatory initiatives to address difficult market and economic conditions may not stabilize the U.S. banking system. In response to the financial crisis affecting the banking system and financial markets, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted in 2010, as well as several programs that have been initiated by the U.S. Treasury, the FRB, and the FDIC to stabilize the financial system. Some of the provisions of recent legislation and regulation that may adversely impact the Company include: the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act which mandates a limit to debit card interchange fees and Regulation E amendments to the EFTA regarding overdraft fees. These provisions may limit the type of products we offer, the methods by which we offer them, and the prices at which they are offered. These provisions may also increase our costs in offering these products. The newly created CFPB has unprecedented authority over the regulation of consumer financial products and services. The CFPB has broad rule-making, supervisory and examination authority, as well as expanded data collecting and enforcement powers. The scope and impact of the CFPB's actions cannot be determined at this time, which creates significant uncertainty for the Company and the financial services industry in general. These new laws, regulations, and changes may increase our costs of regulatory compliance. They may significantly affect the markets in which we do business, the markets for and value of our investments, and our ongoing operations, costs, and profitability. The future impact of the many provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act and other legislative and regulatory initiatives on the Company's business and results of operations will depend upon regulatory interpretation and rulemaking that will be undertaken over the next several months and years. As a result, we are unable to predict the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act or of other future legislation or regulation, including the extent to which it could increase costs or limit our ability to pursue business opportunities in an efficient manner, or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Difficult market conditions have adversely affected our industry. The financial markets have continued to experience significant volatility. In some cases, the financial markets have produced downward pressure on stock prices and credit availability for certain issuers without regard to those issuers’ underlying financial strength. If financial market volatility worsens, or if there are more disruptions in the financial markets, including disruptions to the United States or international banking systems, there can be no assurance that we will not experience an adverse effect, which may be material, on our ability to access capital and on our business, financial condition and results of operations. 11 Risks Related to Our Business Our concentration of banking activities in Arkansas, including our real estate loan portfolio, makes us more vulnerable to adverse conditions in the particular Arkansas markets in which we operate. Until our 2010 FDIC-assisted acquisitions in Missouri and Kansas, our subsidiary banks operated exclusively within the state of Arkansas, where the majority of the buildings and properties securing our loans and the businesses of our customers are located. Our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows are subject to changes in the economic conditions in our home state, the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans, and the value of the collateral securing such loans. We largely depend on the continued growth and stability of the communities we serve for our continued success. Declines in the economies of these communities or the states of Arkansas, Missouri or Kansas, in general could adversely affect our ability to generate new loans or to receive repayments of existing loans, and our ability to attract new deposits, thus adversely affecting our net income, profitability and financial condition. The ability of our borrowers to repay their loans could also be adversely impacted by the significant changes in market conditions in the region or by changes in local real estate markets, including deflationary effects on collateral value caused by property foreclosures. This could result in an increase in our charge-offs and provision for loan losses. Either of these events would have an adverse impact on our results of operations. Our loan portfolio in Northwest Arkansas has been more negatively impacted than our loan portfolio comprised from other regions in Arkansas. This fact results primarily from the acute contraction in that region’s economy and its real estate markets as compared to Arkansas as a whole. In 2010 we put an additional $9 million in capital into our Northwest Arkansas bank. A continued deterioration of the Northwest Arkansas economy or its failure to fully participate in an economic recovery could require us to further tighten our local lending standards, inject more capital into our Northwest Arkansas bank and increase allowances for loan losses relative to loans made in the region. A significant decline in general economic conditions caused by inflation, recession, unemployment, acts of terrorism or other factors beyond our control could also have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, because multi-family and commercial real estate loans represent the majority of our real estate loans outstanding, a decline in tenant occupancy due to such factors or for other reasons could adversely impact the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans on a timely basis, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations. Deteriorating credit quality, particularly in our credit card portfolio, may adversely impact us. We have a significant consumer credit card portfolio. Although we experienced a decreased amount of net charge- offs in our credit card portfolio in 2011, the amount of net charge-offs could worsen. While we continue to experience a better performance with respect to net charge-offs than the national average in our credit card portfolio, our net charge-offs were 2.06% of our average outstanding credit card balances for the year ended December 31, 2011, compared to 2.37% of the average outstanding balances for the year ended on December 31, 2010. The current economic downturn could adversely affect consumers in a more delayed fashion compared to commercial businesses in general. Increasing unemployment and diminished asset values may prevent our credit card customers from repaying their credit card balances which could result in an increased amount of our net charge-offs that could have a material adverse effect on our unsecured credit card portfolio. Changes to consumer protection laws may impede our origination or collection efforts with respect to credit card accounts, change account holder use patterns or reduce collections, any of which may result in decreased profitability of our credit card portfolio. Credit card receivables that do not comply with consumer protection laws may not be valid or enforceable under their terms against the obligors of those credit card receivables. Federal and state consumer protection laws regulate the creation and enforcement of consumer loans, including credit card receivables. For instance, the federal Truth in 12 Lending Act was recently amended by the “Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009,” or the “Credit CARD Act,” which, among other things:      prevents any increases in interest rates and fees during the first year after a credit card account is opened, and increases at any time on interest rates on existing credit card balances, unless (i) the minimum payment on the related account is 60 or more days delinquent, (ii) the rate increase is due to the expiration of a promotional rate, (iii) the account holder fails to comply with a negotiated workout plan or (iv) the increase is due to an increase in the index rate for a variable rate credit card; requires that any promotional rates for credit cards be effective for at least six months; requires 45 days notice for any change of an interest rate or any other significant changes to a credit card account; empowers federal bank regulators to promulgate rules to limit the amount of any penalty fees or charges for credit card accounts to amounts that are “reasonable and proportional to the related omission or violation;” and requires credit card companies to mail billing statements 21 calendar days before the due date for account holder payments. As a result of the Credit CARD Act and other consumer protection laws and regulations, it may be more difficult for us to originate additional credit card accounts or to collect payments on credit card receivables, and the finance charges and other fees that we can charge on credit card account balances may be reduced. Furthermore, account holders may choose to use credit cards less as a result of these consumer protection laws. Each of these results, independently or collectively, could reduce the effective yield on revolving credit card accounts and could result in decreased profitability of our credit card portfolio. Our growth and expansion strategy may not be successful, and our market value and profitability may suffer. We have historically employed, as important parts of our business strategy, growth through acquisition of banks and, to a lesser extent, through branch acquisitions and de novo branching. Any future acquisitions, including any FDIC-assisted transactions, in which we might engage will be accompanied by the risks commonly encountered in acquisitions. These risks include, among other risks:    credit risk associated with the acquired bank’s loans and investments; difficulty of integrating operations and personnel; and potential disruption of our ongoing business. In the current economic environment, we anticipate that in addition to opportunities to acquire other banks in privately negotiated transactions, we may also have opportunities to bid to acquire the assets and liabilities of failed banks in FDIC-assisted transactions. These acquisitions involve risks similar to acquiring existing banks. Because FDIC-assisted acquisitions are structured in a manner that would not allow us the time normally associated with due diligence investigations prior to committing to purchase the target bank or preparing for integration of an acquired bank, we may face additional risks in FDIC-assisted transactions. These risks include, among other things:    loss of customers of the failed bank; strain on management resources related to collection and management of problem loans; and problems related to integration of personnel and operating systems. In addition to pursuing the acquisition of existing viable financial institutions or the acquisition of assets and liabilities of failed banks in FDIC-assisted transactions, as opportunities arise we may also continue to engage in de novo branching to further our growth strategy. De novo branching and growing through acquisition involve numerous risks, including the following:        the inability to obtain all required regulatory approvals; the significant costs and potential operating losses associated with establishing a de novo branch or a new bank; the inability to secure the services of qualified senior management; the local market may not accept the services of a new bank owned and managed by a bank holding company headquartered outside of the market area of the new bank; the risk of encountering an economic downturn in the new market; the inability to obtain attractive locations within a new market at a reasonable cost; and the additional strain on management resources and internal systems and controls. 13 We expect that competition for suitable acquisition candidates, whether such candidates are viable banks or are the subject of an FDIC-assisted transaction, will be significant. We may compete with other banks or financial service companies that are seeking to acquire our acquisition candidates, many of which are larger competitors and have greater financial and other resources. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully identify and acquire suitable acquisition targets on acceptable terms and conditions. Further, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with acquisitions and de novo branching. Our inability to overcome these risks could have an adverse effect on our ability to achieve our business and growth strategy and maintain or increase our market value and profitability. Our recent results do not indicate our future results and may not provide guidance to assess the risk of an investment in our common stock. We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth or be able to expand our business. Various factors, such as economic conditions, regulatory and legislative considerations and competition, may also impede or prohibit our ability to expand our market presence. We may also be unable to identify advantageous acquisition opportunities or, once identified, enter into transactions to make such acquisitions. If we are not able to successfully grow our business, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Our cost of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, interest rates and competitive pressures. Our cost of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, fluctuations in interest rates and competitive pressures. We have traditionally obtained funds principally through local deposits as we have a base of lower cost transaction deposits. Our costs of funds and our profitability and liquidity are likely to be adversely affected, if we have to rely upon higher cost borrowings from other institutional lenders or brokers to fund loan demand or liquidity needs. Also, changes in our deposit mix and growth could adversely affect our profitability and the ability to expand our loan portfolio. We have been active in making student loans and this part of our business has been terminated by the federal government. Our subsidiary banks historically have been active in the student loan market and our student loan portfolio has been profitable in the past. Recent interruptions in the credit markets and certain changes in the federal government programs affecting student loans, however, have decreased the marketability of student loans and increased our holding period for such loans. These events have increased our expenses associated with making and holding student loans and decreased the profitability of making such loans. The Company has terminated its student loan origination activities as a result of changes mandated by the Department of Education. These changes by the federal government eliminate banks from participating in student loan programs. Terminating our ability to originate student loans could adversely affect our profitability in the future. We may not be able to raise the additional capital we need to grow and, as a result, our ability to expand our operations could be materially impaired. Federal and state regulatory authorities require us and our subsidiary banks to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. Many circumstances could require us to seek additional capital, such as:       faster than anticipated growth; reduced earning levels; operating losses; changes in economic conditions; revisions in regulatory requirements; or additional acquisition opportunities. Our ability to raise additional capital will largely depend on our financial performance, and on conditions in the capital markets which are outside our control. If we need additional capital but cannot raise it on terms acceptable to us, our ability to expand our operations or to engage in acquisitions could be materially impaired. 14 Accounting standards periodically change and the application of our accounting policies and methods may require management to make estimates about matters that are uncertain. The regulatory bodies that establish accounting standards, including, among others, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the SEC, periodically revise or issue new financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our consolidated financial statements. The effect of such revised or new standards on our financial statements can be difficult to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our management must exercise judgment in appropriately applying many of our accounting policies and methods so they comply with generally accepted accounting principles. In some cases, management may have to select a particular accounting policy or method from two or more alternatives. In some cases, the accounting policy or method chosen might be reasonable under the circumstances and yet might result in our reporting materially different amounts than would have been reported if we had selected a different policy or method. Accounting policies are critical to fairly presenting our financial condition and results of operations and may require management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments about matters that are uncertain. The Federal Reserve Board’s source of strength doctrine could require that we divert capital to our subsidiary banks instead of applying available capital towards planned uses, such as engaging in acquisitions or paying dividends to shareholders. The Federal Reserve Board’s policies and regulations require that a bank holding company, including a financial holding company, serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks, and further provide that a bank holding company may not conduct operations in an unsafe or unsound manner. It is the Federal Reserve Board’s policy that a bank holding company should stand ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital to its subsidiary banks during periods of financial stress or adversity, such as during periods of significant loan losses, and that such holding company should maintain the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks if such a need were to arise. A bank holding company’s failure to meet its obligations to serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary banks will generally be considered to be an unsafe and unsound banking practice or a violation of the Federal Reserve Board’s regulations, or both. Accordingly, if the financial condition of our subsidiary banks were to deteriorate, we could be compelled to provide financial support to our subsidiary banks at a time when, absent such Federal Reserve Board policy, we may not deem it advisable to provide such assistance. Under such circumstances, there is a possibility that we may not either have adequate available capital or feel sufficiently confident regarding our financial condition, to enter into acquisitions, pay dividends, or engage in other corporate activities. We may incur environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we take title. A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real property. In the course of our business, we may own or foreclose and take title to real estate and could become subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. We may become responsible to a governmental agency or third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by those parties in connection with environmental contamination, or may be required to investigate or clean-up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with environmental investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. If we were to become subject to significant environmental liabilities, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Our management has broad discretion over the use of proceeds from our recent common stock offering. Although we have indicated our intent to use the proceeds from our recent common stock offering for general corporate purposes, including funding internal growth and selected future acquisitions, our Board of Directors retains significant discretion with respect to the use of proceeds from this offering. If we use the funds to acquire other businesses, there can be no assurance that any business we acquire will be successfully integrated into our operations or otherwise perform as expected. Likewise, other uses of the proceeds from this offering may not generate favorable returns for us. 15 Risks Related to Owning Our Stock The holders of our subordinated debentures have rights that are senior to those of our shareholders. If we defer payments of interest on our outstanding subordinated debentures or if certain defaults relating to those debentures occur, we will be prohibited from declaring or paying dividends or distributions on, and from making liquidation payments with respect to our common stock. We have $30.9 million of subordinated debentures issued in connection with trust preferred securities. Payments of the principal and interest on the trust preferred securities are unconditionally guaranteed by us. The subordinated debentures are senior to our shares of common stock. As a result, we must make payments on the subordinated debentures (and the related trust preferred securities) before any dividends can be paid on our common stock and, in the event of our bankruptcy, dissolution or liquidation, the holders of the debentures must be satisfied before any distributions can be made to the holders of our common stock. We have the right to defer distributions on the subordinated debentures (and the related trust preferred securities) for up to five years, during which time no dividends may be paid to holders of our capital stock. If we elect to defer or if we default with respect to our obligations to make payments on these subordinated debentures, this would likely have a material adverse effect on the market value of our common stock. Moreover, without notice to or consent from the holders of our common stock, we may issue additional series of subordinated debt securities in the future with terms similar to those of our existing subordinated debt securities or enter into other financing agreements that limit our ability to purchase or to pay dividends or distributions on our capital stock. We may be unable to, or choose not to, pay dividends on our common stock. We cannot assure you of our ability to continue to pay dividends. Our ability to pay dividends depends on the following factors, among others:  We may not have sufficient earnings since our primary source of income, the payment of dividends to us by our subsidiary banks, is subject to federal and state laws that limit the ability of those banks to pay dividends; Federal Reserve Board policy requires bank holding companies to pay cash dividends on common stock only out of net income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition; and   Our Board of Directors may determine that, even though funds are available for dividend payments, retaining the funds for internal uses, such as expansion of our operations, is a better strategy. If we fail to pay dividends, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock may be the sole opportunity for gains on an investment in our common stock. In addition, in the event our subsidiary banks become unable to pay dividends to us, we may not be able to service our debt or pay our other obligations or pay dividends on our common stock. Accordingly, our inability to receive dividends from our subsidiary banks could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and the value of your investment in our common stock. There may be future sales of additional common stock or preferred stock or other dilution of our equity, which may adversely affect the value of our common stock. We are not restricted from issuing additional common stock or preferred stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock or preferred stock or any substantially similar securities. The value of our common stock could decline as a result of sales by us of a large number of shares of common stock or preferred stock or similar securities in the market or the perception that such sales could occur. Anti-takeover provisions could negatively impact our shareholders. Provisions of our articles of incorporation and by-laws and federal banking laws, including regulatory approval requirements, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would be perceived to be beneficial to our shareholders. The combination of these provisions effectively inhibits a non-negotiated merger or other business combination, which, in turn, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for holders of our common stock to elect directors other than the candidates nominated by our Board of Directors. 16 ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS There are currently no unresolved Commission staff comments. ITEM 2. PROPERTIES The principal offices of the Company and the lead bank consist of an eleven-story office building and adjacent office space located in the central business district of the city of Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Additionally, we also have corporate offices located in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Company and its subsidiaries own or lease additional offices in the states of Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas. The Company and its eight banks conduct financial operations from 88 offices, of which 84 are financial centers, in 47 communities throughout Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas. ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The Company and/or its subsidiaries have various unrelated legal proceedings, most of which involve loan foreclosure activity pending, which, in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company and its subsidiaries. The Company or its subsidiaries remain the subject of the following lawsuit asserting claims against the Company or its subsidiaries. On October 1, 2003, an action in Pulaski County Circuit Court was filed by Thomas F. Carter, Tena P. Carter and certain related entities against Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas and Simmons First National Bank alleging wrongful conduct by the banks in the collection of certain loans. The Company was later added as a party defendant. The plaintiffs were seeking $2,000,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. The Company and the banks filed Motions to Dismiss. The plaintiffs were granted additional time to discover any evidence for litigation, and submitted such findings. At the hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court dismissed Simmons First National Bank due to lack of venue. Venue was changed to Jefferson County for the Company and Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas. Non-binding mediation failed on June 24, 2008. A pretrial was conducted on July 24, 2008. Several dispositive motions previously filed were heard on April 9, 2009, and arguments were presented on June 22, 2009. On July 10, 2009, the Court issued its Order dismissing five claims, leaving only a single claim for further pursuit in this matter. On August 18, 2009, plaintiffs took a nonsuit on their remaining claim of breach of good faith and fair dealing, thereby bringing all claims set forth in this action to a conclusion. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Notice of Appeal to the appellate court, lodged the transcript with the Arkansas Supreme Court Clerk, and filed their initial Brief. The Company and South Arkansas timely filed their Brief in response. On September 8, 2010, the Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal without prejudice, finding that the Trial Court had not entered a final Order, which may allow the plaintiffs to re-file the appeal at a later date. On September 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for requesting the circuit court enter a judgment on this matter. The Company and South Arkansas timely filed an objection to the plaintiffs' motion. On November 3, 2011, the circuit court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the denial of the motion and have until late February, 2012 to lodge the record for appeal. On February 13, 2012, the Company and South Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss the appeal along with a brief and a partial transcript. At this time, no basis for any material liability has been identified. ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY-HOLDERS No matters were submitted to a vote of security-holders, through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise, during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this report. 17 PART II ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS Our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “SFNC.” Set forth below are the high and low sales prices for our common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market for each quarter of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010. Also set forth below are dividends declared per share in each of these periods: 2011 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter 2010 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter Price Per Common Share High Low $ 30.16 27.28 26.83 28.41 $ 28.42 29.50 28.99 30.13 $ 26.45 24.14 18.71 20.50 $ 24.99 25.46 24.18 26.44 Quarterly Dividends Per Common Share $ 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 $ 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 On February 3, 2012, the closing price for our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ was $28.38. As of February 3, 2012, there were 1,291 shareholders of record of our common stock. The timing and amount of future dividends are at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon our consolidated earnings, financial condition, liquidity and capital requirements, the amount of cash dividends paid to us by our subsidiaries, applicable government regulations and policies and other factors considered relevant by our Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors anticipates that we will continue to pay quarterly dividends in amounts determined based on the factors discussed above. However, there can be no assurance that we will continue to pay dividends on our common stock at the current levels or at all. Our principal source of funds for dividend payments to our stockholders is distributions, including dividends, from our subsidiary banks, which are subject to restrictions tied to such institution’s earnings. Under applicable banking laws, the declaration of dividends by SFNB in any year, in excess of its net profits, as defined, for that year, combined with its retained net profits of the preceding two years, must be approved by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Further, as to Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas, Simmons First Bank of El Dorado, Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas, Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas, Simmons First Bank of Hot Springs, Simmons First Bank of Russellville and Simmons First Bank of Searcy, regulators have specified that the maximum dividends state banks may pay to the parent company without prior approval is 75% of the current year earnings plus 75% of the retained net earnings of the preceding year. At December 31, 2011, approximately $18.7 million was available for the payment of dividends by the subsidiary banks without regulatory approval. For further discussion of restrictions on the payment of dividends, see "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk – Liquidity and Market Risk Management," and Note 20, Stockholders’ Equity, of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Stock Repurchase The Company made the following purchases of its common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2011: Period October 1 – October 31 November 1 – November 30 December 1 – December 31 Total Total Number of Shares Purchased Average Price Paid Per Share 64,628 45,347 8,169 118,144 $ $ 23.70 24.84 26.93 24.36 18 Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans 64,628 45,347 8,169 118,144 Maximum Number of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under the Plans 562,044 516,697 508,528 On November 28, 2007, we announced the substantial completion of the existing stock repurchase program and the adoption by the Board of Directors of a new stock repurchase program. The program authorizes the repurchase of up to 700,000 shares of Class A common stock, or approximately 5% of the outstanding common stock. Under the repurchase program, there is no time limit for the stock repurchases, nor is there a minimum number of shares we intend to repurchase. We may discontinue purchases at any time that management determines additional purchases are not warranted. As part of our strategic focus on building capital, we suspended our stock repurchase program in July 2008. On September 27, 2011, we announced that we would reinstate the existing stock repurchase program. Prior to the suspension of the program, we had repurchased 54,328 shares, thereby leaving authority to repurchase 645,672 shares under the program. The shares are to be purchased from time to time at prevailing market prices, through open market or unsolicited negotiated transactions, depending upon market conditions. We intend to use the repurchased shares to satisfy stock option exercises, for payment of future stock dividends and for general corporate purposes. During 2011, after announcing the reinstatement of the program, we repurchased 137,144 shares of stock with a weighted average repurchase price of $23.98 per share. Under the current stock repurchase plan, we can repurchase an additional 508,528 shares. Performance Graph The performance graph below compares the cumulative total shareholder return on the Company’s Common Stock with the cumulative total return on the equity securities of companies included in the NASDAQ Bank Stock Index and the S&P 500 Stock Index. The graph assumes an investment of $100 on December 31, 2006 and reinvestment of dividends on the date of payment without commissions. The performance graph represents past performance and should not be considered to be an indication of future performance. Index Simmons First National Corporation NASDAQ Bank Index S&P 500 Index 12/31/06 100.00 100.00 100.00 12/31/07 86.73 80.09 105.49 12/31/08 98.96 62.84 66.46 12/31/09 96.08 52.60 84.05 12/31/10 101.24 60.04 96.71 12/31/11 99.58 53.74 98.76 Period Ending 19 ITEM 6. SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA The following table sets forth selected consolidated financial data concerning the Company and is qualified in its entirety by the detailed information and consolidated financial statements, including notes thereto, included elsewhere in this report. The income statement, balance sheet and per common share data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007, were derived from consolidated financial statements of the Company, which were audited by BKD, LLP. Results from past periods are not necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for any future period. Management believes that certain non-GAAP measures, including diluted core earnings per share, tangible book value, the ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets, tangible stockholders’ equity and return on average tangible equity, may be useful to analysts and investors in evaluating the performance of our Company. We have included certain of these non-GAAP measures, including cautionary remarks regarding the usefulness of these analytical tools, in this table. The selected consolidated financial data set forth below should be read in conjunction with the financial statements of the Company and related notes thereto and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" included elsewhere in this report. (In thousands, except per share & other data) 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Years Ended December 31 Income statement data: Net interest income Provision for loan losses Net interest income after provision for loan losses Non-interest income Non-interest expense Income before taxes Provision for income taxes Net income Per share data: Basic earnings Diluted earnings Diluted core earnings (non-GAAP) (1) Book value Tangible book value (non-GAAP) (2) Dividends Basic average common shares outstanding Diluted average common shares outstanding Balance sheet data at period end: Assets Investment securities Total loans Allowance for loan losses Goodwill & other intangible assets Non interest bearing deposits Deposits Long-term debt Subordinated debt & trust preferred Stockholders’ equity Tangible stockholders’ equity (non GAAP) (2) Capital ratios at period end: Stockholders’ equity to total assets Tangible common equity to tangible assets (non-GAAP) (3) Tier 1 leverage ratio Tier 1 risk-based ratio Total risk-based capital ratio Dividend payout $ 108,660 11,676 $ 101,949 14,129 $ 97,727 10,316 $ 94,017 8,646 $ 92,116 4,181 96,984 53,465 114,650 87,820 77,874 111,263 35,799 54,431 17,314 $ 37,117 10,425 $ 25,374 87,411 52,711 104,722 35,400 10,190 $ 25,210 85,371 49,326 96,360 87,935 46,003 94,197 38,337 39,741 11,427 $ 26,910 12,381 $ 27,360 1.47 1.47 1.45 23.70 20.09 0.76 17,309,488 17,317,850 2.16 2.15 1.51 23.01 19.36 0.76 17,204,200 17,264,900 1.75 1.74 1.74 21.72 18.07 0.76 14,375,323 14,465,718 1.93 1.91 1.73 20.69 16.16 0.76 13,945,249 14,107,943 1.95 1.92 1.97 19.57 14.97 0.73 14,043,626 14,241,182 3,320,129 697,656 1,737,844 30,108 62,184 532,259 2,650,397 89,898 30,930 407,911 345,727 3,316,432 613,662 1,915,064 26,416 63,068 428,750 2,608,769 133,394 30,930 397,371 334,303 3,093,322 646,915 1,874,989 25,016 62,374 363,154 2,432,172 128,894 30,930 371,247 308,873 2,923,109 646,134 1,933,074 25,841 63,180 334,998 2,336,333 127,741 30,930 288,792 225,612 2,692,447 530,930 1,850,454 25,303 63,987 310,181 2,182,857 51,355 30,930 272,406 208,419 12.29% 11.98% 12.00% 9.88% 10.12% 10.61% 11.86% 21.58% 22.83% 51.70% 10.28% 11.33% 20.05% 21.30% 35.35% 10.19% 11.64% 17.91% 19.17% 43.68% 7.89% 9.15% 13.24% 14.50% 39.79% 7.93% 9.06% 12.43% 13.69% 38.02% 20 Annualized performance ratios: Return on average assets Return on average equity Return on average tangible equity (non-GAAP) (2) (4) Net interest margin (5) Efficiency ratio (6) 0.77% 6.25% 7.54% 3.85% 67.86% 1.19% 9.69% 11.71% 3.78% 65.28% 0.85% 8.26% 10.61% 3.78% 65.69% 0.94% 9.54% 12.54% 3.75% 66.84% 1.03% 10.26% 13.78% 3.96% 64.94% Balance sheet ratios: (7) Nonperforming assets as a percentage of period-end assets Nonperforming loans as a percentage of period-end loans Nonperforming assets as a percentage of period-end loans & OREO Allowance/to nonperforming loans Allowance for loan losses as a percentage of period-end loans Net (recoveries) charge-offs as a percentage of average loans Other data 1.18% 1.12% 1.12% 0.64% 0.51% 1.02% 0.83% 1.35% 0.81% 0.60% 2.44% 186.14% 2.18% 190.17% 1.83% 98.81% 0.96% 165.12% 0.75% 226.10% 1.91% 1.57% 1.33% 1.34% 1.37% 0.49% 0.71% 0.58% 0.43% 0.23% Number of financial centers Number of full time equivalent employees 84 1,083 85 1,075 84 1,091 84 1,123 83 1,128 (1) Diluted core earnings (net income excluding nonrecurring items) is a non-GAAP measure. The following nonrecurring items were excluded in the calculation of diluted core earnings per share (non-GAAP). In 2011, the Company recorded a $0.04 increase in EPS from the sale of MasterCard stock. Also in 2011, the Company recorded a $0.01 decrease in EPS from the closing cost of a branch and a $0.01 EPS decrease from merger related costs from an FDIC-assisted acquisition. In 2010, the Company recorded a net $0.65 increase in EPS from FDIC-assisted acquisitions (bargain purchase gains, merger related costs, gains from disposition of investment securities and costs from disposition of FHLB borrowings). Also in 2010, the Company recorded a $0.01 decrease in EPS from costs to close nine branches. In 2008, the Company recorded a $0.13 increase in EPS from the cash proceeds on a mandatory Visa stock redemption and a $0.05 increase in EPS from the reversal of Visa, Inc.’s litigation expense recorded in 2007. In 2007, the Company recorded a $0.05 reduction in EPS from litigation expense associated with the recognition of certain contingent liabilities related to Visa, Inc.’s litigation. (2) Because of our significant level of intangible assets, total goodwill and core deposit premiums, management believes a useful calculation for investors in their analysis of our Company is tangible book value per share (non-GAAP). This non-GAAP calculation eliminates the effect of goodwill and acquisition related intangible assets and is calculated by subtracting goodwill and intangible assets from total stockholders’ equity, and dividing the resulting number by the common stock outstanding at period end. The following table reflects the reconciliation of this non-GAAP measure to the GAAP presentation of book value for the periods presented above: ($ in thousands, except per share data) 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Years Ended December 31 Stockholders’ equity Less: Intangible assets Goodwill Other intangibles Tangible stockholders’ equity (non-GAAP) Book value per share Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP) Shares outstanding $ 407,911 $ 397,371 $ 371,247 $ 288,792 $ 272,406 60,605 1,579 60,605 3,382 $ 345,727 $ 334,303 $ 308,873 $ 225,612 $ 208,419 60,605 2,463 60,605 2,575 60,605 1,769 23.70 $ 20.09 $ $ $ 17,212,317 23.01 $ 19.36 $ 21.72 $ 18.07 $ 17,271,594 17,093,931 13,960,680 20.69 $ 16.16 $ 19.57 14.97 13,918,368 (3) Tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio is tangible stockholders’ equity (non-GAAP) divided by total assets less goodwill and other intangible assets as and for the periods ended presented above. (4) Return on average tangible equity is a non-GAAP measure that removes the effect of goodwill and intangible assets, as well as the amortization of intangibles, from the return on average equity. This non-GAAP measure is calculated as net income, adjusted for the tax-effected effect of intangibles, divided by average tangible equity. (5) Fully taxable equivalent (assuming an income tax rate of 39.225%). (6) The efficiency ratio is total non-interest expense less foreclosure expense and amortization of intangibles, divided by the sum of net interest income on a fully taxable equivalent basis plus total non-interest income less security gains, net of tax. For the year ended December 31, 2011, this calculation excludes the $1.1 million gain on sale of MasterCard stock. For the year ended December 31, 2010, this calculation excludes the gain on FDIC-assisted transactions of $21.3 million from total non- interest income. For the year ended December 31, 2009, this calculation excludes the FDIC special assessment of $1.4 million from total non-interest expense. For the year ended December 31, 2008, this calculation adds the VISA litigation expense reversal of $1.2 million to total non-interest expense and excludes gain on partial redemption of Visa shares of 21 $3.0 million from total non-interest income. For the year ended December 31, 2007, this calculation excludes VISA litigation expense of $1.2 million from total non-interest expense. (7) Excludes assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements, except for their inclusion in total assets. ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS Critical Accounting Policies Overview We follow accounting and reporting policies that conform, in all material respects, to generally accepted accounting principles and to general practices within the financial services industry. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. While we base estimates on historical experience, current information and other factors deemed to be relevant, actual results could differ from those estimates. We consider accounting estimates to be critical to reported financial results if (i) the accounting estimate requires management to make assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain and (ii) different estimates that management reasonably could have used for the accounting estimate in the current period, or changes in the accounting estimate that are reasonably likely to occur from period to period, could have a material impact on our financial statements. The accounting policies that we view as critical to us are those relating to estimates and judgments regarding (a) the determination of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses, (b) acquisition accounting, (c) the valuation of goodwill and the useful lives applied to intangible assets, (d) the valuation of employee benefit plans and (e) income taxes. Allowance for Loan Losses on Loans Not Covered by Loss Share The allowance for loan losses is established as losses are estimated to have occurred through a provision for loan losses charged to income. Loan losses are charged against the allowance when management believes the uncollectability of a loan balance is confirmed. Subsequent recoveries, if any, are credited to the allowance. The allowance is maintained at a level considered appropriate to provide for potential loan losses related to specifically identified loans as well as probable credit losses inherent in the remainder of the loan portfolio as of period end and at a level considered appropriate in relation to the estimated risk inherent in the loan portfolio. This estimate is based on management's evaluation of the loan portfolio, as well as on prevailing and anticipated economic conditions and historical losses by loan category. General reserves have been established, based upon the aforementioned factors and allocated to the individual loan categories. Allowances are accrued on specific loans evaluated for impairment for which the basis of each loan, including accrued interest, exceeds the discounted amount of expected future collections of interest and principal or, alternatively, the fair value of loan collateral. The unallocated reserve generally serves to compensate for the uncertainty in estimating loan losses, including the possibility of changes in risk ratings and specific reserve allocations in the loan portfolio as a result of our ongoing risk management system. A loan is considered impaired when it is probable that we will not receive all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan. This includes loans that are delinquent 90 days or more, nonaccrual loans and certain other loans identified by management. Certain other loans identified by management consist of performing loans with specific allocations of the allowance for loan losses. Specific allocations are applied when quantifiable factors are present requiring an allocation other than that we established based on our analysis of historical losses for each loan category. Accrual of interest is discontinued and interest accrued and unpaid is removed at the time such amounts are delinquent 90 days unless management is aware of circumstances which warrant continuing the interest accrual. Interest is recognized for nonaccrual loans only upon receipt and only after all principal amounts are current according to the terms of the contract. Acquisition Accounting, Covered Loans and Related Indemnification Asset The Company accounts for its acquisitions under ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations, which requires the use of the purchase method of accounting. All identifiable assets acquired, including loans, are recorded at fair value. No allowance for loan losses related to the acquired loans is recorded on the acquisition date as the fair value of the loans 22 acquired incorporates assumptions regarding credit risk. Loans acquired are recorded at fair value in accordance with the fair value methodology prescribed in ASC Topic 820, exclusive of the shared-loss agreements with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). The fair value estimates associated with the loans include estimates related to expected prepayments and the amount and timing of undiscounted expected principal, interest and other cash flows. Over the life of the acquired loans, the Company continues to estimate cash flows expected to be collected on pools of loans sharing common risk characteristics, which are treated in the aggregate when applying various valuation techniques. The Company evaluates at each balance sheet date whether the present value of its pools of loans determined using the effective interest rates has decreased significantly and if so, recognizes a provision for loan loss in its consolidated statement of income. For any significant increases in cash flows expected to be collected, the Company adjusts the amount of accretable yield recognized on a prospective basis over the pool’s remaining life. Because the FDIC will reimburse the Company for losses incurred on certain acquired loans, an indemnification asset is recorded at fair value at the acquisition date. The indemnification asset is recognized at the same time as the indemnified loans, and measured on the same basis, subject to collectability or contractual limitations. The shared-loss agreements on the acquisition date reflect the reimbursements expected to be received from the FDIC, using an appropriate discount rate, which reflects counterparty credit risk and other uncertainties. The shared-loss agreements continue to be measured on the same basis as the related indemnified loans. Because the acquired loans are subject to the accounting prescribed by ASC Topic 310, subsequent changes to the basis of the shared-loss agreements also follow that model. Deterioration in the credit quality of the loans (immediately recorded as an adjustment to the allowance for loan losses) would immediately increase the basis of the shared-loss agreements, with the offset recorded through the consolidated statement of income. Increases in the credit quality or cash flows of loans (reflected as an adjustment to yield and accreted into income over the remaining life of the loans) decrease the basis of the shared-loss agreements, with such decrease being accreted into income over 1) the same period or 2) the life of the shared-loss agreements, whichever is shorter. Loss assumptions used in the basis of the indemnified loans are consistent with the loss assumptions used to measure the indemnification asset. Fair value accounting incorporates into the fair value of the indemnification asset an element of the time value of money, which is accreted back into income over the life of the shared-loss agreements. Upon the determination of an incurred loss the indemnification asset will be reduced by the amount owed by the FDIC. A corresponding claim receivable is recorded until cash is received from the FDIC. Goodwill and Intangible Assets Goodwill represents the excess of the cost of an acquisition over the fair value of the net assets acquired. Other intangible assets represent purchased assets that also lack physical substance but can be separately distinguished from goodwill because of contractual or other legal rights or because the asset is capable of being sold or exchanged either on its own or in combination with a related contract, asset or liability. We perform an annual goodwill impairment test, and more frequently if circumstances warrant, in accordance with ASC Topic 350, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. ASC Topic 350 requires that goodwill and intangible assets that have indefinite lives be reviewed for impairment annually, or more frequently if certain conditions occur. Impairment losses on recorded goodwill, if any, will be recorded as operating expenses. 23 Employee Benefit Plans We have adopted various stock-based compensation plans. The plans provide for the grant of incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights and bonus stock awards. Pursuant to the plans, shares are reserved for future issuance by the Company upon exercise of stock options or awarding of bonus shares granted to directors, officers and other key employees. In accordance with ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation, the fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model that uses various assumptions. This model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, changes to which can materially affect the fair value estimate. For additional information, see Note 12, Employee Benefit Plans, in the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this report. Income Taxes We are subject to the federal income tax laws of the United States and the tax laws of the states and other jurisdictions where we conduct business. Due to the complexity of these laws, taxpayers and the taxing authorities may subject these laws to different interpretations. Management must make conclusions and estimates about the application of these innately intricate laws, related regulations, and case law. When preparing the Company’s income tax returns, management attempts to make reasonable interpretations of the tax laws. Taxing authorities have the ability to challenge management’s analysis of the tax law or any reinterpretation management makes in its ongoing assessment of facts and the developing case law. Management assesses the reasonableness of its effective tax rate quarterly based on its current estimate of net income and the applicable taxes expected for the full year. On a quarterly basis, management also reviews circumstances and developments in tax law affecting the reasonableness of deferred tax assets and liabilities and reserves for contingent tax liabilities. 2011 Overview Our net income for the year ended December 31, 2011, was $25.4 million, or $1.47 diluted earnings per share, compared to $37.1 million, or $2.15 diluted earnings per share in 2010. Net income in 2009 was $25.2 million, or $1.74 diluted earnings per share. Net income for both 2011 and 2010 included several significant nonrecurring items that impacted net income, mostly related to our FDIC-assisted acquisitions. Excluding all nonrecurring items, core earnings for the year ended December 31, 2011, were $25.0 million, or $1.45 diluted core earnings per share, compared to $26.0 million, or $1.51 diluted core earnings per share in 2010. See Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures and Table 21 – Reconciliation of Core Earnings (non-GAAP) for additional discussion of non-GAAP measures. During the first half of 2011, we recorded a pre-tax gain of $1.1 million on the sale of MasterCard stock. We also recorded pre-tax merger related costs of $0.4 million and branch right sizing expenses of $0.1 million. After-taxes, the combined 2011 nonrecurring items contributed $0.4 million to net income, or $0.02 to diluted earnings per share. On October 15, 2010, we announced that our wholly-owned bank subsidiary, Simmons First National Bank (“SFNB” or the “lead bank”), entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with loss share arrangements with the FDIC to purchase substantially all of the assets and to assume substantially all of the deposits and certain other liabilities of Security Savings Bank, FSB (“SSB”) in Olathe, Kansas. The Company recognized a pre-tax bargain purchase gain of $18.3 million on this transaction and incurred pre-tax merger related costs of $2.0 million. As part of our acquisition strategy, the investment portfolio was liquidated resulting in a pre-tax gain of $317,000. Additionally, in order to utilize some of the Company’s excess liquidity, $58.4 million in FHLB advances were paid off, which resulted in a one-time pre-payment expense of $594,000. After taxes, the combined fourth quarter 2010 nonrecurring items contributed $9.7 million to net income, or $0.56 to diluted earnings per share, for the year ended December 31, 2010. On May 14, 2010, we announced that our wholly-owned bank subsidiary, SFNB, entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with loss share arrangements with the FDIC to purchase substantially all of the assets and to assume substantially all of the deposits and certain other liabilities of Southwest Community Bank (“SWCB”) in Springfield, Missouri. The Company recognized a pre-tax bargain purchase gain of $3.0 million on this transaction and incurred pre-tax merger related costs of $0.4 million. After taxes, these nonrecurring items contributed $1.6 million to net income, or $0.09 to diluted earnings per share, for the year ended December 31, 2010. Also, during the second 24 quarter of 2010, as a result of our branch right sizing initiative, we recorded a one-time, nonrecurring charge of $0.01 to diluted earnings per share. See Efficiency Initiatives below for more information on branch right sizing. Stockholders’ equity as of December 31, 2011, was $407.9 million, an increase of $10.5 million, or approximately 2.65%, from December 31, 2010. Book value per share was $23.70 and tangible book value per share was $20.09. Our ratio of stockholders’ equity to total assets was 12.3% and the ratio of tangible stockholders’ equity to tangible assets was 10.6% at December 30, 2011. The Company’s Tier I leverage ratio of 11.86%, as well as our other regulatory capital ratios, remain significantly above the “well capitalized” levels. See Table 18 – Risk-Based Capital for regulatory capital ratios. Our excess capital positions us to continue to take advantage of unprecedented acquisition opportunities through FDIC-assisted transactions of failed banks. We continue to actively pursue the right opportunities that meet our strategic plan regarding mergers and acquisitions. As with our history, we will continue to be very deliberate and disciplined in these acquisition opportunities. Total loans, including loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, were $1.7 billion at December 31, 2011, a decrease of $177 million, or 9.3%, from the same period in 2010. In our legacy portfolio, we experienced a decrease of $104 million, or 6.2%, compared to December 31, 2010. Additionally, like the rest of the industry, we continue to experience weak loan demand as a result of the overall general economic environment. We believe loan demand is likely to remain soft through the first quarter of 2012, but we are becoming more optimistic relative to improved loan demand in the last half of 2012. Loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, which provide 80% Government guaranteed protection against credit risk on those covered assets, were $158 million at December 31, 2011, compared to $232 million at December 31, 2010. Although the general state of the national economy has shown signs of improvement, it remains somewhat unsettled. Also, despite continued challenges in the Northwest Arkansas region, overall, we continue to have good asset quality, compared to the rest of the industry. The allowance for loan losses as a percent of total loans was 1.91% at December 31, 2011. Non-performing loans equaled 1.02% of total loans. Non-performing assets were 1.18% of total assets. The allowance for loan losses was 186.14% of non-performing loans. The Company’s net charge-offs for 2011 were 0.49% of total loans. Excluding credit cards, net charge-offs for 2011 were 0.30% of total loans. Total assets at December 31, 2011, were $3.3 billion, an increase of $3.7 million, or 0.11%, over the period ended December 31, 2010. Simmons First National Corporation is an Arkansas based financial holding company with $3.3 billion in assets and eight community banks in Pine Bluff, Lake Village, Jonesboro, Rogers, Searcy, Russellville, El Dorado and Hot Springs, Arkansas. Including one office in Missouri and nine offices in Kansas acquired in 2010 through FDIC- assisted transactions, our eight subsidiary banks conduct financial operations from 88 offices, of which 84 are financial centers, in 47 communities in Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas. Efficiency Initiatives We previously reported that we hired a consultant to help us identify and implement revenue enhancements, process improvements and branch staff level adjustments. We are in the final stages of implementation and expect to be fully complete in 2012. We estimate a total annual benefit from the efficiency initiative of approximately $5 million before tax, with a phase-in period from 2010 through 2012. A portion of the benefit is projected from revenue enhancements, with the remainder from non-interest expense savings. We assured our associates that no one would lose their job as a result of this initiative, as all positions impacted are being eliminated through attrition. During June 2010, as scheduled as part of our branch right sizing initiative, and after much deliberation and analysis, we closed or consolidated nine financial centers, primarily smaller branches in rural areas. During June 2011, we closed another small branch. We believe most of the customers have been absorbed into other Simmons locations in close proximity to the closed branches. After the closings, we now have 74 financial centers in Arkansas, still one of the best footprints in the state. As a result of these closings, we recorded a one-time, nonrecurring pre-tax charge of $372,000, or $0.01 to diluted earnings per share in 2010, and $141,000 in 2011. Again, staff reductions are being realized through attrition and associates at the affected branches have been reassigned to other locations. Our branch right sizing initiative has been under way for some time. Over the last several years we have added numerous new financial centers, closed several and relocated others. We will continue our efforts to manage our product delivery system in the most efficient manner possible. 25 Both our efficiency and branch right sizing initiatives resulted in significant cost savings and staff reductions. Since the beginning of both projects in early 2009, our staffing levels are down 144 headcount. As mentioned earlier, all of the staffing reduction is being realized through attrition, and no associate has lost their job. Net Interest Income Net interest income, our principal source of earnings, is the difference between the interest income generated by earning assets and the total interest cost of the deposits and borrowings obtained to fund those assets. Factors that determine the level of net interest income include the volume of earning assets and interest bearing liabilities, yields earned and rates paid, the level of non-performing loans and the amount of non-interest bearing liabilities supporting earning assets. Net interest income is analyzed in the discussion and tables below on a fully taxable equivalent basis. The adjustment to convert certain income to a fully taxable equivalent basis consists of dividing tax-exempt income by one minus the combined federal and state income tax rate of 39.225%. The Federal Reserve Board sets various benchmark rates, including the Federal Funds rate, and thereby influences the general market rates of interest, including the deposit and loan rates offered by financial institutions. Our loan portfolio is significantly affected by changes in the prime interest rate. The prime interest rate, which is the rate offered on loans to borrowers with strong credit, began 2008 at 7.25% and decreased 200 basis points in the first quarter, 25 basis points in the second quarter and another 175 basis points in the fourth quarter to end the year at 3.25%. The prime interest rate has remained unchanged at 3.25% since December 16, 2008. The Federal Funds rate, which is the cost to banks of immediately available overnight funds, began 2008 at 4.25%. During 2008, the Federal Funds rate decreased 200 basis points in the first quarter, 25 basis points in the second quarter and another 175-200 basis points in the fourth quarter to end the year at 0.00% - 0.25%. The Federal Funds rate has remained unchanged since December 16, 2008. Our practice is to limit exposure to interest rate movements by maintaining a significant portion of earning assets and interest bearing liabilities in short-term repricing. Historically, approximately 70% of our loan portfolio and approximately 80% of our time deposits have repriced in one year or less. These historical percentages are consistent with our current interest rate sensitivity. For the year ended December 31, 2011, net interest income on a fully taxable equivalent basis was $113.6 million, an increase of $6.7 million, or 6.2%, from the same period in 2010. The increase in net interest income was the result of a $6.6 million decrease in interest expense and a $0.1 million increase in interest income. The $6.6 million decrease in interest expense for 2011 was primarily the result of a 29 basis point decrease in cost of funds due to competitive repricing during a low interest rate environment, coupled with a shift in our mix of interest bearing deposits. The lower interest rates accounted for an $5.9 million decrease in interest expense. The most significant component of this decrease was the $3.1 million decrease associated with the repricing of our time deposits that resulted from time deposits that matured during the period or were tied to a rate that fluctuated with changes in market rates. Historically, approximately 80% of our time deposits reprice in one year or less. As a result, the average rate paid on time deposits decreased 34 basis points from 1.58% to 1.24%. Lower rates on interest bearing transaction and savings accounts resulted in an additional $1.8 million decrease in interest expense, with the average rate decreasing by 14 basis points from 0.44% to 0.30%. Another $1.5 million decrease in interest expense resulted from the 2011 conversion of $10.3 million in trust preferred securities from a fixed rate of 6.97% to a floating rate of 2.80% above the three month LIBOR rate. Another decrease for 2011 resulted from a $0.6 million one-time pre-payment expense recorded in 2010 from the pay-off of $58.4 million in FHLB advances related to the SSB FDIC-assisted transaction. As part of our acquisition strategy, we decided to pay-off these advances in order to utilize some of the Company’s excess liquidity. Additional scheduled payoffs of FHLB borrowings caused a $0.8 million decrease in interest expense, with a $0.2 million increase due to deposit growth. The $0.1 million increase in interest income for 2011 can be attributed to our FDIC-assisted acquisitions in 2010, as the acquired covered loans generated an additional $12.9 million of interest income in 2011 over 2010. The declining balance of the legacy loan portfolio, which excludes loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, caused a $10.6 million decrease in interest income. Another $2.4 million decrease in interest income resulted from a 35 basis point decline in the yield on investment securities. Of the $12.9 million increase in interest income from covered loans, $8.6 million was due to higher average balances in 2011 over 2010, as the majority of the covered loans were acquired during the fourth quarter of 2010. The remaining 26 $4.3 million increase in interest income was the result of higher average yields on the covered loans in 2011. The average yield on covered loans increased from 5.26% in 2010 to 8.90% in 2011. A portion of the yield increase was due to additional yield accretion recognized in conjunction with the fair value of the loan pools acquired in the 2010 FDIC-assisted transactions as discussed in Note 2 and Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Each quarter, we estimate the cash flows expected to be collected from the acquired loan pools. During the fourth quarter of 2011, this cash flows estimate increased based on the payment histories and reduced loss expectations of the loan pools, resulting in a total of $23.7 million of adjustments to be spread on a level-yield basis over the remaining expected lives of the loan pools. The increases in expected cash flows also reduced the amount of expected reimbursements under the loss sharing agreements with the FDIC, which are recorded as indemnification assets. The expected indemnification assets have also been reduced during the fourth quarter of 2011, resulting in a total of $20.9 million of adjustments to be amortized on a level-yield basis over the remainder of the loss sharing agreements or the remaining expected life of the loan pools, whichever is shorter. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the adjustments increased interest income by $1.1 million and decreased non- interest income by $1.0 million. The net impact to pre-tax income was $146,000 for 2011. Because these adjustments will be recognized over the estimated remaining lives of the loan pools and the remainder of the loss sharing agreements, respectively, they will impact future periods as well. The current estimate of the remaining accretable yield adjustment that will positively impact interest income is $22.6 million and the remaining adjustment to the indemnification assets that will reduce non-interest income is $19.9 million. Of the remaining adjustments, we expect to recognize $11.0 million of interest income and a $9.7 million reduction of non-interest income during 2012. The accretable yield adjustments recorded in future periods will change as we continue to evaluate expected cash flows from the acquired loan pools. Our net interest margin was 3.85% for the year ended December 31, 2011, up 7 basis points from 2010. Although we have seen an increase in margin from 2010, our margin remains compacted primarily due to two factors. First, while keeping us prepared to benefit from rising interest rates, our high levels of liquidity are holding the margin down. Also, margin is impacted by our drop in legacy loan balances. The increase in margin in 2011 was primarily due to covered loans acquired through acquisitions. The accretable yield adjustment discussed above accounted for 4 basis points of the increase, while the remainder of the increase was due to a higher yield on acquired covered loans compared to the yield on loans in our legacy portfolio. Based on our current interest rate risk pricing model, we anticipate a slight margin expansion in 2012 due to the impact of our FDIC-assisted acquisitions. Our net interest margin was 3.78% for the year ended December 31, 2010, unchanged from same period in 2009. 27 Tables 1 and 2 reflect an analysis of net interest income on a fully taxable equivalent basis for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, as well as changes in fully taxable equivalent net interest margin for the years 2011 versus 2010 and 2010 versus 2009. Table 1: (FTE =Fully Taxable Equivalent) Analysis of Net Interest Income (In thousands) Interest income FTE adjustment Interest income - FTE Interest expense Years Ended December 31 2010 2009 2011 $ 129,056 4,970 $ 128,955 5,012 $ 136,533 4,935 134,026 20,396 133,967 27,006 141,468 38,806 Net interest income - FTE $ 113,630 $ 106,961 $ 102,662 Yield on earning assets - FTE Cost of interest bearing liabilities Net interest spread - FTE Net interest margin - FTE 4.54% 0.86% 3.68% 3.85% 4.74% 1.15% 3.59% 3.78% 5.21% 1.69% 3.52% 3.78% Table 2: Changes in Fully Taxable Equivalent Net Interest Margin (In thousands) Decrease due to change in earning assets Increase (decrease) due to change in earning asset yields Increase due to change in interest rates paid on interest bearing liabilities Increase due to change in interest bearing liabilities Increase in net interest income 2011 vs. 2010 2010 vs. 2009 $ (1,877) 1,936 $ (2,062) (5,439) 5,946 664 11,013 787 $ 6,669 $ 4,299 28 Table 3 shows, for each major category of earning assets and interest bearing liabilities, the average (computed on a daily basis) amount outstanding, the interest earned or expensed on such amount and the average rate earned or expensed for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011. The table also shows the average rate earned on all earning assets, the average rate expensed on all interest bearing liabilities, the net interest spread and the net interest margin for the same periods. The analysis is presented on a fully taxable equivalent basis. Nonaccrual loans were included in average loans for the purpose of calculating the rate earned on total loans. Table 3: Average Balance Sheets and Net Interest Income Analysis (In thousands) ASSETS Earning Assets Interest bearing balances due from banks Federal funds sold Investment securities - taxable Investment securities - non-taxable Mortgage loans held for sale Assets held in trading accounts Loans not covered by loss share agreements Loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements Total interest earning assets Non-earning assets Total assets LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY Liabilities Interest bearing liabilities Interest bearing transaction and savings deposits Time deposits Total interest bearing deposits Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase Other borrowed funds Short-term debt (1) Long-term debt Total interest bearing liabilities Non-interest bearing liabilities Non-interest bearing deposits Other liabilities Total liabilities Stockholders’ equity Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity Net interest spread Net interest margin 2011 Years Ended December 31 2010 Average Balance Income/ Yield/ Expense Rate(%) Average Balance Income/ Yield/ Expense Rate(%) 2009 Income/ Yield/ Average Balance Expense Rate(%) $ 486,274 $ 1,100 6 6,719 12,784 503 33 886 426,226 207,929 11,953 7,466 0.23 $ 0.68 1.58 6.15 4.21 0.44 273,001 $ 1,686 440,379 206,832 16,762 7,278 721 15 8,951 13,211 715 30 0.26 $ 0.89 2.03 6.39 4.27 0.41 120,763 $ 4,271 448,918 196,446 12,428 6,187 439 27 13,896 12,632 608 20 0.36 0.63 3.10 6.43 4.89 0.32 1,621,251 95,763 5.91 1,800,868 106,120 5.89 1,924,317 113,846 5.92 192,300 2,954,285 330,342 $ 3,284,627 17,118 134,026 8.90 4.54 79,912 2,826,718 307,143 $ 3,133,861 4,204 133,967 5.26 4.74 -- -- 2,713,330 141,468 -- 5.21 251,282 $ 2,964,612 $ 1,217,218 $ 3,611 11,314 14,925 913,009 2,130,227 0.30 $ 1,181,597 $ 5,227 14,310 1.24 19,537 0.70 907,146 2,088,743 0.44 $ 1,091,960 $ 8,252 939,358 22,794 1.58 31,046 0.94 2,031,318 0.76 2.43 1.53 103,557 450 0.43 101,918 532 0.52 107,975 769 0.71 667 127,577 2,362,028 51 4,970 20,396 7.65 3.90 0.86 3,135 147,042 2,340,838 58 6,879 27,006 1.85 4.68 1.15 2,583 160,963 33 6,958 2,302,839 38,806 1.28 4.32 1.69 482,651 33,855 2,878,534 406,093 375,941 33,941 2,750,720 383,141 332,998 23,565 2,659,402 305,210 $ 3,284,627 $ 3,133,861 $ 2,964,612 $ 113,630 3.68 3.85 $ 106,961 3.59 3.78 $ 102,662 3.52 3.78 (1) Interest expense on short-term debt includes fees related to an open line of credit from the FHLB. Because the average balance of short-term debt was so low in 2011, the fees caused a significant increase to the 2011 rate. 29 Table 4: Volume/Rate Analysis (In thousands, on a fully taxable equivalent basis) Increase (decrease) in Interest income Interest bearing balances due from banks Federal funds sold Investment securities - taxable Investment securities - non-taxable Mortgage loans held for sale Assets held in trading accounts Loans not covered by loss share Loans covered by FDIC loss Years Ended December 31 2011 over 2010 Yield/ Rate Volume Total 2010 over 2009 Yield/ Rate Volume Total $ 495 $ (6) (280) 70 (202) 1 (10,609) (116) $ 379 (9) (2,232) (427) (212) 3 (10,357) (3) (1,952) (497) (10) 2 252 $ 429 (20) (259) 664 192 4 (7,276) $ (147) $ 282 (12) (4,945) 579 107 10 (7,726) 8 (4,686) (85) (85) 6 (450) share agreements 8,654 4,260 12,914 4,204 -- 4,204 Total (1,877) 1,936 59 (2,062) (5,439) (7,501) Interest expense Interest bearing transaction and savings accounts Time deposits Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase Other borrowed funds Short-term debt Long-term debt Total Increase (decrease) in net interest income Provision for Loan Losses 154 91 (1,770) (3,087) (1,616) (2,996) 631 (758) (3,656) (7,726) (3,025) (8,484) 9 (91) (82) (41) (196) (237) (75) (843) 68 (1,066) (7) (1,909) 8 (627) 17 548 25 (79) (664) (5,946) (6,610) (787) (11,013) (11,800) $ (1,213) $ 7,882 $ 6,669 $ (1,275) $5,574 $ 4,299 The provision for loan losses represents management's determination of the amount necessary to be charged against the current period's earnings in order to maintain the allowance for loan losses at a level considered appropriate in relation to the estimated risk inherent in the loan portfolio. The level of provision to the allowance is based on management's judgment, with consideration given to the composition, maturity and other qualitative characteristics of the portfolio, historical loan loss experience, assessment of current economic conditions, past due and non-performing loans and net loan loss experience. It is management's practice to review the allowance on at least a quarterly basis, but generally on a monthly basis, and, after considering the factors previously noted, to determine the level of provision made to the allowance. The provision for loan losses for 2011, 2010 and 2009, was $11.7 million, $14.1 million and $10.3 million, respectively. During 2011, we decreased our provision by approximately $2.5 million, primarily due to a decrease from 2010 in net loan charge-offs. However, we did add a special $500,000 provision during the second quarter of 2011, as we believe there remain many economic and financial factors, including the many uncertainties related to our national debt, spending and taxes that have recently consumed the news, that necessitate the need for a higher level of unallocated reserve, resulting in a higher level of provision. See Allowance for Loan Losses section for additional information. 30 During 2010, we increased our provision by approximately $3.8 million, primarily due to an increase in net loan charge-offs. Management also determined that there were several economic and environmental factors that necessitated the need for a higher level of unallocated reserve, resulting in a higher level of provision. Non-Interest Income Total non-interest income was $53.5 million in 2011, compared to $77.9 million in 2010 and $52.7 million in 2009. Non-interest income for 2011 decreased $24.4 million, or 31.3%, from 2010. The most significant factor for the decrease was the nonrecurring $21.3 million gain on the FDIC-assisted transactions in 2010. Another nonrecurring item was the $317,000 gain on sale of securities related from the liquidation of the SSB investment portfolio. See 2011 Overview section for more discussion of the FDIC-assisted transactions. The decrease in non-interest income was partially offset by a nonrecurring $1.1 million gain from the sale of MasterCard stock in the second quarter of 2011 (see further discussion below). Normalizing for these nonrecurring items, core non-interest income for 2011 was down 6.9% from 2010. Non-interest income is principally derived from recurring fee income, which includes service charges, trust fees and credit card fees. Non-interest income also includes income on the sale of mortgage loans, investment banking income, premiums on sale of student loans, income from the increase in cash surrender values of bank owned life insurance, gains (losses) from sales of securities and gains (losses) related to FDIC-assisted transactions and covered assets. Table 5 shows non-interest income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, as well as changes in 2011 from 2010 and in 2010 from 2009. Table 5: Non-Interest Income (In thousands) Trust income Service charges on deposit accounts Other service charges and fees Income on sale of mortgage loans, net of commissions Income on investment banking, net of commissions Credit card fees Premiums on sale of student loans Bank owned life insurance income Gain on FDIC-assisted transactions Net gain (loss) on assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements Other income Gain on sale of securities, net Total non-interest income Years Ended December 31 2009 2010 2011 2011 Change from 2010 2010 Change from 2009 $ 5,375 $ 16,808 2,980 5,179 $ 5,227 $ 17,700 2,812 17,944 2,668 196 (892) 168 3.78% $ -5.04 5.97 (48) (244) 144 -0.92% -1.36 5.40 4,188 4,810 4,032 (622) -12.93 778 19.30 1,478 16,828 -- 1,481 -- 2,236 16,140 2,524 1,670 21,314 2,153 14,392 2,333 1,270 -- (758) -33.90 4.26 688 (2,524) -100.00 (189) -11.32 (21,314) -100.00 83 1,748 191 400 21,314 3.86 12.15 8.19 31.50 -- 154 4,173 -- 318 306 173 $ 53,465 $ 77,874 $ 52,711 $ (24,409) -31.34% $ 25,163 (164) -51.57 46.22 (317) -100.00 318 2,854 317 -- 2,548 144 1,319 100.00 12.01 120.14 47.74% Recurring fee income for 2011 was $42.0 million, an increase of $160,000, or 0.4%, when compared with the 2010 amounts. Service charges on deposits accounts decreased by $892,000 primarily due to a significant decline in fee income as a result of recent regulatory changes related to overdrafts on point-of-sale transactions. Credit card fees increased $688,000 due primarily to a higher volume of credit and debit card transactions. In July, the Federal Reserve released final rules regarding debit card fee income under the Durbin amendment. While the Durbin amendment only applies to banks of $10 billion or more in size, we have consistently indicated that we believe all banks will ultimately be negatively impacted. In fact, we continue to estimate the potential negative impact to our institution, going forward, to be approximately $600,000 annually. Recurring fee income for 2010 was $41.8 million, an increase of $1.6 million, or 4.0%, when compared with the 2009 amounts. Credit card fees increased $1.7 million, primarily due to a higher volume of credit and debit card transactions, with the credit card volume increase a direct result of the addition of new credit card accounts in 2007 through 2009. 31 Income on sale of mortgage loans decreased by $622,000, or 12.9%, in 2011 compared to 2010 , due to the significant industry-wide slowdown of financing and refinancing. Income on sale of mortgage loans increased by $778,000, or 19.3%, in 2010 compared to 2009. The majority of the increase resulted from the sale of mortgage loans in Kansas from our SSB transaction, with the remainder primarily due to lower mortgage rates producing an increase in residential refinancing volume. Income on investment banking decreased by $758,000, or 33.9%, in 2011 compared to 2010, due in part to an industry- wide decline in dealer-bank activities. Another factor in the decrease was a favorable mark-to-market adjustment on trading investment during 2010, with unfavorable adjustments in 2011. As expected, premiums on sale of student loans decreased by $2.5 million, or 100.0%, for the year ended December 31, 2011, compared to 2010. U.S. government legislation has eliminated the private sector from providing student loans after the 2009-2010 school year. Therefore, we had no student loan sales during 2011. Premiums on sale of student loans increased by $191,000, or 8.2%, for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to 2009. The increase was due to a higher volume of loan sales in 2010. During the second and third quarters of 2010, we sold the balance of our loans that were originated for the 2009-2010 school year, approximately $65 million of student loans, to the government, resulting in premiums of approximately $2.5 million. We currently plan to continue servicing the remaining student loans internally until the loans pay off, we find a suitable buyer or the students consolidate their loans. Unless we do find a suitable buyer, we do not expect to receive income from premiums on sale of student loans during 2012 or thereafter. See Loan Portfolio section for additional information on student loans. Net gain (loss) on assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements decreased by $164,000 in 2011 compared to 2010. Although the amount of the net change is not significant, there are considerable changes from 2010 to 2011 in the components. First, we recognized $1.2 million of income from the accretion of the FDIC indemnification assets, net of amortization of the FDIC true-up liability, during 2011, compared to $0.3 million during 2010. Because the SSB acquisition came in October 2010, only a small amount of income was recorded in 2010, with a full year of accretion in 2011. Also, 2011 included $40,000 of gains from the sale of covered foreclosed assets, with no gains in 2010. Finally, as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, due to the increase in cash flows expected to be collected from the FDIC-covered loan portfolios, $978,000 of amortization, a reduction of non-interest income, was recorded in 2011 relating to reductions of expected reimbursements under the loss sharing agreements with the FDIC, which are recorded as indemnification assets. There was no amortization adjustment recorded in 2010 relating to reductions of expected reimbursements under the loss sharing agreements with the FDIC. Other non-interest income for 2011 increased by $1.3 million over 2010, primarily due to a $1.1 million gain from the sale of MasterCard stock in the second quarter of 2011. On May 31, 2006, MasterCard Incorporated completed its Initial Public Offering (“IPO”). As a part of the IPO, approximately 41% of the equity was issued to member-banks as Class B common stock. Conversion of Class B shares to Class A shares was restricted as to the timing and number of shares eligible until the fourth anniversary of the IPO. As a member-bank the Company received 4,077 shares of MasterCard Class B stock. As there was no market or readily ascertainable fair market value for the class B shares, they were recorded with no basis value. On May 31, 2010, restrictions on the conversion of the Class B shares to Class A shares expired, permitting Class B stockholders to convert Class B shares into an equal number of Class A shares for prompt disposition to the public. On May 13, 2011, the Company applied for conversion of its Class B shares to Class A common stock and recorded a $1.1 million pre-tax gain upon conversion approval by MasterCard Incorporated and immediately sold the Class A shares. We recorded no gains or losses on sale of securities during 2011. As part of our acquisition strategy related to SSB, we liquidated the acquired investment portfolio, resulting in net realized gain of $317,000 in 2010. We recorded $144,000 of securities gains in 2009. Non-Interest Expense Non-interest expense consists of salaries and employee benefits, occupancy, equipment, foreclosure losses and other expenses necessary for the operation of the Company. Management remains committed to controlling the level of non- interest expense through the continued use of expense control measures that have been installed. We utilize an extensive profit planning and reporting system involving all subsidiaries. Based on a needs assessment of the business plan for the upcoming year, monthly and annual profit plans are developed, including manpower and capital 32 expenditure budgets. These profit plans are subject to extensive initial reviews and monitored by management on a monthly basis. Variances from the plan are reviewed monthly and, when required, management takes corrective action intended to ensure financial goals are met. We also regularly monitor staffing levels at each affiliate to ensure productivity and overhead are in line with existing workload requirements. Non-interest expense for 2011 was $114.7 million, an increase of $3.4 million or 3.0%, from 2010. This increase includes approximately $5.7 million of incremental normal operating expenses in 2011 for our FDIC-assisted acquisitions of 2010. Also included in non-interest expense are merger related costs of $0.4 million and $2.6 million in 2011 and 2010, respectively. Normalizing for these incremental operating expenses, merger related costs and other nonrecurring items, non-interest expense decreased by 0.2% in 2011 from 2010. This decrease is the result of the implementation of our efficiency initiatives. See the Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures section for details of the nonrecurring items. Also see the section titled Efficiency Initiatives in the 2011 Overview for additional information. Non-interest expense for 2010 was $111.3 million, an increase of $6.6 million or 6.3%, from 2009. This increase includes $2.6 million of merger related costs and approximately $3.0 million of normal operating expense at our two new FDIC-assisted acquisitions. Normalizing for these expenses, as well as for $372,000 of one-time nonrecurring costs associated with our branch closings in 2010, non-interest expense increased by 0.6% in 2010 over 2009. This modest increase was the result of the implementation of our efficiency initiatives. See the section titled Efficiency Initiatives in the 2010 Overview for additional information. Deposit insurance expense during 2011 decreased to $2.4 million from $3.8 million in 2010, a decrease of $1.4 million, or 37.4%. The decrease was primarily due to a decrease in deposit insurance premiums resulting from changes in the FDIC’s assessment base and rates. Deposit insurance expense during 2010 decreased to $3.8 million from $4.6 million in 2009, a decrease of $829,000, or 17.9%. The decrease in deposit insurance expense was due to the June 30, 2009, FDIC special assessment, partially offset by increases in the fee assessment rates during 2010. In May 2009, the FDIC issued a final rule which levied a special assessment applicable to all insured depository institutions totaling 5 basis points of each institution’s total assets less Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009. The special assessment, collected by the FDIC on September 30, 2009, is part of the FDIC’s efforts to rebuild the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”). Deposit insurance expense during 2009 included $1.5 million related to the special assessment. Fees paid for professional services increased by $98,000, or 2.2%, in 2011 over 2010, as we were in the second of three years of increased professional fees related to our ongoing efficiency initiatives. Fees paid for professional services increased by $833,000, or 22.9%, in 2010 over 2009. The increase in professional services, which consist of audit, accounting, legal and consulting fees, was primarily due to costs associated with our ongoing efficiency initiatives, which began to positively impact earnings in 2010 and 2011, and we expect to produce significant savings and revenue enhancements in 2012 and beyond. See Item 1. Business – Efficiency Initiatives for additional information on our efficiency initiatives. Credit card expense for 2011 increased $726,000, or 12.4%, from 2010, following an increase of $788,000, or 15.6%, in 2010. These increases were primarily due to increased card usage, interchange fees and other related expense resulting from initiatives we have taken to grow our credit card portfolio. See Loan Portfolio section for additional information on our credit card portfolio. Core deposit premium amortization expense recorded for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, was $884,000, $786,000 and $805,000, respectively. The Company’s estimated amortization expense for each of the following five years is: 2012 – $295,000; 2013 – $261,000; 2014 – $157,000; 2015 – $151,000; and 2016 – $148,000. The estimated amortization expense decreases as core deposit premiums fully amortize in future years. 33 Table 6 below shows non-interest expense for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, as well as changes in 2011 from 2010 and in 2010 from 2009. Table 6: Non-Interest Expense (In thousands) Salaries and employee benefits Occupancy expense, net Furniture and equipment expense Other real estate and foreclosure expense Deposit insurance Merger related costs Other operating expenses Professional services Postage Telephone Credit card expense Operating supplies Amortization of core deposits Other expense Years Ended December 31 2009 2010 2011 2011 Change from 2010 2010 Change from 2009 $ 65,058 $ 60,731 $ 58,317 7,457 6,195 7,808 6,093 8,443 6,633 $ 4,327 635 540 7.12% $ 2,414 351 8.13 (102) 8.86 4.14% 4.71 -1.65 678 2,387 357 974 3,813 2,611 453 4,642 -- (296) (1,426) (2,254) -30.39 -37.40 -86.33 521 (829) 2,611 115.01 -17.86 -- 4,574 2,486 2,480 6,565 1,653 884 12,452 4,476 2,465 2,328 5,839 1,403 786 11,936 3,643 2,409 2,113 5,051 1,470 805 12,167 98 21 152 726 250 98 516 2.19 0.85 6.53 12.43 17.82 12.47 4.32 833 56 215 788 (67) (19) (231) 22.87 2.32 10.18 15.60 -4.56 -2.36 -1.90 Total non-interest expense $ 114,650 $ 111,263 $ 104,722 $ 3,387 3.04% $ 6,541 6.25% Income Taxes The provision for income taxes for 2011 was $10.4 million, compared to $17.3 million in 2010 and $10.2 million in 2009. The effective income tax rates for the years ended 2011, 2010 and 2009 were 29.1%, 31.8% and 28.8%, respectively. Loan Portfolio Our loan portfolio, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share arrangements, averaged $1.621 billion during 2011 and $1.801 billion during 2010. As of December 31, 2011, total loans, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share arrangements, were $1.580 billion, compared to $1.684 billion on December 31, 2010. The most significant components of the loan portfolio were loans to businesses (commercial loans, commercial real estate loans and agricultural loans) and individuals (consumer loans, credit card loans and single-family residential real estate loans). We seek to manage our credit risk by diversifying the loan portfolio, determining that borrowers have adequate sources of cash flow for loan repayment without liquidation of collateral, obtaining and monitoring collateral, providing an appropriate allowance for loan losses and regularly reviewing loans through the internal loan review process. The loan portfolio is diversified by borrower, purpose and industry and, in the case of credit card loans, which are unsecured, by geographic region. We seek to use diversification within the loan portfolio to reduce credit risk, thereby minimizing the adverse impact on the portfolio, if weaknesses develop in either the economy or a particular segment of borrowers. Collateral requirements are based on credit assessments of borrowers and may be used to recover the debt in case of default. We use the allowance for loan losses as a method to value the loan portfolio at its estimated collectable amount. Loans are regularly reviewed to facilitate the identification and monitoring of deteriorating credits. Consumer loans consist of credit card loans, student loans and other consumer loans. Consumer loans were $346.6 million at December 31, 2011, or 21.9% of total loans, compared to $370.2 million, or 22.0% of total loans at December 31, 2010. The $23.6 million consumer loan decrease from 2010 to 2011 is primarily due to a $13.9 million decrease in our student loan portfolio, as expected. The balance of our consumer loan portfolio decreased by $9.7 million, with declines in both our direct and indirect lending areas. The student loan portfolio balance at December 31, 2011 was $47.4 million, a decrease of $13.9 million, or 22.7%, from December 31, 2010. Student loans were 3.0% of total loans at December 31, 2011, compared with 3.6% at December 31, 2010 and 6.1% at December 31, 2009. 34 Simmons First had been in the student loan business since 1966, and we believe that the banking industry had been very efficient in serving the students and the schools in Arkansas. However, U.S. government legislation finalized during the first quarter of 2010 has eliminated the private sector from providing student loans after the 2009-2010 school year. Therefore, as of June 30, 2010, the Company and the banking industry were no longer providers of student loans. As for our current student loan portfolio, we have sold the loans we originated during the 2009-2010 school year under the program established in 2008 in which the government will purchase the loans at par plus a premium. Sales of these loans during the third quarter of 2010 left approximately $61.3 million of student loans in our portfolio that will not qualify for the government purchase program, down $53.0 million, or 46.4%, from December 31, 2009. Payoffs and consolidations have left approximately $47.4 million of student loans in our portfolio at December 31, 2011. We currently plan to continue servicing the remaining student loans internally until the loans pay off, we find a suitable buyer or the students consolidate their loans. See Non-Interest Income section for additional information on student loans. The credit card portfolio balance at December 31, 2011, decreased by $359,000, or 0.2%, when compared to the same period in 2010. After several years of significant growth, including a $19.5 million, or 11.5% increase during 2009, growth in the credit card portfolio stabilized during 2010 and 2011. After five consecutive years of growth, we did not see a large increase in net new accounts in 2010 or 2011, due primarily to increased competition from the large credit card banks. The growth in outstanding credit card balances in recent years through 2009 was primarily the result of an increase in net new accounts. We added over 15,000 net new accounts in 2009 and over 5,000 net new accounts in 2008. We believe the increase in outstanding balances and the addition of new accounts were the result of the introduction of several initiatives over the past few years to make our credit card products more competitive, while maintaining extremely high underwriting standards. Real estate loans consist of construction loans, single family residential loans and commercial loans. Real estate loans were $1.001 billion at December 31, 2011, or 63.4% of total loans, compared to $1.067 billion, or 63.4% of total loans at December 31, 2010, a decrease of $65.3 million, or 6.1%. Our construction and development (“C&D”) loans decreased by $43.9 million, with loans either migrating to our commercial real estate (“CRE”) portfolio or being liquidated or refinanced elsewhere. Single family residential loans decreased by $9.3 million and CRE loans decreased by $12.0 million. Considering the continuing challenges in the economy, we believe it is important to note that we have no significant concentrations in our real estate loan portfolio mix. Our C&D loans represent only 7.0% of our loan portfolio and CRE loans (excluding C&D) represent 34.0% of our loan portfolio, both of which compare very favorably to our peers. Commercial loans consist of commercial loans and agricultural loans. Commercial loans were $227.2 million at December 31, 2011, or 14.4% of total loans, compared to the $236.7 million, or 14.1% of total loans at December 31, 2010. This $9.5 million decrease in commercial loans is primarily due to weak loan demand throughout Arkansas, Kansas and southern Missouri. 35 The balances of loans outstanding, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, at the indicated dates are reflected in table 7, according to type of loan. Table 7: Loan Portfolio (In thousands) Consumer Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real Estate Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other 2011 Years Ended December 31 2009 2008 2010 2007 $ 189,970 $ 190,329 $ 189,154 $ 169,615 $ 166,044 76,277 137,624 379,945 61,305 118,581 370,215 47,419 109,211 346,600 111,584 138,145 419,344 114,296 139,647 443,097 109,825 355,094 536,372 1,001,291 153,772 364,442 548,360 1,066,574 180,759 392,208 596,517 1,169,484 224,924 409,540 584,843 1,219,307 260,924 382,676 542,184 1,185,784 141,422 85,728 227,150 4,728 150,501 86,171 236,672 10,003 172,091 84,866 256,957 5,451 195,967 88,233 284,200 10,223 200,531 73,470 274,001 10,724 Total loans $ 1,579,769 $ 1,683,464 $ 1,874,989 $ 1,933,074 $ 1,850,454 Table 8 reflects the remaining maturities and interest rate sensitivity of loans, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, at December 31, 2011. Table 8: Maturity and Interest Rate Sensitivity of Loans (In thousands) Consumer Real estate Commercial Other Total Predetermined rate Floating rate Total Covered Assets Over 1 year through 5 years 1 year or less Over 5 years Total $ 299,346 635,863 178,519 4,032 $ 47,184 357,704 48,246 552 $ 70 7,725 385 143 $ 346,600 1,001,292 227,150 4,727 $ 1,117,760 $ 453,686 $ 8,323 $ 1,579,769 $ 603,030 514,730 $ 412,895 40,791 $ 4,004 4,319 $ 1,019,929 559,840 $ 1,117,760 $ 453,686 $ 8,323 $ 1,579,769 On May 14, 2010, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed substantially all of the deposits and certain other liabilities of SWCB in an FDIC-assisted transaction that generated a pre-tax bargain-purchase gain of $3.0 million. On October 15, 2010, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed substantially all of the deposits and certain other liabilities of SSB in an FDIC-assisted transaction that generated a pre-tax bargain-purchase gain of $18.3 million. Loans comprise the majority of the assets acquired and are subject to loss share agreements with the FDIC whereby SFNB is indemnified against 80% of losses. The loans acquired from the former SWCB and the former SSB, as well as the acquired other real estate owned and the related indemnification asset from the FDIC, are presented as covered assets in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. 36 A summary of assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements is as follows. Table 9: Covered Assets (In thousands) Loans, net of discount Foreclosed assets held for sale FDIC indemnification asset Total covered assets December 31, 2011 $ $ 158,075 11,685 47,683 217,443 We evaluated loans purchased in conjunction with the acquisitions of SWCB and SSB for impairment in accordance with the provisions of ASC Topic 310-30, Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality. Purchased covered loans are considered impaired if there is evidence of credit deterioration since origination and if it is probable that not all contractually required payments will be collected. All loans acquired in these two transactions were deemed to be covered impaired loans. These loans were not classified as nonperforming assets at December 31, 2011, or December 31, 2010, as the loans are accounted for on a pooled basis and the pools are considered to be performing. Therefore, interest income, through accretion of the difference between the carrying amount of the loans and the expected cash flows, is being recognized on all purchased impaired loans. See Note 2 and Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements. Asset Quality A loan is considered impaired when it is probable that we will not receive all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loans. Impaired loans include non-performing loans (loans past due 90 days or more and nonaccrual loans) and certain other loans identified by management that are still performing. Non-performing loans are comprised of (a) nonaccrual loans, (b) loans that are contractually past due 90 days and (c) other loans for which terms have been restructured to provide a reduction or deferral of interest or principal, because of deterioration in the financial position of the borrower. The subsidiary banks recognize income principally on the accrual basis of accounting. When loans are classified as nonaccrual, generally, the accrued interest is charged off and no further interest is accrued. Loans, excluding credit card loans, are placed on a nonaccrual basis either: (1) when there are serious doubts regarding the collectability of principal or interest, or (2) when payment of interest or principal is 90 days or more past due and either (i) not fully secured or (ii) not in the process of collection. If a loan is determined by management to be uncollectible, the portion of the loan determined to be uncollectible is then charged to the allowance for loan losses. Credit card loans are classified as impaired when payment of interest or principal is 90 days past due. Litigation accounts are placed on nonaccrual until such time as deemed uncollectible. Credit card loans are generally charged off when payment of interest or principal exceeds 180 days past due, but are turned over to the credit card recovery department, to be pursued until such time as they are determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be uncollectible. Historically, we have sold our student loans into the secondary market before they reached payout status, thus requiring no servicing by the Company. Currently, since the government takeover of the student loan origination business in 2010, there is no secondary market for student loans; therefore, we are now required to service loans that have converted to a payout basis. Student loans are classified as impaired when payment of interest or principal is 90 days past due. Approximately $2.5 million of government guaranteed student loans were over 90 days past due as of December 31, 2011. Under existing rules, when these loans exceed 270 days past due, the Department of Education will purchase them at 97% of principal and accrued interest. Although these student loans remain guaranteed by the federal government, because they are over 90 days past due they are included in our non-performing assets. Foreclosed assets held for sale, excluding other real estate covered by FDIC loss share agreements, decreased by $0.3 million from December 31, 2010, to December 31, 2011, as we continue to aggressively manage our non- performing assets. During 2011, we moved two classified credits, previously reported as performing troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”), to nonaccrual status. We were also able to rid ourselves of several significant non-performing assets through liquidation or customer refinancing at other financial institutions. As a result of these credit reclassifications and dispositions, non-performing assets, including TDRs, as a percent of total assets decreased to 37 1.52% at December 31, 2011, compared to 1.71% at December 31, 2010. We remain aggressive in the identification, quantification and resolution of problem loans. Foreclosed assets held for sale, excluding other real estate covered by FDIC loss share agreements, increased by $14.0 million from December 31, 2009, to December 31, 2010, as we continued to aggressively manage our non- performing assets. The majority of the increase was attributable to our acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure for an $8.1 million motel loan in the Northwest Arkansas region, previously in nonaccrual status. We recorded the property at $6.7 million, with the difference charged-off through our allowance for loan losses. This transaction is also the primary reason our nonaccrual loans decreased by $10.9 million from the previous year. Total non-performing assets increased $2.7 million from December 31, 2009. Given current economic conditions, borrowers of all types are experiencing declines in income and cash flow. As a result, many borrowers are seeking to reduce contractual cash outlays, the most prominent being debt payments. In an effort to preserve our net interest margin and earning assets, we are open to working with existing customers in order to maximize the collectability of the debt. When we restructure a loan to a borrower that is experiencing financial difficulty and grant a concession that we would not otherwise consider, a troubled debt restructuring (“TDR”) results and the Company classifies the loan as a TDR. The Company grants various types of concessions, primarily interest rate reduction and/or payment modifications or extensions, with an occasional forgiveness of principal. Under ASC Topic 310-10-35, Subsequent Measurement, a TDR is considered to be impaired, and an impairment analysis must be performed. We assess the exposure for each modification, either by collateral discounting or by calculation of the present value of future cash flows, and determine if a specific allocation to the allowance for loan losses is needed. Once an obligation has been restructured because of such credit problems, it continues to be considered a TDR until paid in full; or, if an obligation yields a market interest rate and no longer has any concession regarding payment amount or amortization, then it is not considered a TDR at the beginning of the calendar year after the year in which the improvement takes place. We had TDRs totaling $16.5 million and $21.6 million at December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The majority of performing and non-performing TDRs are in our CRE portfolio. We return TDRs to accrual status only if (1) all contractual amounts due can reasonably be expected to be repaid within a prudent period, and (2) repayment has been in accordance with the contract for a sustained period, typically at least six months. Although the general state of the national economy remains volatile, and despite the challenges in housing and commercial real estate markets, we continue to maintain good asset quality, compared to the industry. The allowance for loan losses as a percent of total loans was 1.91% as of December 31, 2011. Non-performing loans equaled 1.02% of total loans. Non-performing assets were 1.18% of total assets. The allowance for loan losses was 186% of non- performing loans. Our net charge-offs to total loans for 2011 were 0.49%. Excluding credit cards, the net charge-offs to total loans were 0.30%. Net credit card charge-offs to total credit card loans for 2011 were 2.06%, compared to 2.37% in 2010, and more than 400 basis points better than the industry average charge-off ratio as reported by Moody’s Investors Service for the same period. We do not own any securities backed by subprime mortgage assets, and offer no mortgage loan products that target subprime borrowers. 38 Table 10 presents information concerning non-performing assets, including nonaccrual and restructured loans and other real estate owned (excluding loans and other real estate covered by FDIC loss share agreements). Table 10: Non-performing Assets (In thousands, except ratios) 2011 Years Ended December 31 2009 2008 2010 2007 Nonaccrual loans (1) Loans past due 90 days or more (principal or interest payments): Government guaranteed student loans (2) Other loans Total loans past due 90 days or more Total non-performing loans Other non-performing assets: Foreclosed assets held for sale Other non-performing assets Total other non-performing assets $ 12,907 $ 11,186 $ 21,994 $ 14,358 $ 9,909 2,483 785 3,268 16,175 1,736 969 2,705 13,891 1,939 1,383 3,322 25,316 -- 1,292 1,292 15,650 -- 1,282 1,282 11,191 22,887 -- 22,887 23,204 109 23,313 9,179 20 9,199 2,995 12 3,007 2,629 17 2,646 Total non-performing assets $ 39,062 $ 37,204 $ 34,515 $ 18,657 $ 13,837 Performing TDRs $ 11,391 $ 19,426 $ 12,718 $ -- $ -- Allowance for loan losses to non-performing loans (3) Non-performing loans to total loans (3) Non-performing loans to total loans (excluding government guaranteed student loans) Non-performing assets to total assets (3) Non-performing assets to total assets (excluding government guaranteed student loans) (2) (3) (2) (3) 186.14% 1.02 190.17% 0.83 98.81% 1.35 165.12% 0.81 226.10% 0.60 0.87 1.18 1.10 0.72 1.12 1.07 1.25 1.12 1.05 0.81 0.64 0.64 0.60 0.51 0.51 (1) Includes nonaccrual TDRs of approximately $5.2 million at December 31, 2011, and $2.1 million at December 31, 2010. (2) Student loans past due 90 days or more are included in non-performing loans. Student loans are guaranteed by the federal government and will be purchased at 97% of principal and accrued interest when they exceed 270 days past due; therefore, non-performing ratios have been calculated excluding these loans. (3) Excludes assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements, except for their inclusion in total assets. There was no interest income on the nonaccrual loans recorded for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009. At December 31, 2011, impaired loans, net of government guarantees, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, were $40.1 million compared to $50.6 million at December 31, 2010. Impaired loans at December 31, 2011 and 2010, includes government guaranteed student loans of $2.5 million and $1.7 million, respectively. During 2010, some large commercial real estate loan relationships in the Northwest Arkansas region were downgraded and considered impaired. However, individual impairment testing on these loans, based on current appraisals, revealed the need for specific reserves that were actually smaller for these relationships than had previously been applied based on our model. On an ongoing basis, management evaluates the underlying collateral on all impaired loans and allocates specific reserves, where appropriate, in order to absorb potential losses if the collateral were ultimately foreclosed. 39 Allowance for Loan Losses Overview The Company maintains an allowance for loan losses. This allowance is created through charges to income and maintained at a sufficient level to absorb expected losses in our loan portfolio. The allowance for loan losses is determined monthly based on management’s assessment of several factors such as (1) historical loss experience based on volumes and types, (2) reviews or evaluations of the loan portfolio and allowance for loan losses, (3) trends in volume, maturity and composition, (4) off balance sheet credit risk, (5) volume and trends in delinquencies and non- accruals, (6) lending policies and procedures including those for loan losses, collections and recoveries, (7) national, state and local economic trends and conditions, (8) concentrations of credit that might affect loss experience across one or more components of the loan portfolio, (9) the experience, ability and depth of lending management and staff and (10) other factors and trends that will affect specific loans and categories of loans. As we evaluate the allowance for loan losses, it is categorized as follows: (1) specific allocations, (2) allocations for classified assets with no specific allocation, (3) general allocations for each major loan category and (4) unallocated portion. Specific Allocations Specific allocations are made when factors are present requiring a greater reserve than would be required when using the assigned risk rating allocation. As a general rule, if a specific allocation is warranted, it is the result of an analysis of a previously classified credit or relationship. Our evaluation process in specific allocations includes a review of appraisals or other collateral analysis. These values are compared to the remaining outstanding principal balance. If a loss is determined to be reasonably possible, the possible loss is identified as a specific allocation. If the loan is not collateral dependent, the measurement of loss is based on the expected future cash flows of the loan. Allocations for Classified Assets with No Specific Allocation We establish allocations for loans rated “watch” through “doubtful” based upon analysis of historical loss experience by category. A percentage rate is applied to each of these loan categories to determine the level of dollar allocation. During the second quarter of 2009, we made adjustments to our methodology in the evaluation of the collectability of loans, which added quantitative factors to the internal and external influences used in determining the credit quality of loans and the allocation of the allowance. This adjustment in methodology resulted in an addition to impaired loans from classified loans and a redistribution of allocated and unallocated reserves. It is likely that the methodology will continue to evolve over time. Allocated reserves are presented in table 12 below detailing the components of the allowance for loan losses. General Allocations We establish general allocations for each major loan category. This section also includes allocations to loans which are collectively evaluated for loss such as credit cards, one-to-four family owner occupied residential real estate loans and other consumer loans. The allocations in this section are based on an analysis of historical losses for each loan category. We give consideration to trends, changes in loan mix, delinquencies, prior losses and other related information. Unallocated Portion Allowance allocations other than specific, classified and general are included in the unallocated portion. While allocations are made for loans based upon historical loss analysis, the unallocated portion is designed to cover the uncertainty of how current economic conditions and other uncertainties may impact the existing loan portfolio. Factors to consider include national and state economic conditions such as increases in unemployment, the recent real estate lending crisis, the volatility in the stock market and the unknown impact of the various government stimulus programs. Various Federal Reserve articles and reports indicate the economy is in a moderate recovery, but questions remain about the durability of growth and whether it can be sustained by private demand. While the recession may be over, production, income, sales and employment are at very low levels. With moderate economic growth, it is possible the recovery could take years. The unemployment rate seems likely to remain elevated for several years. In addition, there 40 is now much uncertainty related to the potential impact of the current debt and budget crisis, as well as the uncertainties that come in times leading up to a national election. The unallocated reserve addresses inherent probable losses not included elsewhere in the allowance for loan losses. While calculating allocated reserve, the unallocated reserve supports uncertainties within the loan portfolio. Reserve for Unfunded Commitments In addition to the allowance for loan losses, we have established a reserve for unfunded commitments, classified in other liabilities. This reserve is maintained at a level sufficient to absorb losses arising from unfunded loan commitments. The adequacy of the reserve for unfunded commitments is determined monthly based on methodology similar to our methodology for determining the allowance for loan losses. Net adjustments to the reserve for unfunded commitments are included in other non-interest expense. An analysis of the allowance for loan losses for the last five years is shown in table 11. Table 11: Allowance for Loan Losses (In thousands) 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Balance, beginning of year $ 26,416 $ 25,016 $ 25,841 $ 25,303 $ 25,385 Loans charged off Credit card Other consumer Real estate Commercial Total loans charged off Recoveries of loans previously charged off Credit card Other consumer Real estate Commercial Total recoveries Net loans charged off Provision for loan losses 4,703 1,890 3,165 1,411 11,169 5,321 2,471 9,564 1,246 18,602 5,336 2,758 4,814 1,920 14,828 3,760 2,105 2,987 1,394 10,246 979 604 981 621 3,185 7,984 11,676 1,035 884 3,657 297 5,873 12,729 14,129 920 673 1,393 701 3,687 11,141 10,316 883 519 207 529 2,138 8,108 8,646 2,663 1,538 1,916 715 6,832 1,024 483 648 414 2,569 4,263 4,181 Balance, end of year $ 30,108 $ 26,416 $ 25,016 $ 25,841 $ 25,303 Net charge-offs to average loans (1) Allowance for loan losses to period-end loans (1) Allowance for loan losses to net charge-offs (1) 0.49% 1.91% 377.10% 0.71% 1.57% 207.53% 0.58% 1.33% 224.54% 0.43% 1.34% 318.71% 0.23% 1.37% 593.55% (1) Excludes loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements. Provision for Loan Losses The amount of provision to the allowance each year was based on management's judgment, with consideration given to the composition of the portfolio, historical loan loss experience, assessment of current economic conditions, past due and non-performing loans and net loss experience. It is management's practice to review the allowance on at least a quarterly basis, but generally on a monthly basis, and after considering the factors previously noted, to determine the level of provision made to the allowance. 41 Allocated Allowance for Loan Losses We utilize a consistent methodology in the calculation and application of the allowance for loan losses. Because there are portions of the portfolio that have not matured to the degree necessary to obtain reliable loss statistics from which to calculate estimated losses, the unallocated portion of the allowance is an integral component of the total allowance. Although unassigned to a particular credit relationship or product segment, this portion of the allowance is vital to safeguard against the uncertainty and imprecision inherent when estimating credit losses, especially when trying to determine the impact the current and unprecedented economic crisis will have on the existing loan portfolios. Accordingly, several factors in the national economy, including the continuing high unemployment rates, the continuing credit crisis, the mortgage crisis, the uncertainty in the residential and commercial real estate markets and other loan sectors which may be exhibiting weaknesses and the unknown impact of various current and future federal government economic stimulus programs influence our determination of the size of unallocated reserves. In addition, there is now much uncertainty related to the potential impact of the current debt and budget crisis, including a debt crisis in several other countries. During 2010, management determined that there were several economic and environmental factors that necessitated the need for a higher level of unallocated reserve. Due to these factors, along with an increase in net loan charge-offs, we increased our provision by approximately $3.8 million over 2009, resulting in the higher level of allowance at December 31, 2010. Management continued to believe that these same factors necessitated the need for an even higher level of unallocated allowance in 2011. Although the provision for loan losses was reduced by $2.4 million in 2011, a decrease in net loans charge-offs resulted in an increase in the allowance for loan losses of approximately $3.7 million from December 31, 2010. In late 2006, the economy in Northwest Arkansas, particularly in the residential real estate market, started showing signs of deterioration which caused concerns over the full recoverability of this portion of our loan portfolio. We continued to monitor the Northwest Arkansas economy and, beginning in the third quarter of 2007, specific credit relationships deteriorated to a level requiring increased general and specific reserves. These credit relationships continued to deteriorate, and others were identified, prompting special loan loss provisions each quarter, beginning with the second quarter of 2008, resulting in an increase to the allowance allocation for real estate loans through December 31, 2008. As the economic downturn continued through 2009, additional problem loans were identified and specific allocations were applied, resulting in a significant decrease in the unallocated portion of the allowance for loan losses. Although several non-performing loans with large specific allocations were charged off during 2009, the identification of other non-performing loans with specific allocations late in 2009 resulted in a relatively small decrease in the total allocation to real estate loans as of December 31, 2009. During 2010, we moved some significant credits from non-performing loans to foreclosed assets held for sale, resulting in a lower allocation in the real estate portfolio. However, the real estate related portfolios could still be adversely impacted by the overall economic downturn and the regional market saturation in Northwest Arkansas. Our allocation of the allowance for loan losses to credit card loans, as well as credit card balances, remained relatively unchanged from December 31, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Annualized net credit card charge-offs to credit card loans decreased from 2.37% at December 31, 2010, to 2.06% at December 31, 2011. Although we continue to have minimal credit card losses compared to the industry, credit card loans are unsecured loans. The current economic downturn could adversely affect consumers in a more delayed fashion compared to commercial business in general. Increasing unemployment and diminished asset values could prevent our credit card customers from repaying their credit card balances which could result in an increased amount of our net charge-offs that could have a significant adverse effect on our unsecured credit card portfolio. The unallocated allowance for loan losses is based on our concerns over the uncertainty of the national economy and the economy in Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas. The impact of market pricing in the poultry, timber and catfish industries in Arkansas remains uncertain. We are also cautious regarding the continued softening of the real estate market, specifically in the Northwest Arkansas region. The housing industry remains one of the weakest links for economic recovery. Although the unemployment rate in Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas is lagging behind the national average, it remains at historically high levels. We actively monitor the status of these industries and economic factors as they relate to our loan portfolio and make changes to the allowance for loan losses as necessary. Based on our analysis of loans and external uncertainties, we believe the allowance for loan losses is appropriate for the year ended December 31, 2011. 42 We allocate the allowance for loan losses according to the amount deemed to be reasonably necessary to provide for losses incurred within the categories of loans set forth in table 12. Table 12: Allocation of Allowance for Loan Losses 2011 2010 December 31 2009 2008 2007 (In thousands) Credit cards Other consumer Real estate Commercial Other Unallocated Allowance % of Allowance % of Allowance % of Allowance % of Allowance % of loans(1) loans(1) Amount loans(1) Amount loans(1) Amount loans(1) Amount Amount $ 5,513 1,638 10,117 2,063 209 10,568 12.0% $ 5,549 1,703 9,692 2,277 255 6,940 9.9% 63.4% 14.4% 0.3% 11.3% $ 5,808 1,719 10.7% 11,164 63.4% 2,451 14.1% 161 0.5% 3,713 10.1% $ 3,957 1,325 13.5% 11,695 62.4% 2,255 13.7% 209 0.3% 6,400 12.9% 63.1% 14.7% 0.5% 8.8% $ 3,841 1,501 10,157 2,528 187 7,089 9.0% 11.5% 64.1% 14.8% 0.6% Total $ 30,108 100.0% $ 26,416 100.0% $ 25,016 100.0% $ 25,841 100.00% $ 25,303 100.0% (1) Percentage of loans in each category to total loans not covered by FDIC loss share. 43 Investments and Securities Our securities portfolio is the second largest component of earning assets and provides a significant source of revenue. Securities within the portfolio are classified as either held-to-maturity, available-for-sale or trading. Held-to-maturity securities, which include any security for which management has the positive intent and ability to hold until maturity, are carried at historical cost, adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts. Premiums and discounts are amortized and accreted, respectively, to interest income using the constant yield method over the period to maturity. Interest and dividends on investments in debt and equity securities are included in income when earned. Available-for-sale securities, which include any security for which management has no immediate plans to sell, but which may be sold in the future, are carried at fair value. Realized gains and losses, based on amortized cost of the specific security, are included in other income. Unrealized gains and losses are recorded, net of related income tax effects, in stockholders' equity. Premiums and discounts are amortized and accreted, respectively, to interest income, using the constant yield method over the period to maturity. Interest and dividends on investments in debt and equity securities are included in income when earned. Our philosophy regarding investments is conservative based on investment type and maturity. Investments in the portfolio primarily include U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. Government agencies, mortgage-backed securities and municipal securities. Our general policy is not to invest in derivative type investments or high-risk securities, except for collateralized mortgage-backed securities for which collection of principal and interest is not subordinated to significant superior rights held by others. Held-to-maturity and available-for-sale investment securities were $525.4 million and $172.2 million, respectively, at December 31, 2011, compared to the held-to-maturity amount of $465.2 million and available-for-sale amount of $148.5 million at December 31, 2010. During 2009, we made a decision to change our portfolio targets from 75% available-for-sale to 25% available-for-sale. We chose this strategy due to our level of pledging and our history of holding securities to maturity. As of December 31, 2011, $312.8 million, or 59.5%, of the held-to-maturity securities were invested in U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government agencies, 60.0% of which will mature in less than five years. In the available-for-sale securities, $153.6 million, or 89.2%, were in U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agency securities, 47.8% of which will mature in less than five years. In order to reduce our income tax burden, $211.7 million, or 40.3%, of the held-to-maturity securities portfolio, as of December 31, 2011, was invested in tax-exempt obligations of state and political subdivisions. In the available-for-sale securities, there was none invested in tax-exempt obligations of state and political subdivisions. Most of the state and political subdivision debt obligations are non-rated bonds and represent relatively small, Arkansas issues, which are evaluated on an ongoing basis. There are no securities of any one state or political subdivision issuer exceeding ten percent of our stockholders' equity at December 31, 2011. We have approximately $62,000 in mortgaged-backed securities in the held-to-maturity portfolio at December 31, 2011. In the available-for-sale securities, approximately $2.6 million, or 1.5% were invested in mortgaged-backed securities. Securities with limited marketability, such as stock in the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Home Loan Bank, are carried at cost and are reported as other available for sale securities. As of December 31, 2011, the held-to-maturity investment portfolio had gross unrealized gains of $7.1 million and gross unrealized losses of $0.3 million. We had no gross realized gains or losses during 2011. We had gross realized gains of $467,000 and gross realized losses of $150,000 during the year ended December 31, 2010, from the sale and/or calls securities. As part of our acquisition strategy related to SSB, we liquidated the acquired investment portfolio, resulting in net realized gain of $317,000 in 2010. We had gross realized gains of $144,000 and no realized losses during 2009 from the sales and/or calls of securities. Trading securities, which include any security held primarily for near-term sale, are carried at fair value. Gains and losses on trading securities are included in other income. Our trading account is established and maintained for the 44 benefit of investment banking. The trading account is typically used to provide inventory for resale and is not used to take advantage of short-term price movements. Declines in the fair value of held-to-maturity and available-for-sale securities below their cost that are deemed to be other than temporary are reflected in earnings as realized losses. In estimating other-than-temporary impairment losses, management considers, among other things, (i) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (ii) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer and (iii) the intent and ability of the Company to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value. The unrealized losses on our investment securities were caused by interest rate increases. The contractual terms of those investments do not permit the issuer to settle the securities at a price less than the amortized cost bases of the investments. Because we do not intend to sell the investments and it is not more likely than not the we will be required to sell the investments before recovery of their amortized cost bases, which may be maturity, we do not consider those investments to be other-than-temporarily impaired at December 31, 2011. Management has the ability and intent to hold the securities classified as held to maturity until they mature, at which time we expect to receive full value for the securities. Furthermore, as of December 31, 2011, management also had the ability and intent to hold the securities classified as available-for-sale for a period of time sufficient for a recovery of cost. The unrealized losses are largely due to increases in market interest rates over the yields available at the time the underlying securities were purchased. The fair value is expected to recover as the bonds approach their maturity date or repricing date or if market yields for such investments decline. Management does not believe any of the securities are impaired due to reasons of credit quality. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2011, management believes the impairments detailed in the table below are temporary. Table 13 presents the carrying value and fair value of investment securities for each of the years indicated. Table 13: Investment Securities Years Ended December 31 2011 2010 (In thousands) Held-to-Maturity U.S. Treasury U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities State and political subdivisions Other securities Gross Amortized Unrealized Unrealized Gains (Losses) Gross Cost Estimated Fair Value Gross Amortized Unrealized Unrealized Gains Fair (Losses) Value Gross Estimated Cost $ 4,000 $ 14 $ -- $ 4,014 $ 4,000 $ 28 $ -- $ 4,028 308,779 712 (154) 309,337 249,844 1,764 (507) 251,101 62 1 -- 63 78 4 -- 82 211,673 930 6,333 -- (144) -- 217,862 930 210,331 930 2,280 -- (1,845) -- 210,766 930 Total $ 525,444 $ 7,060 $ (298) $ 532,206 $ 465,183 $ 4,076 $ (2,352) $ 466,907 Available-for-Sale U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities State and political subdivisions Other securities $ 153,560 $ 295 $ (228) $ 153,627 $ 125,175 $ 577 $ (283) $ 125,469 2,280 -- 15,648 277 -- 384 -- 2,557 2,647 -- (5) -- 16,027 -- 19,814 143 -- 411 (1) -- (4) 2,789 -- 20,221 Total $ 171,488 $ 956 $ (233) $ 172,211 $ 147,636 $ 1,131 $ (288) $ 148,479 45 Table 14 reflects the amortized cost and estimated fair value of securities at December 31, 2011, by contractual maturity and the weighted average yields (for tax-exempt obligations on a fully taxable equivalent basis, assuming a 39.225% tax rate) of such securities. Expected maturities will differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations, with or without call or prepayment penalties. Table 14: Maturity Distribution of Investment Securities December 31, 2011 (In thousands) Held-to-Maturity U.S. Treasury U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities State and political subdivisions Other securities Over 1 year through 5 years 1 year or less Over 5 years through 10 years 10 years maturity Over No fixed Amortized Cost Total Par Value Fair Value $ 4,000 $ -- $ -- $ -- $ -- $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,014 18,000 165,779 125,000 -- 3 42 -- 17 -- 308,779 308,785 309,337 -- 62 62 63 14,695 -- 55,143 -- 56,632 -- 85,203 930 -- -- 211,673 930 211,961 930 217,862 930 Total $ 36,695 $ 220,925 $ 181,674 $ 86,150 $ -- $ 525,444 $ 525,738 $ 532,206 Percentage of total 7.0% 42.0% 34.6% 16.4% 0.0% 100.0% Weighted average yield 1.8 % 2.0% 3.4% 4.0% 0.0% 2.8% Available-for-Sale U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities Other securities $ 300 $ 80,498 $ 72,763 $ -- $ -- $ 153,561 $ 153,520 $ 153,627 -- -- 1,432 -- 844 -- 3 -- -- 15,648 2,279 15,648 2,303 15,648 2,558 16,027 Total $ 300 $ 81,930 $ 73,607 $ 3 $ 15,648 $ 171,488 $ 171,471 $ 172,212 Percentage of total 0.2% 47.8% 42.9% 0.0% 9.1% 100.0% Weighted average yield 0.0% 0.9% 3.2% 3.1% 2.8% 2.1% Deposits Deposits are our primary source of funding for earning assets and are primarily developed through our network of 84 financial centers. We offer a variety of products designed to attract and retain customers with a continuing focus on developing core deposits. Our core deposits consist of all deposits excluding time deposits of $100,000 or more and brokered deposits. As of December 31, 2011, core deposits comprised 86.5% of our total deposits. We continually monitor the funding requirements at each subsidiary bank along with competitive interest rates in the markets it serves. Because of our community banking philosophy, subsidiary bank executives in the local markets establish the interest rates offered on both core and non-core deposits. This approach ensures that the interest rates being paid are competitively priced for each particular deposit product and structured to meet the funding requirements. We believe we are paying a competitive rate when compared with pricing in those markets. We manage our interest expense through deposit pricing and do not anticipate a significant change in total deposits. We believe that additional funds can be attracted and deposit growth can be accelerated through deposit pricing if it experiences increased loan demand or other liquidity needs. We also utilize brokered deposits as an additional source of funding to meet liquidity needs. 46 Our total deposits as of December 31, 2011 were $2.650 billion, an increase of $41.6 million, or 1.6%, from $2.609 billion at December 31, 2010. We have continued our strategy to move more volatile time deposits to less expensive, revenue enhancing transaction accounts throughout 2011. Non-interest bearing transaction accounts increased $103.5 million to $532.3 million at December 31, 2011, compared to $428.8 million at December 31, 2010. Interest bearing transaction and savings accounts were $1.240 billion at December 31, 2011, a $19.4 million increase compared to $1.220 billion on December 31, 2010. Total time deposits decreased approximately $81.3 million to $878.6 million at December 31, 2011, from $959.9 million at December 31, 2010. In an attempt to utilize some of our excess liquidity, we have priced deposits in a manner to encourage a reduction in non-relationship time deposits. We had $20.6 million and $21.5 million of brokered deposits at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Table 15 reflects the classification of the average deposits and the average rate paid on each deposit category which is in excess of 10 percent of average total deposits for the three years ended December 31, 2011. Table 15: Average Deposit Balances and Rates 2011 Average Average Amount Rate Paid December 31 2010 Average Average Amount Rate Paid 2009 Average Average Amount Rate Paid (In thousands) Non-interest bearing transaction accounts $ 482,651 -- $ 375,941 -- $ 332,998 -- Interest bearing transaction and savings deposits Time deposits $100,000 or more Other time deposits 1,217,218 0.30% 1,181,597 0.44% 1,091,960 0.76% 380,362 532,647 1.24% 1.24% 381,432 525,714 1.62% 1.55% 406,924 532,434 2.43% 2.42% Total $2,612,878 0.57% $2,464,684 0.79% $2,364,316 1.31% The Company's maturities of large denomination time deposits at December 31, 2011 and 2010 are presented in table 16. Table 16: Maturities of Large Denomination Time Deposits Time Certificates of Deposit ($100,000 or more) December 31 2011 2010 Balance Percent Balance Percent (In thousands) Maturing Three months or less Over 3 months to 6 months Over 6 months to 12 months Over 12 months $ 109,974 96,214 101,862 70,775 29.0% 25.4% 26.9% 18.7% $ 114,891 90,141 107,658 47,659 31.9% 25.0% 29.9% 13.2% Total $ 378,825 100.00% $ 360,349 100.00% 47 Short-Term Debt Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase were $114.8 million at December 31, 2011, as compared to $109.1 million at December 31, 2010. Other short-term borrowings, consisting of U.S. TT&L Notes and short-term FHLB borrowings, were $272,000 at December 31, 2011, as compared to $1.0 million at December 31, 2010. We have historically funded our growth in earning assets through the use of core deposits, large certificates of deposits from local markets, FHLB borrowings and Federal funds purchased. Management anticipates that these sources will provide necessary funding in the foreseeable future. Long-Term Debt Our long-term debt was $120.8 million and $164.3 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The outstanding long-term debt balance for December 31, 2011, includes $89.9 million in FHLB long-term advances and $30.9 million of trust preferred securities. The outstanding balance for December 31, 2010, includes $133.4 million in FHLB long-term advances and $30.9 million of trust preferred securities. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we reduced long-term debt by $43.5 million, or 26.5%, from December 31, 2010, through scheduled payoffs of FHLB advances. Aggregate annual maturities of long-term debt at December 31, 2011 are presented in table 17. Table 17: Maturities of Long-Term Debt (In thousands) Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Thereafter Annual Maturities $ 7,370 22,275 5,977 9,699 8,002 67,505 Total $ 120,828 Capital Overview At December 31, 2011, total capital reached $407.9 million. Capital represents shareholder ownership in the Company – the book value of assets in excess of liabilities. At December 31, 2011, our equity to asset ratio was 12.3% compared to 12.0% at year-end 2010. Capital Stock On February 27, 2009, at a special meeting, our shareholders approved an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to establish 40,040,000 authorized shares of preferred stock, $0.01 par value. The aggregate liquidation preference of all shares of preferred stock cannot exceed $80,000,000. As of December 31, 2011, no preferred stock has been issued. On August 26, 2009, we filed a shelf registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The shelf registration statement, which was declared effective on September 9, 2009, will allow us to raise capital from time to time, up to an aggregate of $175 million, through the sale of common stock, preferred stock, or a combination thereof, subject to market conditions. Specific terms and prices will be determined at the time of any offering under a separate prospectus supplement that we will be required to file with the SEC at the time of the specific offering. 48 In November 2009, the Company raised common equity through an underwritten public offering by issuing 2,650,000 shares of common stock at a price of $24.50 per share, less underwriting discounts and commissions. The net proceeds of the offering after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses were $61.3 million. In December 2009, the underwriters of our stock offering exercised and completed their option to purchase an additional 397,500 shares of common stock at $24.50 to cover over-allotments. The net proceeds of the exercise of the over-allotment option after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions were $9.2 million. The total net proceeds of the offering after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses were approximately $70.5 million. Stock Repurchase On November 28, 2007, we announced the adoption by the Board of Directors of a stock repurchase program. The program authorizes the repurchase of up to 700,000 shares of Class A common stock, or approximately 5% of the outstanding common stock. Under the repurchase program, there is no time limit for the stock repurchases, nor is there a minimum number of shares we intend to repurchase. We may discontinue purchases at any time that management determines additional purchases are not warranted. As part of its strategic focus on building capital, management suspended the Company’s stock repurchase program in July 2008. On September 27, 2011, we announced that reinstatement of the existing stock repurchase program. Prior to the suspension of the program, we had repurchased 54,328 shares, thereby leaving authority to repurchase 645,672 shares under the program. The shares are to be purchased from time to time at prevailing market prices, through open market or unsolicited negotiated transactions, depending upon market conditions. We intend to use the repurchased shares to satisfy stock option exercises, for payment of future stock dividends and for general corporate purposes. During 2011, after announcing the reinstatement of the program, we repurchased 137,144 shares of stock with a weighted average repurchase price of $23.98 per share. Under the current stock repurchase plan, we can repurchase an additional 508,528 shares. Cash Dividends We declared cash dividends on our common stock of $0.76 per share for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011, compared to $0.76 per share for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010. The timing and amount of future dividends are at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend upon our consolidated earnings, financial condition, liquidity and capital requirements, the amount of cash dividends paid to us by our subsidiaries, applicable government regulations and policies and other factors considered relevant by our Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors anticipates that we will continue to pay quarterly dividends in amounts determined based on the factors discussed above. However, there can be no assurance that we will continue to pay dividends on our common stock at the current levels or at all. See Item 5, Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters, for additional information regarding cash dividends. Parent Company Liquidity The primary liquidity needs of the Parent Company are the payment of dividends to shareholders, the funding of debt obligations and the share repurchase plan. The primary sources for meeting these liquidity needs are the current cash on hand at the parent company and the future dividends received from the eight affiliate banks. Payment of dividends by the eight subsidiary banks is subject to various regulatory limitations. See Item 7A, Liquidity and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk, for additional information regarding the parent company’s liquidity. Risk-Based Capital Our subsidiaries are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory and possibly additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on our financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, we must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of our assets, liabilities and certain off-balance-sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. Our capital amounts and classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors. 49 Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require us to maintain minimum amounts and ratios (set forth in the table below) of total and Tier 1 capital (as defined in the regulations) to risk-weighted assets (as defined) and of Tier 1 capital (as defined) to average assets (as defined). Management believes that, as of December 31, 2011, we meet all capital adequacy requirements to which we are subject. As of the most recent notification from regulatory agencies, the subsidiaries were well capitalized under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. To be categorized as well capitalized, the Company and subsidiaries must maintain minimum total risk-based, Tier 1 risk-based and Tier 1 leverage ratios as set forth in the table. There are no conditions or events since that notification that management believes have changed the institutions’ categories. Our risk-based capital ratios at December 31, 2011 and 2010, are presented in table 18 below: Table 18: Risk-Based Capital (In thousands, except ratios) Tier 1 capital Stockholders’ equity Trust preferred securities Goodwill and core deposit premiums Unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities, net of income taxes Total Tier 1 capital Tier 2 capital Qualifying unrealized gain on available-for-sale equity securities Qualifying allowance for loan losses Total Tier 2 capital Total risk-based capital Risk weighted assets Ratios at end of year Leverage ratio Tier 1 capital Total risk-based capital Minimum guidelines Leverage ratio Tier 1 capital Total risk-based capital December 31 2011 2010 $ 407,911 30,000 (47,889) $ 397,371 30,000 (49,953) (439) (512) 389,583 376,906 9 22,682 22,691 7 23,553 23,560 $ 412,274 $ 400,466 $1,805,585 $1,879,832 11.86% 21.58% 22.83% 4.00% 4.00% 8.00% 11.33% 20.05% 21.30% 4.00% 4.00% 8.00% Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Aggregate Contractual Obligations In the normal course of business, the Company enters into a number of financial commitments. Examples of these commitments include but are not limited to long-term debt financing, operating lease obligations, unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit. Our long-term debt at December 31, 2011, includes notes payable, FHLB long-term advances and trust preferred securities, all of which we are contractually obligated to repay in future periods. Operating lease obligations entered into by the Company are generally associated with the operation of a few of our financial centers located throughout the states of Arkansas and Kansas. Our financial obligation on these locations is considered immaterial due to the limited number of financial centers that operate under an agreement of this type. Commitments to extend credit and letters of credit are legally binding, conditional agreements generally having fixed expiration or termination dates. These commitments generally require customers to maintain certain credit standards 50 and are established based on management’s credit assessment of the customer. The commitments may expire without being drawn upon. Therefore, the total commitment does not necessarily represent future funding requirements. The funding requirements of the Company's most significant financial commitments, at December 31, 2011, are shown in table 19. Table 19: Funding Requirements of Financial Commitments (In thousands) Long-term debt Credit card loan commitments Other loan commitments Letters of credit Payments due by period Less than 1 Year 1-3 Years 3-5 Years Greater than 5 Years Total $ 7,370 343,400 285,487 9,269 $ 28,252 $ 17,701 -- -- -- -- -- -- $ 67,505 $ 120,828 343,400 285,487 9,269 -- -- -- Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures We have $62.2 million and $63.1 million total goodwill and core deposit premiums for the periods ended December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Because of our high level of these two intangible assets, management believes a useful calculation is return on tangible equity (non-GAAP). This non-GAAP calculation for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007, which is similar to the GAAP calculation of return on average stockholders’ equity, is presented in table 20. Table 20: Return on Tangible Equity (In thousands, except ratios) 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Twelve months ended Return on average stockholders’ equity: (A/C) Return on tangible equity (non-GAAP): (A+B)/(C-D) 6.25% 7.54% 9.69% 11.71% 8.26% 10.61% 9.54% 10.26% 13.78% 12.54% (A) Net income (B) Amortization of intangibles, net of taxes (C) Average stockholders' equity (D) Average goodwill and core deposits, net $ 25,374 $ 37,117 $ 25,210 $ 26,910 $ 27,360 511 266,628 64,409 537 406,093 62,631 478 383,141 62,125 503 305,210 62,789 504 282,186 63,600 The table below presents computations of core earnings (net income excluding nonrecurring items {Visa litigation expense reversal, gain from the cash proceeds on mandatory Visa stock redemption, gain from the sale of MasterCard stock, gains on FDIC-assisted transactions and the related merger costs, liquidation gains and losses from FDIC-assisted transactions and the one-time costs of branch right sizing}) and diluted core earnings per share (non-GAAP). Nonrecurring items are included in financial results presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). We believe the exclusion of these nonrecurring items in expressing earnings and certain other financial measures, including “core earnings,” provides a meaningful base for period-to-period and company-to-company comparisons, which management believes will assist investors and analysts in analyzing the core financial measures of the Company and predicting future performance. This non-GAAP financial measure is also used by management to assess the performance of the Company’s business because management does not consider these nonrecurring items to be relevant to ongoing financial performance. Management and the Board of Directors utilize “core earnings” (non-GAAP) for the following purposes: • Preparation of the Company’s operating budgets • Monthly financial performance reporting • Monthly “flash” reporting of consolidated results (management only) • Investor presentations of Company performance 51 We believe the presentation of “core earnings” on a diluted per share basis, “diluted core earnings per share” (non- GAAP), provides a meaningful base for period-to-period and company-to-company comparisons, which management believes will assist investors and analysts in analyzing the core financial measures of the Company and predicting future performance. This non-GAAP financial measure is also used by management to assess the performance of the Company’s business, because management does not consider these nonrecurring items to be relevant to ongoing financial performance on a per share basis. Management and the Board of Directors utilize “diluted core earnings per share” (non-GAAP) for the following purposes: • Calculation of annual performance-based incentives for certain executives • Calculation of long-term performance-based incentives for certain executives • Investor presentations of Company performance We believe that presenting these non-GAAP financial measures will permit investors and analysts to assess the performance of the Company on the same basis as that applied by management and the Board of Directors. “Core earnings” and “diluted core earnings per share” (non-GAAP) have inherent limitations and are not required to be uniformly applied and are not audited. To mitigate these limitations, we have procedures in place to identify and approve each item that qualifies as nonrecurring to ensure that the Company’s “core” results are properly reflected for period-to-period comparisons. Although these non-GAAP financial measures are frequently used by stakeholders in the evaluation of a company, they have limitations as analytical tools and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for analyses of results as reported under GAAP. In particular, a measure of earnings that excludes nonrecurring items does not represent the amount that effectively accrues directly to stockholders (i.e., nonrecurring items are included in earnings and stockholders’ equity). During the second quarter of 2011, we recorded an after tax gain of $688,000 on the sale of MasterCard stock, contributing $0.04 to diluted earnings per share. Also during the second quarter, as a result of our right sizing initiative, we recorded a nonrecurring charge of $0.01 to diluted earnings per share. During the first and second quarters of 2011, we recorded after-tax merger related costs of $217,000 on the FDIC- assisted acquisition of SSB, resulting in a nonrecurring charge of $0.01 to diluted earnings per share. During the fourth quarter of 2010, we recorded an after tax bargain purchase gain of $18.3 million on the FDIC- assisted acquisition of SSB, along with merger related costs of $2.0 million. Also, as part of our acquisition strategy, the investment portfolio was liquidated resulting in an after tax gain of $193,000, and FHLB advances were paid off resulting in a $361,000 pre-payment expense, after tax. These nonrecurring items related to SSB contributed $0.56 to diluted earnings per share. During the second quarter of 2010, we recorded an after tax bargain purchase gain of $1.8 million on the FDIC- assisted acquisition of SWCB, along with merger related costs of $351,000. These nonrecurring items related to SWCB contributed $0.09 to diluted earnings per share. Also during the second quarter of 2010, as a result of our branch right sizing initiative, we recorded a nonrecurring charge of $0.01 to diluted earnings per share. 52 See table 21 below for the reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures, which exclude nonrecurring items for the periods presented. Table 21: Reconciliation of Core Earnings (non-GAAP) (In thousands, except share data) 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Twelve months ended Net Income Nonrecurring items Mandatory stock redemption gain (Visa) Litigation liability expense/reversal (Visa) Gain on sale of MasterCard stock Gain on FDIC-assisted transactions Merger related costs Gains from sale of securities FHLB prepayment penalties Branch right sizing Tax effect (39.225%) (1) Net nonrecurring items Core earnings (non-GAAP) Diluted earnings per share Nonrecurring items Mandatory stock redemption gain (Visa) Litigation liability expense/reversal (Visa) Gain on sale of MasterCard stock Gain on FDIC-assisted transactions Merger related costs Gain from sale of securities FHLB prepayment penalties Branch right sizing Tax effect (39.225%) (1) Net nonrecurring items Diluted core earnings per share (non-GAAP) $ 25,374 $ 37,117 $ 25,210 $ 26,910 $ 27,360 -- -- -- -- -- (1,132) -- 357 -- -- 141 248 (386) (11,076) -- 1,220 -- -- -- -- -- -- (476) 744 $ 24,988 $ 26,041 $ 25,210 $ 24,352 $ 28,104 (2,973) (1,220) -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,635 (2,558) (21,314) 2,611 (317) 594 372 6,978 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $ 1.47 $ 2.15 $ 1.74 $ 1.91 $ 1.92 -- -- (0.07) -- 0.02 -- -- 0.01 0.02 (0.02) $ 1.45 $ -- -- -- (1.23) 0.15 (0.02) 0.03 0.02 0.41 (0.64) 1.51 $ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.74 $ (0.21) (0.09) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.09 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.12 (0.04) 0.05 (0.18) 1.97 1.73 $ (1) For 2010, effective tax rate of 39.225%, adjusted for additional fair value deduction related to the donation of a closed branch with a fair value significantly higher than its book value. 53 Quarterly Results Selected unaudited quarterly financial information for the last eight quarters is shown in table 22. Table 22: Quarterly Results (In thousands, except per share data) First Second Quarter Third Fourth Total 2011 Net interest income Provision for loan losses Non-interest income Non-interest expense Net income Basic earnings per share Diluted earnings per share 2010 Net interest income Provision for loan losses Non-interest income Non-interest expense Net income Basic earnings per share Diluted earnings per share $ 26,834 2,675 12,632 29,975 5,066 0.29 0.29 $ 24,412 3,231 12,200 26,796 4,956 0.29 0.29 $ 27,250 3,328 14,364 28,692 6,746 0.39 0.39 $ 25,205 3,758 17,248 27,276 7,981 0.46 0.46 $ 27,279 2,842 13,722 27,633 7,257 0.42 0.42 $ 26,056 3,407 14,822 26,758 7,620 0.45 0.44 $ 27,297 2,831 12,747 28,350 6,305 0.37 0.37 $ 26,276 3,733 33,604 30,433 16,560 0.96 0.96 $ 108,660 11,676 53,465 114,650 25,374 1.47 1.47 $ 101,949 14,129 77,874 111,263 37,117 2.16 2.15 ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK Liquidity and Market Risk Management Parent Company The Company has leveraged its investment in subsidiary banks and depends upon the dividends paid to it, as the sole shareholder of the subsidiary banks, as a principal source of funds for dividends to shareholders, stock repurchases and debt service requirements. At December 31, 2011, undivided profits of the Company's subsidiary banks were approximately $189.4 million, of which approximately $18.7 million was available for the payment of dividends to the Company without regulatory approval. In addition to dividends, other sources of liquidity for the Company are the sale of equity securities and the borrowing of funds. Subsidiary Banks Generally speaking, the Company's subsidiary banks rely upon net inflows of cash from financing activities, supplemented by net inflows of cash from operating activities, to provide cash used in investing activities. Typical of most banking companies, significant financing activities include: deposit gathering; use of short-term borrowing facilities, such as federal funds purchased and repurchase agreements; and the issuance of long-term debt. The subsidiary banks' primary investing activities include loan originations and purchases of investment securities, offset by loan payoffs and investment maturities. Liquidity represents an institution's ability to provide funds to satisfy demands from depositors and borrowers by either converting assets into cash or accessing new or existing sources of incremental funds. A major responsibility of management is to maximize net interest income within prudent liquidity constraints. Internal corporate guidelines have been established to constantly measure liquid assets as well as relevant ratios concerning earning asset levels and purchased funds. The management and board of directors of each subsidiary bank monitor these same indicators and make adjustments as needed. In response to tightening credit markets in 2007 and anticipating potential liquidity pressures in 2008, the Company’s management strategically planned to enhance the liquidity of each of its subsidiary banks during 2008 and 2009. We grew core deposits through various initiatives, and built additional liquidity in each of our subsidiary banks by securing additional long-term funding from FHLB borrowings. At December 31, 2011, each subsidiary bank was within 54 established guidelines and total corporate liquidity remains strong. At December 31, 2011, cash and cash equivalents, trading and available-for-sale securities and mortgage loans held for sale were 23.1% of total assets, as compared to 18.6% at December 31, 2010. Liquidity Management The objective of our liquidity management is to access adequate sources of funding to ensure that cash flow requirements of depositors and borrowers are met in an orderly and timely manner. Sources of liquidity are managed so that reliance on any one funding source is kept to a minimum. Our liquidity sources are prioritized for both availability and time to activation. Our liquidity is a primary consideration in determining funding needs and is an integral part of asset/liability management. Pricing of the liability side is a major component of interest margin and spread management. Adequate liquidity is a necessity in addressing this critical task. There are five primary and secondary sources of liquidity available to the Company. The particular liquidity need and timeframe determine the use of these sources. The first source of liquidity available to the Company is Federal funds. Federal funds, primarily from downstream correspondent banks, are available on a daily basis and are used to meet the normal fluctuations of a dynamic balance sheet. In addition, the Company and its subsidiary banks have approximately $91 million in Federal funds lines of credit from upstream correspondent banks that can be accessed, when needed. In order to ensure availability of these upstream funds, we have a plan for rotating the usage of the funds among the upstream correspondent banks, thereby providing approximately $40 million in funds on a given day. Historical monitoring of these funds has made it possible for us to project seasonal fluctuations and structure our funding requirements on a month-to-month basis. A second source of liquidity is the retail deposits available through our network of subsidiary banks throughout Arkansas. Although this method can be a somewhat more expensive alternative to supplying liquidity, this source can be used to meet intermediate term liquidity needs. Third, our subsidiary banks have lines of credits available with the Federal Home Loan Bank. While we use portions of those lines to match off longer-term mortgage loans, we also use those lines to meet liquidity needs. Approximately $333 million of these lines of credit are currently available, if needed. Fourth, we use a laddered investment portfolio that ensures there is a steady source of intermediate term liquidity. These funds can be used to meet seasonal loan patterns and other intermediate term balance sheet fluctuations. Approximately 25% of the investment portfolio is classified as available-for-sale. We also use securities held in the securities portfolio to pledge when obtaining public funds. Finally, we have the ability to access large deposits from both the public and private sector to fund short-term liquidity needs. We believe the various sources available are ample liquidity for short-term, intermediate-term and long-term liquidity. Market Risk Management Market risk arises from changes in interest rates. We have risk management policies to monitor and limit exposure to market risk. In asset and liability management activities, policies designed to minimize structural interest rate risk are in place. The measurement of market risk associated with financial instruments is meaningful only when all related and offsetting on- and off-balance-sheet transactions are aggregated, and the resulting net positions are identified. Interest Rate Sensitivity Interest rate risk represents the potential impact of interest rate changes on net income and capital resulting from mismatches in repricing opportunities of assets and liabilities over a period of time. A number of tools are used to monitor and manage interest rate risk, including simulation models and interest sensitivity gap analysis. Management uses simulation models to estimate the effects of changing interest rates and various balance sheet strategies on the level of the Company’s net income and capital. As a means of limiting interest rate risk to an acceptable level, management may alter the mix of floating and fixed-rate assets and liabilities, change pricing schedules and manage investment maturities during future security purchases. 55 The simulation model incorporates management’s assumptions regarding the level of interest rates or balance changes for indeterminate maturity deposits for a given level of market rate changes. These assumptions have been developed through anticipated pricing behavior. Key assumptions in the simulation models include the relative timing of prepayments, cash flows and maturities. These assumptions are inherently uncertain and, as a result, the model cannot precisely estimate net interest income or precisely predict the impact of a change in interest rates on net income or capital. Actual results will differ from simulated results due to the timing, magnitude and frequency of interest rate changes and changes in market conditions and management strategies, among other factors. The table below presents our interest rate sensitivity position at December 31, 2011. This analysis is based on a point in time and may not be meaningful because assets and liabilities are categorized according to contractual maturities, repricing periods and expected cash flows rather than estimating more realistic behaviors as is done in the simulation models. Also, this analysis does not consider subsequent changes in interest rate level or spreads between asset and liability categories. Table: 23 Interest Rate Sensitivity (In thousands, except ratios) Earning assets Short-term investments Assets held in trading accounts Investment securities Mortgage loans held for sale Loans Covered Loans Total earning assets Interest bearing liabilities Interest bearing transaction and savings deposits Time deposits Short-term debt Long-term debt Total interest bearing 0-30 Days 31-90 Days 91-180 Days 181-365 Days 1-2 Years 2-5 Years Over 5 Years Total Interest Rate Sensitivity Period $ 535,119 $ -- $ -- $ -- $ -- $ -- $ -- $ 535,119 3,547 121,819 22,976 587,246 74,893 1,345,600 -- 108,170 -- 117,220 6,515 231,905 -- 75,223 -- 182,741 13,448 271,412 113,153 -- 222,055 14,544 349,752 3,994 82,576 -- 237,673 16,786 341,029 -- 78,736 -- 216,013 34,507 329,256 7,541 -- 697,656 117,979 22,976 -- 16,821 1,579,769 (2,618) 158,075 3,001,136 132,182 710,336 103,263 115,038 21,137 -- 150,863 -- 1,038 -- 207,284 -- 2,398 -- 235,062 -- 3,611 105,834 93,690 -- 21,581 317,501 88,402 -- 20,381 105,834 1,239,504 878,634 115,038 120,828 70 -- 50,682 liabilities 949,774 151,901 209,682 238,673 221,105 426,284 156,586 2,354,004 Interest rate sensitivity Gap Cumulative interest rate $ 395,826 $ 80,004 $ 61,730 $ 111,079 $ 119,924 $ (97,028) $ (24,404) $ 647,132 sensitivity Gap $ 395,826 $ 475,830 $ 537,560 $ 648,639 $ 768,564 $ 671,536 $ 647,132 Cumulative rate sensitive assets to rate sensitive liabilities Cumulative Gap as a % of 141.7% 143.2% 141.0% 141.8% 143.4% 130.6% 127.5% earning assets 13.2% 15.9% 17.9% 21.6% 25.6% 22.4% 21.6% 56 ITEM 8. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA INDEX Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting ............................................58 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting .................................................................59 Report on Consolidated Financial Statements .............................................................................60 Consolidated Balance Sheets, December 31, 2011 and 2010 .........................................................61 Consolidated Statements of Income, Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 ............................................................................................62 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 ............................................................................................63 Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity, Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 ............................................................................................64 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 ............................................................................................65 Note: Supplementary Data may be found in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Quarterly Results” on page 54 hereof. 57 Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting The management of Simmons First National Corporation (the “Company”) is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of the Company’s financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. As of December 31, 2011, management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on this assessment, management determined that the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on the specified criteria. BKD, LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm that audited the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, has issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011. The report, which expresses an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, immediately follows. 58 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM Audit Committee, Board of Directors and Stockholders Simmons First National Corporation Pine Bluff, Arkansas We have audited Simmons First National Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. In our opinion, Simmons First National Corporation maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements of Simmons First National Corporation and our report dated March 7, 2012, expressed an unqualified opinion thereon. Pine Bluff, Arkansas March 7, 2012 BKD, LLP /s/ BKD, LLP 59 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM Audit Committee, Board of Directors and Stockholders Simmons First National Corporation Pine Bluff, Arkansas We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Simmons First National Corporation as of December 31, 2011, and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and stockholders’ equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011. The Company’s management is responsible for these financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Our audits included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Simmons First National Corporation as of December 31, 2011, and 2010, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Simmons First National Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report dated March 7, 2012, expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Pine Bluff, Arkansas March 7, 2012 BKD, LLP /s/ BKD, LLP 60 Simmons First National Corporation Consolidated Balance Sheets December 31, 2011 and 2010 (In thousands, except share data) 2011 2010 ASSETS Cash and non-interest bearing balances due from banks Interest bearing balances due from banks Cash and cash equivalents Investment securities Mortgage loans held for sale Assets held in trading accounts Loans not covered by loss share agreements Loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements Allowance for loan losses Net loans FDIC indemnification asset Premises and equipment Foreclosed assets not covered by loss share agreements Foreclosed assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements Interest receivable Bank owned life insurance Goodwill Core deposit premiums Other assets Total assets LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY Deposits: Non-interest bearing transaction accounts Interest bearing transaction accounts and savings deposits Time deposits Total deposits Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase Short-term debt Long-term debt Accrued interest and other liabilities Total liabilities $ 35,087 535,119 570,206 697,656 22,976 7,541 1,579,769 158,075 (30,108) 1,707,736 47,683 86,486 22,887 11,685 15,126 50,579 60,605 1,579 17,384 $ 3,320,129 $ 532,259 1,239,504 878,634 2,650,397 114,766 272 120,828 25,955 2,912,218 $ 33,717 418,343 452,060 613,662 17,237 7,577 1,683,464 231,600 (26,416) 1,888,648 60,235 77,199 23,204 8,717 17,363 49,072 60,605 2,463 38,390 $ 3,316,432 $ 428,750 1,220,133 959,886 2,608,769 109,139 1,033 164,324 35,796 2,919,061 Stockholders’ equity: Preferred stock, $0.01 par value; 40,040,000 shares authorized and unissued at December 31, 2011 and 2010 Common stock, Class A, $0.01 par value; 60,000,000 shares authorized; 17,212,317 and 17,271,594 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively Surplus Undivided profits Accumulated other comprehensive income Unrealized appreciation on available-for-sale securities, net of income taxes of $283 and $331 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively Total stockholders’ equity Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity -- -- 172 112,436 294,864 173 114,040 282,646 439 407,911 $ 3,320,129 512 397,371 $ 3,316,432 See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. 61 Simmons First National Corporation Consolidated Statements of Income Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 (In thousands, except per share data) 2011 2010 2009 INTEREST INCOME Loans not covered by loss share agreements Loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements Federal funds sold Investment securities Mortgage loans held for sale Assets held in trading accounts Interest bearing balances due from banks TOTAL INTEREST INCOME INTEREST EXPENSE Deposits Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase Short-term debt Long-term debt TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSE NET INTEREST INCOME Provision for loan losses NET INTEREST INCOME AFTER PROVISION FOR LOAN LOSSES NON-INTEREST INCOME Trust income Service charges on deposit accounts Other service charges and fees Income on sale of mortgage loans, net of commissions Income on investment banking, net of commissions Credit card fees Premiums on sale of student loans Bank owned life insurance income Gain on sale of securities, net Gain on FDIC-assisted transactions Net gain (loss) on assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements Other income TOTAL NON-INTEREST INCOME NON-INTEREST EXPENSE Salaries and employee benefits Occupancy expense, net Furniture and equipment expense Other real estate and foreclosure expense Deposit insurance Merger related costs Other operating expenses TOTAL NON-INTEREST EXPENSE INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES Provision for income taxes NET INCOME BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. 62 $ 95,713 17,118 6 14,583 503 33 1,100 129,056 14,925 450 51 4,970 20,396 108,660 11,676 $ 106,062 4,204 15 17,208 715 30 721 128,955 19,537 532 58 6,879 27,006 101,949 14,129 $ 113,648 -- 27 21,791 608 20 439 136,533 31,046 769 33 6,958 38,806 97,727 10,316 96,984 87,820 87,411 5,375 16,808 2,980 4,188 1,478 16,828 -- 1,481 -- -- 154 4,173 53,465 65,058 8,443 6,633 678 2,387 357 31,094 114,650 35,799 10,425 $ 25,374 1.47 $ 1.47 $ 5,179 17,700 2,812 4,810 2,236 16,140 2,524 1,670 317 21,314 318 2,854 77,874 60,731 7,808 6,093 974 3,813 2,611 29,233 111,263 54,431 17,314 $ 37,117 2.16 $ 2.15 $ 5,227 17,944 2,668 4,032 2,153 14,392 2,333 1,270 144 -- -- 2,548 52,711 58,317 7,457 6,195 453 4,642 -- 27,658 104,722 35,400 10,190 $ 25,210 1.75 $ 1.74 $ Simmons First National Corporation Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 (In thousands) OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net income Items not requiring (providing) cash Depreciation and amortization Provision for loan losses Gain on sale of investment securities Net accretion of investment securities Stock-based compensation expense Net (accretion) amortization on assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements Gain on FDIC-assisted transactions Deferred income taxes Bank owned life insurance income Changes in Interest receivable Mortgage loans held for sale Assets held in trading accounts Other assets Accrued interest and other liabilities Income taxes payable Net cash provided by operating activities INVESTING ACTIVITIES Net collections of loans Net collections of covered loans Purchases of premises and equipment, net Proceeds from sale of covered other real estate owned Proceeds from sale of foreclosed assets held for sale Net (purchases) sales of short-term investment securities Proceeds from sale of available-for-sale securities Proceeds from maturities of available-for-sale securities Purchases of available-for-sale securities Proceeds from maturities of held-to-maturity securities Purchases of held-to-maturity securities Purchases of bank owned life insurance Net cash proceeds received in FDIC-assisted transactions Cash received on FDIC loss share Net cash provided by investing activities FINANCING ACTIVITIES Net change in deposits Net change in short-term debt Dividends paid Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt Repayment of long-term debt Net change in Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase Shares issued from public stock offering, net of offering costs of $4,178 Net shares issued under stock compensation plans Repurchase of common stock Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities INCREASE IN CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF YEAR 2011 2010 2009 $ 25,374 $ 37,117 $ 25,210 6,067 11,676 -- (51) 1,204 (4,448) -- (3,571) (1,481) 2,237 (5,739) 36 4,742 (2,847) (3,642) 29,557 75,516 66,967 (14,470) 8,200 20,512 -- 5,350 302,438 (331,583) 228,284 (288,505) (25) -- 28,872 101,556 41,628 (761) (13,156) 4,835 (48,331) 5,627 -- 474 (3,283) (12,967) 118,146 5,724 14,129 (317) (7) 974 (595) (21,314) 8,428 (1,670) 518 (8,840) (691) 3,660 2,282 (291) 39,107 128,451 26,046 (4,001) 4,284 37,310 (1) 75,948 520,883 (461,904) 331,527 (332,655) (6,482) 99,677 3,751 422,834 (258,980) (4,822) (13,091) 6,278 (97,454) 3,229 -- 1,374 -- (363,466) 98,475 452,060 353,585 5,841 10,316 (144) (48) 627 -- -- 1,613 (1,270) 3,049 1,939 (1,132) (12,417) (5,387) 1,552 29,749 36,621 -- (4,257) -- 4,139 84,033 361 573,604 (384,080) 281,986 (558,921) (33) -- -- 33,453 95,839 2,528 (11,245) 9,166 (8,014) (9,539) 70,486 1,626 -- 150,847 214,049 139,536 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF YEAR $ 570,206 $ 452,060 $ 353,585 See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. 63 Simmons First National Corporation Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 Common Stock Surplus $ 140 $ 40,807 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) $ 3,190 Undivided Profits 244,655 $ Total 288,792 $ (In thousands, except share data) Balance, December 31, 2008 Comprehensive income: Net income Change in unrealized appreciation on available-for-sale securities, net of income taxes of ($1,456) Comprehensive income Stock issued from public stock offering, net of offering costs of $4,178 Stock issued as bonus shares – 27,915 shares Cancelled bonus shares – 1,113 shares Non-vested bonus shares Stock issued for employee stock purchase plan – 5,823 shares Exercise of stock options – 56,700 shares Stock granted under stock-based compensation plans Securities exchanged under stock option plan Cash dividends – $0.76 per share Balance, December 31, 2009 Comprehensive income: Net income Change in unrealized appreciation on available-for-sale securities, net of income taxes of ($161) Comprehensive income Stock issued as bonus shares – 83,245 shares Vesting bonus shares Stock issued for employee stock purchase plan – 4,947 shares Exercise of stock options – 108,604 shares Stock granted under stock-based compensation plans Securities exchanged under stock option plan Cash dividends – $0.76 per share Balance, December 31, 2010 Comprehensive income: Net income Change in unrealized appreciation on available-for-sale securities, net of income taxes of ($47) Comprehensive income Stock issued as bonus shares – 47,995 shares Vesting bonus shares Stock issued for employee stock purchase plan – 4,805 shares Exercise of stock options – 30,319 shares Stock granted under stock-based compensation plans Securities exchanged under stock option plan – (5,252 shares) -- -- 30 -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 171 -- -- 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 70,456 702 29 (1,208) 141 689 180 (102) -- 111,694 -- -- 203 801 131 1,460 -- -- -- 173 173 (422) -- 114,040 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 98 1,066 127 385 138 -- 25,210 25,210 (2,428) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 762 -- (250) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 512 -- (73) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- (11,245) 258,620 (2,428) 22,782 70,486 702 29 (1,208) 141 690 180 (102) (11,245) 371,247 37,117 37,117 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- (13,091) 282,646 (250) 36,867 204 801 131 1,461 173 (422) (13,091) 397,371 25,374 25,374 -- -- -- -- -- -- (73) 25,301 98 1,066 127 385 138 -- (1) -- 172 (136) (3,282) -- $ 112,436 $ -- -- -- 439 -- -- (13,156) 294,864 $ (136) (3,283) (13,156) 407,911 $ Repurchase of common stock – (137,144 shares) Cash dividends – $0.76 per share Balance, December 31, 2011 $ See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. 64 Simmons First National Corporation Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements NOTE 1: NATURE OF OPERATIONS AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Nature of Operations Simmons First National Corporation (the “Company”) is primarily engaged in providing a full range of banking services to individual and corporate customers through its subsidiaries and their branch banks with offices in Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas. The Company is subject to competition from other financial institutions. The Company also is subject to the regulation of certain federal and state agencies and undergoes periodic examinations by those regulatory authorities. Operating Segments The Company is organized on a subsidiary bank-by-bank basis upon which management makes decisions regarding how to allocate resources and assess performance. Each of the subsidiary banks provides a group of similar community banking services, including such products and services as loans; time deposits, checking and savings accounts; personal and corporate trust services; credit cards; investment management; and securities and investment services. The individual bank segments have similar operating and economic characteristics and have been reported as one aggregated operating segment. Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Material estimates that are particularly susceptible to significant change relate to the determination of the allowance for loan losses, the valuation of real estate acquired in connection with foreclosures or in satisfaction of loans and the valuation of covered loans and related indemnification asset. In connection with the determination of the allowance for loan losses and the valuation of foreclosed assets, management obtains independent appraisals for significant properties. Principles of Consolidation The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Simmons First National Corporation and its subsidiaries. Significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. Reclassifications Various items within the accompanying consolidated financial statements for previous years have been reclassified to provide more comparative information. These reclassifications had no effect on net earnings. Cash Equivalents The Company considers all liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less to be cash equivalents. For purposes of the consolidated statements of cash flows, cash and cash equivalents are considered to include cash and non-interest bearing balances due from banks, interest bearing balances due from banks and federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell. 65 Interest Bearing Deposits in Banks Interest bearing balances due from banks mature within one year and are carried at cost. Investment Securities Held-to-maturity securities, which include any security for which the Company has the positive intent and ability to hold until maturity, are carried at historical cost adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts. Premiums and discounts are amortized and accreted, respectively, to interest income using the constant yield method over the period to maturity. Available-for-sale securities, which include any security for which the Company has no immediate plan to sell but which may be sold in the future, are carried at fair value. Realized gains and losses, based on specifically identified amortized cost of the individual security, are included in other income. Unrealized gains and losses are recorded, net of related income tax effects, in stockholders' equity. Premiums and discounts are amortized and accreted, respectively, to interest income using the constant yield method over the period to maturity. Trading securities, which include any security held primarily for near-term sale, are carried at fair value. Gains and losses on trading securities are included in other income. Effective April 1, 2009, the Company adopted new accounting guidance related to recognition and presentation of other-than-temporary impairment, ASC Topic 320-10. When the Company does not intend to sell a debt security, and it is more likely than not, the Company will not have to sell the security before recovery of its cost basis, it recognizes the credit component of an other-than-temporary impairment of a debt security in earnings and the remaining portion in other comprehensive income. For held-to-maturity debt securities, the amount of an other-than-temporary impairment recorded in other comprehensive income for the noncredit portion of a previous other-than-temporary impairment is amortized prospectively over the remaining life of the security on the basis of the timing of future estimated cash flows of the security. As a result of this guidance, the Company’s consolidated statements of income as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 reflect the full impairment (that is, the difference between the security’s amortized cost basis and fair value) on debt securities that the Company intends to sell or would more likely than not be required to sell before the expected recovery of the amortized cost basis. For available-for-sale and held-to-maturity debt securities that management has no intent to sell and believes that it more likely than not will not be required to sell prior to recovery, only the credit loss component of the impairment is recognized in earnings, while the noncredit loss is recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income. The credit loss component recognized in earnings is identified as the amount of principal cash flows not expected to be received over the remaining term of the security as projected based on cash flow projections. Prior to the adoption of this accounting guidance on April 1, 2009, management considered, in determining whether other-than-temporary impairment exists, (1) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer and (3) the intent and ability of the Company to retain its investment in the issuer for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value. Mortgage Loans Held For Sale Mortgage loans held for sale are carried at the lower of cost or fair value, determined using an aggregate basis. Write- downs to fair value are recognized as a charge to earnings at the time the decline in value occurs. Forward commitments to sell mortgage loans are acquired to reduce market risk on mortgage loans in the process of origination and mortgage loans held for sale. The forward commitments acquired by the Company for mortgage loans in process of origination are not mandatory forward commitments. These commitments are structured on a best efforts basis; therefore, the Company is not required to substitute another loan or to buy back the commitment if the original loan does not fund. Typically, the Company delivers the mortgage loans within a few days after the loans are funded. These commitments are derivative instruments and their fair values at December 31, 2011 and 2010 are not material. Gains and losses resulting from sales of mortgage loans are recognized when the respective loans are sold to investors. Gains and losses are determined by the difference between the selling price and the carrying amount of the loans sold, net of 66 discounts collected or paid. Fees received from borrowers to guarantee the funding of mortgage loans held for sale are recognized as income or expense when the loans are sold or when it becomes evident that the commitment will not be used. Loans Loans that management has the intent and ability to hold for the foreseeable future or until maturity or pay-offs are reported at their outstanding principal adjusted for any loans charged off, the allowance for loan losses and any unamortized deferred fees or costs on originated loans and unamortized premiums or discounts on purchased loans. For loans amortized at cost, interest income is accrued based on the unpaid principal balance. Loan origination fees, net of certain direct origination costs, as well as premiums and discounts, are deferred and amortized as a level yield adjustment over the respective term of the loan. The accrual of interest on loans, except on certain government guaranteed loans, is discontinued at the time the loan is 90 days past due unless the credit is well-secured and in process of collection. Past due status is based on contractual terms of the loan. In all cases, loans are placed on nonaccrual or charged off at an earlier date if collection of principal or interest is considered doubtful. Discounts and premiums on purchased residential real estate loans are amortized to income using the interest method over the remaining period to contractual maturity, adjusted for anticipated prepayments. Discounts and premiums on purchased consumer loans are recognized over the expected lives of the loans using methods that approximate the interest method. Allowance for Loan Losses The allowance for loan losses is established as losses are estimated to have occurred through a provision for loan losses charged to income. Loan losses are charged against the allowance when management believes the uncollectability of a loan balance is confirmed. Subsequent recoveries, if any, are credited to the allowance. The allowance is maintained at a level considered appropriate to provide for potential loan losses related to specifically identified loans as well as probable credit losses inherent in the remainder of the loan portfolio as of period end. This estimate is based on management's evaluation of the loan portfolio, as well as on prevailing and anticipated economic conditions and historical losses by loan category. General reserves have been established, based upon the aforementioned factors and allocated to the individual loan categories. Allowances are accrued on specific loans evaluated for impairment for which the basis of each loan, including accrued interest, exceeds the discounted amount of expected future collections of interest and principal or, alternatively, the fair value of loan collateral. The unallocated reserve generally serves to compensate for the uncertainty in estimating loan losses, including the possibility of changes in risk ratings and specific reserve allocations in the loan portfolio as a result of the Company’s ongoing risk management system. A loan is considered impaired when it is probable that the Company will not receive all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan. This includes loans that are delinquent 90 days or more, nonaccrual loans and certain other loans identified by management. Certain other loans identified by management consist of performing loans with specific allocations of the allowance for loan losses. Specific allocations are applied when quantifiable factors are present requiring a greater allocation than that established by the Company based on its analysis of historical losses for each loan category. Accrual of interest is discontinued and interest accrued and unpaid is removed at the time such amounts are delinquent 90 days unless management is aware of circumstances which warrant continuing the interest accrual. Interest is recognized for nonaccrual loans only upon receipt and only after all principal amounts are current according to the terms of the contract. 67 Acquisition Accounting, Covered Loans and Related Indemnification Asset The Company accounts for its acquisitions under ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations, which requires the use of the purchase method of accounting. All identifiable assets acquired, including loans, are recorded at fair value. No allowance for loan losses related to the acquired loans is recorded on the acquisition date as the fair value of the loans acquired incorporates assumptions regarding credit risk. Loans acquired are recorded at fair value in accordance with the fair value methodology prescribed in ASC Topic 820, exclusive of the shared loss agreements with the FDIC. The fair value estimates associated with the loans include estimates related to expected prepayments and the amount and timing of undiscounted expected principal, interest and other cash flows. Over the life of the acquired loans, the Company continues to estimate cash flows expected to be collected on individual loans or on pools of loans sharing common risk characteristics and were treated in the aggregate when applying various valuation techniques. The Company evaluates at each balance sheet date whether the present value of its loans determined using the effective interest rates has decreased and if so, recognizes a provision for loan loss in its consolidated statement of income. For any increases in cash flows expected to be collected, the Company adjusts the amount of accretable yield recognized on a prospective basis over the loan’s or pool’s remaining life. Because the FDIC will reimburse the Company for losses incurred on certain acquired loans, an indemnification asset is recorded at fair value at the acquisition date. The indemnification asset is recognized at the same time as the indemnified loans, and measured on the same basis, subject to collectability or contractual limitations. The shared-loss agreements on the acquisition date reflect the reimbursements expected to be received from the FDIC, using an appropriate discount rate, which reflects counterparty credit risk and other uncertainties. The shared-loss agreements continue to be measured on the same basis as the related indemnified loans. Because the acquired loans are subject to the accounting prescribed by ASC Topic 310, subsequent changes to the basis of the shared-loss agreements also follow that model. Deterioration in the credit quality of the loans (immediately recorded as an adjustment to the allowance for loan losses) would immediately increase the basis of the shared-loss agreements, with the offset recorded through the consolidated statement of income. Increases in the credit quality or cash flows of loans (reflected as an adjustment to yield and accreted into income over the remaining life of the loans) decrease the basis of the shared-loss agreements, with such decrease being accreted into income over 1) the same period or 2) the life of the shared-loss agreements, whichever is shorter. Loss assumptions used in the basis of the indemnified loans are consistent with the loss assumptions used to measure the indemnification asset. Fair value accounting incorporates into the fair value of the indemnification asset an element of the time value of money, which is accreted back into income over the life of the shared-loss agreements. Upon the determination of an incurred loss the indemnification asset will be reduced by the amount owed by the FDIC. A corresponding, claim receivable is recorded until cash is received from the FDIC. For further discussion of the Company’s acquisition and loan accounting, see Note 2 and Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements. Premises and Equipment Depreciable assets are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is charged to expense using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets. Leasehold improvements are capitalized and amortized by the straight-line method over the terms of the respective leases or the estimated useful lives of the improvements, whichever is shorter. Foreclosed Assets Held For Sale Assets acquired by foreclosure or in settlement of debt and held for sale are valued at estimated fair value as of the date of foreclosure, and a related valuation allowance is provided for estimated costs to sell the assets. Management evaluates the value of foreclosed assets held for sale periodically and increases the valuation allowance for any subsequent declines in fair value. Changes in the valuation allowance are charged or credited to other expense. 68 Goodwill and Intangible Assets Goodwill represents the excess of the cost of an acquisition over the fair value of the net assets acquired. Other intangible assets represent purchased assets that also lack physical substance but can be separately distinguished from goodwill because of contractual or other legal rights or because the asset is capable of being sold or exchanged either on its own or in combination with a related contract, asset or liability. The Company performs an annual goodwill impairment test, and more frequently if circumstances warrant, in accordance with ASC Topic 350, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. ASC Topic 350 requires that goodwill and intangible assets that have indefinite lives be reviewed for impairment annually, or more frequently if certain conditions occur. Impairment losses on recorded goodwill, if any, will be recorded as operating expenses. Derivative Financial Instruments The Company may enter into derivative contracts for the purposes of managing exposure to interest rate risk to meet the financing needs of its customers. The Company records all derivatives on the balance sheet at fair value. Historically, the Company’s policy has been not to invest in derivative type investments, but, in an effort to meet the financing needs of its customers, the Company has entered into one fair value hedge. Fair value hedges include interest rate swap agreements on fixed rate loans. For derivatives designated as hedging the exposure to changes in the fair value of the hedged item, the gain or loss is recognized in earnings in the period of change together with the offsetting loss or gain of the hedging instrument. The fair value hedge is considered to be highly effective and any hedge ineffectiveness was deemed not material. The notional amount of the loan being hedged was $1.5 million at December 31, 2011, and $1.6 million at December 31, 2010. Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase The Company sells securities under agreements to repurchase to meet customer needs for sweep accounts. At the point funds deposited by customers become investable, those funds are used to purchase securities owned by the Company and held in its general account with the designation of Customers’ Securities. A third party maintains control over the securities underlying overnight repurchase agreements. The securities involved in these transactions are generally U.S. Treasury or Federal Agency issues. Securities sold under agreements to repurchase generally mature on the banking day following that on which the investment was initially purchased and are treated as collateralized financing transactions which are recorded at the amounts at which the securities were sold plus accrued interest. Interest rates and maturity dates of the securities involved vary and are not intended to be matched with funds from customers. Bankcard Fee Income Periodic bankcard fees, net of direct origination costs, are recognized as revenue on a straight-line basis over the period the fee entitles the cardholder to use the card. Income Taxes The Company accounts for income taxes in accordance with income tax accounting guidance in ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes. The income tax accounting guidance results in two components of income tax expense: current and deferred. Current income tax expense reflects taxes to be paid or refunded for the current period by applying the provisions of the enacted tax law to the taxable income or excess of deductions over revenues. The Company determines deferred income taxes using the liability (or balance sheet) method. Under this method, the net deferred tax asset or liability is based on the tax effects of the differences between the book and tax bases of assets and liabilities, and enacted changes in tax rates and laws are recognized in the period in which they occur. Deferred income tax expense results from changes in deferred tax assets and liabilities between periods. Deferred tax assets are recognized if it is more likely than not, based on the technical merits, that the tax position will be realized or sustained upon examination. The term more likely than not means a likelihood of more than 50 percent; the terms examined and upon examination also include resolution of the related appeals or litigation processes, if any. A tax position that meets the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold is initially and subsequently measured as the largest 69 amount of tax benefit that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being realized upon settlement with a taxing authority that has full knowledge of all relevant information. The determination of whether or not a tax position has met the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold considers the facts, circumstances and information available at the reporting date and is subject to management’s judgment. Deferred tax assets are reduced by a valuation allowance if, based on the weight of evidence available, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. The Company files consolidated income tax returns with its subsidiaries. Earnings Per Share Basic earnings per share are computed based on the weighted average number of shares outstanding during each year. Diluted earnings per share are computed using the weighted average common shares and all potential dilutive common shares outstanding during the period. The computation of per share earnings is as follows: (In thousands, except per share data) 2011 2010 2009 Net Income $ 25,374 $ 37,117 $ 25,210 Average common shares outstanding Average common share stock options outstanding Average diluted common shares Basic earnings per share Diluted earnings per share 17,309 9 17,318 $ $ 1.47 1.47 17,204 61 17,265 $ $ 2.16 2.15 14,375 90 14,465 $ $ 1.75 1.74 Stock options to purchase 147,470, 95,770 and 100,290 shares, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, were not included in the earnings per share calculation because the exercise price exceeded the average market price. Stock-Based Compensation The Company has adopted various stock-based compensation plans. The plans provide for the grant of incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights and bonus stock awards. Pursuant to the plans, shares are reserved for future issuance by the Company, upon exercise of stock options or awarding of bonus shares granted to directors, officers and other key employees. In accordance with ASC Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation, the fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model that uses various assumptions. This model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, changes to which can materially affect the fair value estimate. For additional information, see Note 12, Employee Benefit Plans. 70 NOTE 2: ACQUISITIONS On May 14, 2010, the Company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Simmons First National Bank (“SFNB” or “lead bank”), entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with loss share arrangements with the FDIC pursuant to which it acquired substantially all of the assets and assumed substantially all of the deposits and certain other liabilities of Southwest Community Bank (“SWCB”) in Springfield, Missouri. As a result of this acquisition, the Company expanded its footprint outside the Arkansas borders for the first time. The Company recognized a pre-tax gain of $3.0 million on this transaction and incurred pre-tax merger related costs of $0.4 million. On October 15, 2010, the Company, through the lead bank, entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with loss share arrangements with the FDIC to purchase substantially all of the assets and to assume substantially all of the deposits and certain other liabilities of Security Savings Bank, FSB (“SSB”) with nine offices in Kansas, including three in Salina, two each in Olathe and Wichita and one each in Overland Park and Leawood. This acquisition marked the Company’s second expansion outside the State of Arkansas. The Company recognized a pre-tax gain of $18.3 million on this transaction and incurred pre-tax merger related costs of $2.0 million. A summary, at fair value, of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the SWCB and SSB transactions, as of acquisition dates, is as follows: (In thousands) SWCB SSB Total Assets Acquired Cash and due from banks Cash received from FDIC Receivable from FDIC Investment securities Loans not covered by loss share agreements Loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements Foreclosed assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements FDIC indemnification asset Core deposit premium Other assets Total assets acquired $ 7,414 10,000 653 24,850 -- 40,177 4,646 13,783 -- 467 101,990 $ 11,063 71,200 1,856 75,621 991 219,158 6,363 68,330 1,480 1,577 457,639 $ 18,477 81,200 2,509 100,471 991 259,335 11,009 82,113 1,480 2,044 559,629 Liabilities Assumed Deposits: Non-interest bearing transaction accounts Interest bearing transaction accounts and savings deposits Time deposits Total deposits Repurchase agreements FHLB borrowings Accrued interest and other liabilities Total liabilities assumed Pre-tax gains on FDIC-assisted transactions $ 5,063 103 92,174 97,340 -- -- 1,613 98,953 3,037 82,614 8,624 246,999 338,237 2,215 95,676 3,234 439,362 $ 18,277 87,677 8,727 339,173 435,577 2,215 95,676 4,847 538,315 $ 21,314 The following is a description of the methods used to determine the fair values of significant assets and liabilities presented above. Cash and due from banks, cash received from FDIC and receivable from FDIC – The carrying amount of these assets is a reasonable estimate of fair value based on the short-term nature of these assets. The $10.0 million cash received from the FDIC for SWCB and $71.2 million for SSB is the first pro-forma cash settlement received from the FDIC on Monday following the closing weekend. The $0.7 million receivable from the FDIC for SWCB and $1.9 million for SSB is the remaining amount due from the settlement. 71 Investment securities – Investment securities were acquired from the FDIC at fair market value. The fair values provided by the FDIC were reviewed and considered reasonable based on SFNB’s understanding of the market conditions. Loans – Fair values for loans were based on a discounted cash flow methodology that considered factors including the type of loan and related collateral, classification status, fixed or variable interest rate, term of loan and whether or not the loan was amortizing, and current discount rates. The discount rates used for loans are based on current market rates for new originations of comparable loans and include adjustments for liquidity concerns. The discount rate does not include a factor for credit losses as that has been included in the estimated cash flows. Loans were grouped together according to similar characteristics and were treated in the aggregate when applying various valuation techniques. Foreclosed assets held for sale – These assets are presented at the estimated present values that management expects to receive when the properties are sold, net of related costs of disposal. FDIC indemnification asset – This loss sharing asset is measured separately from the related covered assets as it is not contractually embedded in the covered assets and is not transferable with the covered assets should SFNB choose to dispose of them. Fair value was estimated using projected cash flows related to the loss sharing agreements based on the expected reimbursements for losses and the applicable loss sharing percentages. These cash flows were discounted to reflect the uncertainty of the timing and receipt of the loss-sharing reimbursement from the FDIC. Core deposit premium – This intangible asset represents the value of the relationships that SWCB and SSB had with their deposit customers. The fair value of this intangible asset was estimated based on a discounted cash flow methodology that gave appropriate consideration to expected customer attrition rates, cost of the deposit base and the net maintenance cost attributable to customer deposits. Based on the valuation methodologies used in the analysis, the estimated fair value of the core deposit premium at SWCB was immaterial. Deposits – The fair values used for the demand and savings deposits that comprise the transaction accounts acquired, by definition equal the amount payable on demand at the acquisition date. Even though deposit rates were above market, because SFNB reset deposit rates to current market rates, there was no fair value adjustment recorded for time deposits. FHLB borrowings – The fair value of Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) borrowings is estimated based on borrowing rates currently available to the Company for borrowings with similar terms and maturities. Included in the SSB acquisition were FHLB borrowed funds with a fair value totaling $95.7 million. The Company did not need these advances to meet its liquidity needs, and redeemed approximately $60.8 million of the advances during the fourth quarter of 2010. The FHLB borrowings are secured by mortgage loans. The remaining borrowings are being held to maturity to match loans with similar maturities. FDIC True-Up Provision – The purchase and assumption agreements for SWCB and SSB allow for the FDIC to recover a portion of the loss share funds previously paid out under the indemnification agreement in the event losses fail to reach the expected loss level under a claw back provision (“true-up provision”). A true-up is scheduled to occur in the calendar month in which the tenth anniversary of the respective closing occurs. If the threshold is not met, the assuming institution is required to pay the FDIC 50 percent of the excess, if any, within 45 days following the true-up. The value of the true-up provision liability is calculated as the present value of the estimated payment to the FDIC in the tenth year using the formula provided in the agreements. The result of the calculation is based on the net present value of expected future cash payments to be made by SFNB to the FDIC at the conclusion of the loss share agreements. The discount rate used was based on current market rates. The expected cash flows were calculated in accordance with the loss share agreements and are based primarily on the expected losses on the covered assets. The value of the true-up provision was $3.4 million and $3.2 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and was included in accrued interest and other liabilities on the balance sheet. In connection with the SWBC and SSB acquisitions, SFNB and the FDIC will share in the losses on assets covered under the loss share agreements. The FDIC will reimburse SFNB for 80% of all losses on covered assets. The loss sharing agreements entered into by SFNB and the FDIC in conjunction with the purchase and assumption agreements 72 require that SFNB follow certain servicing procedures as specified in the loss share agreements or risk losing FDIC reimbursement of covered asset losses. Additionally, to the extent that actual losses incurred by SFNB under the loss share agreements are less than expected, SFNB may be required to reimburse the FDIC under the clawback provisions of the loss share agreements. At December 31, 2011, the covered loans and covered other real estate owned and the related FDIC indemnification asset (collectively, the “covered assets”) and the FDIC true-up provision were reported at the net present value of expected future amounts to be paid or received. Purchased loans acquired in a business combination, including loans purchased in the SWCB and SSB acquisitions, are recorded at estimated fair value on their purchase date with no carryover of the related allowance for loan and lease losses. Purchased loans are accounted for in accordance with ASC Topic 310-30, Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality accounting guidance for certain loans or debt securities acquired in a transfer, when the loans have evidence of credit deterioration since origination and it is probable at the date of acquisition that the acquirer will not collect all contractually required principal and interest payments. The difference between contractually required payments and the cash flows expected to be collected at acquisition is referred to as the non- accretable difference. Subsequent decreases to the expected cash flows will generally result in a provision for loan and lease losses. Subsequent increases in cash flows result in a reversal of the provision for loan and lease losses to the extent of prior charges and an adjustment in accretable yield, recognized on a prospective basis over the loan’s or pool’s remaining life, which will have a positive impact on interest income. The Company has finalized its analysis of the acquired loans along with the other acquired assets and assumed liabilities in these transactions. No significant adjustments to the estimated amounts and carrying values were required as of the dates of acquisition. See Note 5 for discussion regarding subsequent evaluation of future cash flows. During 2010, SFNB acquired the real estate (building and land) for the Springfield, Missouri location (formerly SWCB) for a total of $1.1 million. During 2011, SFNB acquired the real estate for four of the Kansas locations previously owned by SSB related entities for a total of $6.2 million. Also, during 2011, SFNB acquired three additional Kansas locations upon final settlement of SSB with the FDIC for a total of $4.4 million. Two other locations are leased from third parties and SFNB will continue to lease these facilities. 73 NOTE 3: INVESTMENT SECURITIES The amortized cost and fair value of investment securities that are classified as held-to-maturity and available-for-sale are as follows: Years Ended December 31 2011 2010 (In thousands) Held-to-Maturity U.S. Treasury U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities State and political subdivisions Other securities Gross Amortized Unrealized Unrealized (Losses) Gains Gross Cost Estimated Fair Value Gross Amortized Unrealized Unrealized (Losses) Gains Cost Fair Value Gross Estimated $ 4,000 $ 14 $ -- $ 4,014 $ 4,000 $ 28 $ -- $ 4,028 308,779 712 (154) 309,337 249,844 1,764 (507) 251,101 62 1 -- 63 78 4 -- 82 211,673 930 6,333 -- (144) -- 217,862 930 210,331 930 2,280 -- (1,845) -- 210,766 930 Total $ 525,444 $ 7,060 $ (298) $ 532,206 $ 465,183 $ 4,076 $ (2,352) $ 466,907 Available-for-Sale U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities State and political subdivisions Other securities $ 153,560 $ 295 $ (228) $ 153,627 $ 125,175 $ 577 $ (283) $ 125,469 2,280 277 -- 2,557 2,647 143 -- 15,649 -- 384 -- (5) -- 16,028 -- 19,814 -- 411 (1) -- (4) 2,789 -- 20,221 Total $ 171,489 $ 956 $ (233) $ 172,212 $ 147,636 $ 1,131 $ (288) $ 148,479 Securities with limited marketability, such as stock in the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Home Loan Bank, are carried at cost and are reported as other available-for-sale securities in the table above. Certain investment securities are valued at less than their historical cost. Total fair value of these investments at December 31, 2011 and 2010, was $196.3 million and $229.6 million, which is approximately 27.9% and 37.3%, respectively, of the Company’s available-for-sale and held-to-maturity investment portfolio. 74 The following table shows the gross unrealized losses and fair value of the Company’s investments with unrealized losses, aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position at December 31: Less Than 12 Months Estimated Gross Fair Unrealized Value Losses 12 Months or More Gross Estimated Unrealized Fair Losses Value Total Estimated Fair Value Gross Unrealized Losses (In thousands) December 31, 2011 Held-to-Maturity U.S. Government agencies State and political subdivisions $ 83,128 $ 4,673 154 $ 11 -- 1,226 $ -- $ 83,128 $ 133 5,899 154 144 Total $ 87,801 $ 165 $ 1,226 $ 133 $ 89,027 $ 298 Available-for-Sale U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities Other securities $ 106,097 $ -- 1 201 $ 1,166 35 -- -- 5 $ 27 $ 107,263 $ -- -- 35 1 228 -- 5 Total $ 106,098 $ 206 $ 1,201 $ 27 $ 107,299 $ 233 December 31, 2010 Held-to-Maturity U.S. Government agencies State and political subdivisions $ 97,437 $ 62,807 1,735 507 $ -- 1,837 $ -- $ 97,437 $ 110 64,644 507 1,845 Total $ 160,244 $ 2,242 $ 1,837 $ 110 $ 162,081 $ 2,352 Available-for-Sale U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities Other securities $ 67,203 $ 207 1 283 $ -- 4 $ -- 110 -- -- $ 67,203 $ 1 -- 317 1 283 1 4 Total $ 67,411 $ 287 $ 110 $ 1 $ 67,521 $ 288 U.S. Government Agencies The unrealized losses on the Company’s investments in direct obligations of U.S. government agencies were caused by interest rate increases. The contractual terms of those investments do not permit the issuer to settle the securities at a price less than the amortized cost bases of the investments. Because the Company does not intend to sell the investments and it is not more likely than not the Company will be required to sell the investments before recovery of their amortized cost bases, which may be maturity, the Company does not consider those investments to be other-than- temporarily impaired at December 31, 2011. 75 State and Political Subdivisions The unrealized losses on the Company’s investments in securities of state and political subdivisions were caused by interest rate increases. The contractual terms of those investments do not permit the issuer to settle the securities at a price less than the amortized cost bases of the investments. Because the Company does not intend to sell the investments and it is not more likely than not the Company will be required to sell the investments before recovery of their amortized cost bases, which may be maturity, the Company does not consider those investments to be other-than- temporarily impaired at December 31, 2011. Should the impairment of any of these securities become other than temporary, the cost basis of the investment will be reduced and the resulting loss recognized in net income in the period the other-than-temporary impairment is identified. Management has the ability and intent to hold the securities classified as held to maturity until they mature, at which time the Company expects to receive full value for the securities. Furthermore, as of December 31, 2011, management also had the ability and intent to hold the securities classified as available-for-sale for a period of time sufficient for a recovery of cost. The unrealized losses are largely due to increases in market interest rates over the yields available at the time the underlying securities were purchased. The fair value is expected to recover as the bonds approach their maturity date or repricing date or if market yields for such investments decline. Management does not believe any of the securities are impaired due to reasons of credit quality. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2011, management believes the impairments detailed in the table above are temporary. Income earned on the above securities for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, is as follows: (In thousands) Taxable Held-to-maturity Available-for-sale Non-taxable Held-to-maturity Available-for-sale Total 2011 2010 2009 $ 4,229 2,490 $ 4,615 4,336 $ 2,880 11,016 7,864 -- 8,257 -- 7,874 21 $ 14,583 $ 17,208 $ 21,791 The Statement of Stockholders’ Equity includes other comprehensive income. Other comprehensive income for the Company includes the change in the unrealized appreciation on available-for-sale securities. The changes in the unrealized appreciation on available-for-sale securities for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, are as follows: (In thousands) 2011 2010 2009 Unrealized holding gains (losses) arising during the period Gains realized in net income Income tax expense (benefit) Net change in unrealized appreciation on available-for-sale securities $ (120) -- (120) (47) $ (94) 317 (411) (161) $ (3,740) 144 (3,884) (1,456) $ (73) $ (250) $ (2,428) 76 The amortized cost and estimated fair value by maturity of securities are shown in the following table. Securities are classified according to their contractual maturities without consideration of principal amortization, potential prepayments or call options. Accordingly, actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities. (In thousands) One year or less After one through five years After five through ten years After ten years Other securities Held-to-Maturity Available-for-Sale Amortized Cost Fair Value Amortized Cost Fair Value $ 36,695 220,925 181,674 86,150 -- $ 36,890 222,012 183,745 89,559 -- $ 300 81,929 73,607 4 15,649 $ 300 81,965 73,915 4 16,028 Total $ 525,444 $ 532,206 $ 171,489 $ 172,212 The carrying value, which approximates the fair value, of securities pledged as collateral, to secure public deposits and for other purposes, amounted to $410,702,000 at December 31, 2011 and $435,635,000 at December 31, 2010. The book value of securities sold under agreements to repurchase amounted to $83,556,000 and $75,774,000 for December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. There were no gross realized gains or losses from the sale of available for sale securities during the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company had gross realized gains of $467,000 and gross realized losses of $150,000 during the year ended December 31, 2010, from the sale of available for sale securities. As part of its acquisition strategy related to SSB, the Company liquidated the acquired investment portfolio, resulting in the entire net realized gain of $317,000 in 2010. The Company had gross realized gains of $144,000 and no realized losses during the year ended December 31, 2009. The income tax expense/benefit related to security gains/losses was 39.225% of the gross amounts. The state and political subdivision debt obligations are primarily non-rated bonds and represent small, Arkansas issues, which are evaluated on an ongoing basis. 77 NOTE 4: LOANS AND ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN LOSSES At December 31, 2011, the Company’s loan portfolio was $1.74 billion, compared to $1.92 billion at December 31, 2010. The various categories of loans are summarized as follows: (In thousands) Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Loans not covered by loss share agreements Loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements 2011 2010 $ 189,970 47,419 109,211 346,600 109,825 355,094 536,372 1,001,291 141,422 85,728 227,150 4,728 1,579,769 158,075 $ 190,329 61,305 118,581 370,215 153,772 364,442 548,360 1,066,574 150,501 86,171 236,672 10,003 1,683,464 231,600 Total loans before allowance for loan losses $ 1,737,844 $1,915,064 Loan Origination/Risk Management – The Company seeks to manage its credit risk by diversifying its loan portfolio, determining that borrowers have adequate sources of cash flow for loan repayment without liquidation of collateral; obtaining and monitoring collateral; providing an appropriate allowance for loans losses by regularly reviewing loans through the internal loan review process. The loan portfolio is diversified by borrower, purpose and industry. The Company seeks to use diversification within the loan portfolio to reduce its credit risk, thereby minimizing the adverse impact on the portfolio, if weaknesses develop in either the economy or a particular segment of borrowers. Collateral requirements are based on credit assessments of borrowers and may be used to recover the debt in case of default. Furthermore, factors that influenced the Company’s judgment regarding the allowance for loan losses consists of a three-year historical loss average segregated by each primary loan sector. On an annual basis, historical loss rates are calculated for each sector. Consumer – The consumer loan portfolio consists of credit card loans, student loans and other consumer loans. The Company no longer originates student loans, and the current portfolio is guaranteed by the Department of Education at 97% of principal and interest. Credit card loans are diversified by geographic region to reduce credit risk and minimize any adverse impact on the portfolio. Although they are regularly reviewed to facilitate the identification and monitoring of creditworthiness, credit card loans are unsecured loans, making them more susceptible to be impacted by economic downturns resulting in increasing unemployment. Other consumer loans include direct and indirect installment loans and overdrafts. Loans in this portfolio segment are sensitive to unemployment and other key consumer economic measures. Real estate – The real estate loan portfolio consists of construction loans, single family residential loans and commercial loans. Construction and development loans (“C&D”) and commercial real estate loans (“CRE”) can be particularly sensitive to valuation of real estate. Commercial real estate cycles are inevitable. The long planning and production process for new properties and rapid shifts in business conditions and employment create an inherent tension between supply and demand for commercial properties. While general economic trends often move individual markets in the same direction over time, the timing and magnitude of changes are determined by other forces unique to each market. CRE cycles tend to be local in nature and longer than other credit cycles. Factors influencing the CRE market are traditionally different from those affecting residential real estate markets; thereby making predictions for one market based on the other difficult. Additionally, submarkets within commercial real estate – such as office, industrial, apartment, retail and hotel – also experience different cycles, providing an opportunity to lower the overall risk through 78 diversification across types of CRE loans. Management realizes that local demand and supply conditions will also mean that different geographic areas will experience cycles of different amplitude and length. The Company monitors these loans closely and has no significant concentrations in its real estate loan portfolio. Commercial – The commercial loan portfolio includes commercial and agricultural loans, representing loans to commercial customers and farmers for use in normal business or farming operations to finance working capital needs, equipment purchase or other expansion projects. Collection risk in this portfolio is driven by the creditworthiness of the underlying borrowers, particularly cash flow from customers’ business or farming operations. The Company continues its efforts to keep loan terms short, reducing the negative impact of upward movement in interest rates. Term loans are generally set up with a one or three year balloon, and the Company has recently instituted a pricing index for commercial loans. It is standard practice to require personal guaranties on all commercial loans, particularly as they relate to closely-held or limited liability entities. Nonaccrual and Past Due Loans – Loans are considered past due if the required principal and interest payments have not been received as of the date such payments were due. Loans are placed on nonaccrual status when, in management’s opinion, the borrower may be unable to meet payment obligations as they become due, as well as when required by regulatory provisions. Loans may be placed on nonaccrual status regardless of whether or not such loans are considered past due. When interest accrual is discontinued, all unpaid accrued interest is reversed. Interest income is subsequently recognized only to the extent cash payments are received in excess of principal due. Loans are returned to accrual status when all the principal and interest amounts contractually due are brought current and future payments are reasonably assured. Nonaccrual loans, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, at December 31, 2011 and 2010, segregated by class of loans, are as follows: (In thousands) Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total 2011 2010 $ 305 -- 839 1,144 121 3,198 7,233 10,552 757 454 1,211 -- $ 295 -- 963 1,258 804 3,470 4,340 8,614 972 342 1,314 -- $ 12,907 $ 11,186 79 An age analysis of past due loans, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, segregated by class of loans, at December 31, 2011 and 2010, is as follows: (In thousands) December 31, 2011 Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total December 31, 2010 Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total Gross 30-89 Days Past Due 90 Days or More Past Due Total Past Due Current Total Loans $ 820 1,894 1,398 4,112 548 3,581 806 4,935 467 103 570 -- $ 605 2,483 664 3,752 121 2,262 6,240 8,623 467 312 779 -- $ 1,425 4,377 2,062 7,864 669 5,843 7,046 13,558 934 415 1,349 -- $ 188,545 43,042 107,149 338,736 109,156 349,251 529,326 987,733 140,488 85,313 225,801 4,728 $ 189,970 47,419 109,211 346,600 109,825 355,094 536,372 1,001,291 141,422 85,728 227,150 4,728 90 Days Past Due & Accruing $ 300 2,483 335 3,118 -- 121 15 136 9 5 14 -- $ 9,617 $ 13,154 $ 22,771 $1,556,998 $1,579,769 $ 3,268 $ 971 1,505 2,016 4,492 691 1,877 7,312 9,880 1,002 25 1,027 -- $ 911 1,736 448 3,095 498 2,155 2,229 4,882 500 185 685 -- $ 1,882 3,241 2,464 7,587 1,189 4,032 9,541 14,762 1,502 210 1,712 -- $ 188,447 58,064 116,117 362,628 152,583 360,410 538,819 1,051,812 148,999 85,961 234,960 10,003 $ 190,329 61,305 118,581 370,215 153,772 364,442 548,360 1,066,574 150,501 86,171 236,672 10,003 $ 615 1,736 155 2,506 -- 122 -- 122 77 -- 77 -- $ 15,399 $ 8,662 $ 24,061 $1,659,403 $1,683,464 $ 2,705 Impaired Loans – A loan is considered impaired when it is probable that the Company will not receive all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loans, including scheduled principal and interest payments. This includes loans that are delinquent 90 days or more, nonaccrual loans and certain other loans identified by management. Certain other loans identified by management consist of performing loans with specific allocations of the allowance for loan losses. Impaired loans are carried at the present value of estimated future cash flows using the loan’s existing rate, or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. Specific allocations are applied when quantifiable factors are present requiring a greater allocation than that established by the Company based on its analysis of historical losses for each loan category. Impairment is evaluated in total for smaller-balance loans of a similar nature and on an individual loan basis for other loans. Impaired loans, or portions thereof, are charged-off when deemed uncollectible. 80 Impaired loans, net of government guarantees and excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, segregated by class of loans, at December 31, 2011 and 2010, are as follows: (In thousands) December 31, 2011 Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total December 31, 2010 Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total Unpaid Contractual Principal Balance Recorded Investment With No Allowance Allowance Recorded Investment With Average Total Recorded Investment Allowance Related Investment in Interest Income Impaired Loans Recognized $ 605 $ -- 1,359 1,964 605 $ -- 1,203 1,808 -- $ -- 128 128 605 $ -- 1,331 1,936 91 $ -- 266 357 715 $ -- 1,298 2,013 44 -- 57 101 5,324 5,152 28,538 39,014 3,783 4,243 13,642 21,668 1,498 589 13,100 15,187 5,281 4,832 26,742 36,855 415 402 1,942 2,759 6,758 5,978 30,160 42,896 298 264 1,332 1,894 949 572 1,521 -- 569 332 901 -- 312 104 416 -- 881 436 1,317 -- 214 153 367 -- 1,223 538 1,761 -- 54 24 78 -- $ 42,499 $ 24,377 $ 15,731 $ 40,108 $ 3,483 $ 46,670 $ 2,073 $ 911 $ -- 1,431 2,342 -- $ -- 92 92 911 $ -- 1,270 2,181 911 $ -- 1,362 2,273 159 -- 368 527 9,690 6,590 32,547 48,827 5,878 3,002 3,843 12,723 2,591 3,366 27,531 33,488 8,469 6,368 31,374 46,211 804 792 2,342 3,938 1,567 703 2,270 -- 704 318 1,022 -- 655 454 1,109 -- 1,359 772 2,131 -- 626 144 770 -- $ 53,439 $ 13,837 $ 36,778 $ 50,615 $ 5,235 At December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2010, impaired loans, net of government guarantees, totaled $40.1 million and $50.6 million, respectively. Allocations of the allowance for loan losses relative to impaired loans were $3,483,000 and $5,235,000 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Approximately $2,073,000, $2,389,000 and $1,398,000 of interest income was recognized on average impaired loans of $46,670,000, $55,754,000 and $36,843,000 for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Interest recognized on impaired loans on a cash basis during 2011, 2010 and 2009 was immaterial. Included in certain impaired loan categories are troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”). When the Company restructures a loan to a borrower that is experiencing financial difficulty and grants a concession that it would not otherwise consider, a “troubled debt restructuring” results and the Company classifies the loan as a TDR. The Company grants various types of concessions, primarily interest rate reduction and/or payment modifications or extensions, with an occasional forgiveness of principal. Under ASC Topic 310-10-35 – Subsequent Measurement, a TDR is considered to be impaired, and an impairment analysis must be performed. The Company assesses the exposure for each modification, either by collateral discounting or by calculation of the present value of future cash flows, and determines if a specific allocation to the allowance for loan losses is needed. 81 Once an obligation has been restructured because of such credit problems, it continues to be considered a TDR until paid in full; or, if an obligation yields a market interest rate and no longer has any concession regarding payment amount or amortization, then it is not considered a TDR at the beginning of the calendar year after the year in which the improvement takes place. The Company returns TDRs to accrual status only if (1) all contractual amounts due can reasonably be expected to be repaid within a prudent period, and (2) repayment has been in accordance with the contract for a sustained period, typically at least six months. During 2011, the Company adopted ASU 2011-02 – A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring. The amendments in ASU 2011-02 require prospective application of the impairment measurement guidance in ASC 31-10-35 for those loans newly identified as impaired. As a result of adopting ASU 2011-02, the Company reassessed all restructurings that occurred on or after January 1, 2011, the beginning of the current fiscal year, for identification as TDRs. The Company identified no loans as TDRs for which the allowance for loan losses had previously been measured under a general allowance for loan losses methodology. Therefore, there was no additional impact to the allowance for loan losses as a result of the adoption. The following table presents a summary of troubled debt restructurings as of December 31, 2011, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, segregated by class of loans. (Dollars in thousands) Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single-family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total Accruing TDR Loans Balance Number Nonaccrual TDR Loans Balance Number Total TDR Loans Number Balance -- -- 5 5 1 5 13 19 2 2 4 -- $ -- -- 23 23 1,277 957 8,602 10,836 332 201 533 -- 28 $ 11,391 -- -- -- -- -- 1 7 8 1 -- 1 -- 9 $ -- -- -- -- $ -- -- 5 5 -- 34 5,082 5,116 1 6 20 27 35 -- 35 -- 3 2 5 -- -- -- 23 23 1,277 991 13,683 15,951 367 201 568 -- $ 5,151 37 $ 16,542 82 The following table presents loans that were restructured as TDRs during the year ended December 31, 2011, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, segregated by class of loans. (Dollars in thousands) Year Ended December 31, 2011 Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total Number of Loans Balance Prior December 31, Maturity to TDR 2011 Date Balance at Change in Financial Impact Change in Rate on Date of Restructure Modification Type -- -- 4 4 -- -- 4 4 2 -- 2 -- $ $ -- -- 30 30 $ -- -- 16 16 -- -- 2,112 2,112 -- -- 2,112 2,112 346 -- 346 -- 332 -- 332 -- $ -- -- 16 16 -- -- 2,112 2,112 332 -- 332 -- 10 $ 2,488 $ 2,460 $ 2,460 $ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $ $ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company modified a total of ten loans with a recorded investment of $2.5 million prior to modification which were deemed troubled debt restructurings. Although there was additional modification of terms on some of the loans, the prevailing modification on all ten loans was a change in or extension of the maturity date. Based on the fair value of the collateral, no specific reserve was determined necessary for any of these loans. Also, there was no immediate financial impact from the restructuring of these loans, as it was not considered necessary to charge-off interest or principal on the date of restructure. 83 The following table presents loans for which a payment default occurred during the year ended December 31, 2011, and that had been modified as a TDR within 12 months or less of the payment default, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, segregated by class of loans. We define a payment default as a payment received more than 90 days after its due date. (Dollars in thousands) Year Ended December 31, 2011 Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total Recorded Balance at December 31, 2011 Number of Loans Charge-offs Transfers to OREO -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 5 1 -- 1 -- 6 $ -- -- -- -- -- -- 4,051 4,051 35 -- 35 -- $ $ -- -- -- -- -- -- 556 556 3 -- 3 -- $ 4,086 $ 559 $ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Credit Quality Indicators – As part of the on-going monitoring of the credit quality of the Company’s loan portfolio, management tracks certain credit quality indicators including trends related to (i) the weighted-average risk rating of commercial and real estate loans, (ii) the level of classified commercial and real estate loans, (iii) net charge-offs, (iv) non-performing loans (see details above) and (v) the general economic conditions in the States of Arkansas, Kansas and Missouri. The Company utilizes a risk rating matrix to assign a risk rate to each of its commercial and real estate loans. Loans are rated on a scale of 1 to 8. A description of the general characteristics of the 8 risk ratings is as follows:  Risk Rate 1 – Pass (Excellent) – This category includes loans which are virtually free to credit risk. Borrowers in this category represent the highest credit quality and greatest financial strength.  Risk Rate 2 – Pass (Good) - Loans under this category possess a nominal risk of default. This category includes borrowers with strong financial strength and superior financial ratios and trends. These loans are generally fully secured by cash or equivalents (other than those rated "excellent”).  Risk Rate 3 – Pass (Acceptable – Average) - Loans in this category are considered to possess a normal level of risk. Borrowers in this category have satisfactory financial strength and adequate cash flow coverage to service debt requirements. If secured, the perfected collateral should be of acceptable quality and within established borrowing parameters.  Risk Rate 4 – Pass (Monitor) - Loans in the Watch (Monitor) category exhibit an overall acceptable level of risk, but that risk may be increased by certain conditions, which represent "red flags". These "red flags" require a higher level of supervision or monitoring than the normal "Pass" rated credit. The borrower may be experiencing these conditions for the first time, or it may be recovering from weakness, which at one time justified a harsher rating. These conditions may include: weaknesses in financial trends; marginal cash flow; one-time negative operating results; non-compliance with policy or borrowing agreements; poor 84 diversity in operations; lack of adequate monitoring information or lender supervision; questionable management ability/stability.  Risk Rate 5 – Special Mention - A loan in this category has potential weaknesses that deserve management's close attention. If left uncorrected, these potential weaknesses may result in deterioration of the repayment prospects for the asset or in the institution's credit position at some future date. Special Mention loans are not adversely classified (although they are "criticized") and do not expose an institution to sufficient risk to warrant adverse classification. Borrowers may be experiencing adverse operating trends, or an ill-proportioned balance sheet. Non-financial characteristics of a Special Mention rating may include management problems, pending litigation, a non-existent, or ineffective loan agreement or other material structural weakness, and/or other significant deviation from prudent lending practices.  Risk Rate 6 – Substandard - A Substandard loan is inadequately protected by the current sound worth and paying capacity of the borrower or of the collateral pledged, if any. Loans so classified must have a well- defined weakness, or weaknesses, that jeopardize the liquidation of the debt. The loans are characterized by the distinct possibility that the Company will sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected. This does not imply ultimate loss of the principal, but may involve burdensome administrative expenses and the accompanying cost to carry the loan.  Risk Rate 7 – Doubtful – A loan classified Doubtful has all the weaknesses inherent in a substandard loan except that the weaknesses make collection or liquidation in full (on the basis of currently existing facts, conditions, and values) highly questionable and improbable. Doubtful borrowers are usually in default, lack adequate liquidity, or capital, and lack the resources necessary to remain an operating entity. The possibility of loss is extremely high, but because of specific pending events that may strengthen the asset, its classification as loss is deferred. Pending factors include: proposed merger or acquisition; liquidation procedures; capital injection; perfection of liens on additional collateral; and refinancing plans. Loans classified as Doubtful are placed on nonaccrual status.  Risk Rate 8 – Loss - Loans classified Loss are considered uncollectible and of such little value that their continuance as bankable assets is not warranted. This classification does not mean that the loans has absolutely no recovery or salvage value, but rather it is not practical or desirable to defer writing off this basically worthless loan, even though partial recovery may be affected in the future. Borrowers in the Loss category are often in bankruptcy, have formally suspended debt repayments, or have otherwise ceased normal business operations. Loans should be classified as Loss and charged-off in the period in which they become uncollectible. Loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements are evaluated using this internal grading system. However, since these loans are accounted for in pools and are currently substantially covered through loss sharing agreements with the FDIC, all of the loan pools were considered satisfactory at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. See Note 5, Loans Covered by FDIC Loss Share Agreements, for further discussion of the acquired loan pools and loss sharing agreements. Classified loans for the Company include loans in Risk Ratings 6, 7 and 8. Loans may be classified, but not considered impaired, due to one of the following reasons: (1) The Company has established minimum dollar amount thresholds for loan impairment testing. Loans rated 6 – 8 that fall under the threshold amount are not tested for impairment and therefore are not included in impaired loans. (2) Of the loans that are above the threshold amount and tested for impairment, after testing, some are considered to not be impaired and are not included in impaired loans. Total classified loans were $60.6 million and $67.6 million as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. 85 The following table presents a summary of loans by credit risk rating as of December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, segregated by class of loans. Risk Rate 1-4 Risk Rate 5 Risk Rate Risk Rate 6 7 Risk Rate 8 Total share agreements 158,075 Total $1,663,055 $ 14,211 $ 60,443 $ 109 $ 26 $1,737,844 Risk Rate 1-4 Risk Rate 5 Risk Rate Risk Rate 6 7 Risk Rate 8 Total (In thousands) December 31, 2011 Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Loans covered by FDIC loss (In thousands) December 31, 2010 Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Loans covered by FDIC loss $ 189,365 44,936 107,217 341,518 100,534 345,880 491,466 937,880 136,107 84,747 220,854 4,728 $ 189,418 59,569 116,179 365,166 144,482 356,271 494,828 995,581 146,155 85,105 231,260 10,003 $ $ -- -- 12 12 3,699 1,377 8,465 13,541 510 148 658 -- -- $ $ 605 2,483 1,906 4,994 5,592 7,821 36,441 49,854 4,762 833 5,595 -- -- -- -- 50 50 -- 16 -- 16 43 -- 43 -- -- -- $ 189,970 -- 47,419 109,211 26 346,600 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 109,825 355,094 536,372 1,001,291 141,422 85,728 227,150 4,728 -- 158,075 $ -- -- 15 15 570 1,158 11,543 13,271 526 -- 526 -- -- $ 911 $ 1,736 2,323 4,970 8,720 6,992 41,989 57,701 3,806 1,066 4,872 -- -- -- -- 64 64 -- 21 -- 21 14 -- 14 -- -- 99 $ -- $ 190,329 -- 61,305 118,581 -- 370,215 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 153,772 364,442 548,360 1,066,574 150,501 86,171 236,672 10,003 -- 231,600 $ -- $1,915,064 share agreements 231,600 Total $1,833,610 $ 13,812 $ 67,543 $ 86 Net (charge-offs)/recoveries for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, segregated by class of loans, were as follows: (In thousands) Consumer: Credit cards Student loans Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Other Total 2011 2010 $ (3,724) (54) (1,232) (5,010) (753) (794) (637) (2,184) (538) (252) (790) -- $ (4,286) (69) (1,518) (5,873) (2,154) (864) (2,889) (5,907) (721) (228) (949) -- $ (7,984) $ (12,729) Allowance for Loan Losses – The allowance for loan losses is a reserve established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense, which represents management’s best estimate of probable losses that have been incurred within the existing portfolio of loans. The allowance, in the judgment of management, is necessary to reserve for estimated loan losses and risks inherent in the loan portfolio. The Company’s allowance for loan loss methodology includes allowance allocations calculated in accordance with ASC Topic 310, Receivables, and allowance allocations calculated in accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies. Accordingly, the methodology is based on historical loss experience by type of credit and internal risk grade, specific homogeneous risk pools and specific loss allocations, with adjustments for current events and conditions. The Company’s process for determining the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses is designed to account for credit deterioration as it occurs. The provision for loan losses reflects loan quality trends, including the levels of and trends related to nonaccrual loans, past due loans, potential problem loans, criticized loans and net charge-offs or recoveries, among other factors. The provision for loan losses also reflects the totality of actions taken on all loans for a particular period. In other words, the amount of the provision reflects not only the necessary increases in the allowance for loan losses related to newly identified criticized loans, but it also reflects actions taken related to other loans including, among other things, any necessary increases or decreases in required allowances for specific loans or loan pools. The allowance for loan losses is determined monthly based on management’s assessment of several factors such as (1) historical loss experience based on volumes and types, (2) reviews or evaluations of the loan portfolio and allowance for loan losses, (3) trends in volume, maturity and composition, (4) off balance sheet credit risk, (5) volume and trends in delinquencies and nonaccruals, (6) lending policies and procedures including those for loan losses, collections and recoveries, (7) national, state and local economic trends and conditions, (8) concentrations of credit that might affect loss experience across one or more components of the loan portfolio, (9) the experience, ability and depth of lending management and staff and (10) other factors and trends that will affect specific loans and categories of loans. As management evaluates the allowance for loan losses, it is categorized as follows: (1) specific allocations, (2) allocations for classified assets with no specific allocation, (3) general allocations for each major loan category and (4) unallocated portion. Specific allocations are made when factors are present requiring a greater reserve than would be required when using the assigned risk rating allocation. As a general rule, if a specific allocation is warranted, it is the result of an analysis of a previously classified credit or relationship. The Company’s evaluation process in specific allocations includes a review of appraisals or other collateral analysis. These values are compared to the remaining outstanding principal balance. If a loss is determined to be reasonably possible, the possible loss is identified as a specific allocation. If the loan is not collateral dependent, the measurement of loss is based on the expected future cash flows of the loan. 87 The Company establishes allocations for loans rated “watch” through “doubtful” based upon analysis of historical loss experience by category. A percentage rate is applied to each of these loan categories to determine the level of dollar allocation. During the second quarter of 2009, management made adjustments to the Company’s methodology in the evaluation of the collectability of loans, which added quantitative factors to the internal and external influences used in determining the credit quality of loans and the allocation of the allowance. This adjustment in methodology resulted in an addition to impaired loans from classified loans and a redistribution of allocated and unallocated reserves. It is likely that the methodology will continue to evolve over time. Management recognizes that unforeseen risks are inherent in the loan portfolio, and seeks to quantify, to the extent possible, factors that affect both the value and collectability of the asset. Relative to ASC Topic 310, the Company has identified the following risk assessment factors that have the potential to affect loan quality, and correspondingly, loan recognition. The factors are identified as (1) lending policies and procedures, (2) economic outlook and business conditions, (3) level and trend in delinquencies, (4) concentrations of credit and (5) external factors and competition. The Company establishes general allocations for each major loan category. This section also includes allocations to loans which are collectively evaluated for loss such as credit cards, one-to-four family owner occupied residential real estate loans and other consumer loans. The allocations in this section are based on an analysis of historical losses for each loan category. Management gives consideration to trends, changes in loan mix, delinquencies, prior losses and other related information. Allowance allocations other than specific, classified and general are included in the unallocated portion. While allocations are made for loans based upon historical loss analysis, the unallocated portion is designed to cover the uncertainty of how current economic conditions and other uncertainties may impact the existing loan portfolio. Factors to consider include national and state economic conditions such as increases in unemployment, the recent real estate lending crisis, the volatility in the stock market and the unknown impact of the various government stimulus programs. Various Federal Reserve articles and reports indicate the economy is in a moderate recovery, but questions remain about the durability of growth and whether it can be sustained by private demand. While the recession may be over, production, income, sales and employment are at very low levels. With moderate economic growth, it is possible the recovery could take years. The unemployment rate seems likely to remain elevated for several years. The unallocated reserve addresses inherent probable losses not included elsewhere in the allowance for loan losses. While calculating allocated reserve, the unallocated reserve supports uncertainties within the loan portfolio. Loans identified as losses by management, internal loan review and/or bank examiners are charged-off. 88 The following table details activity in the allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment for the year ended December 31, 2011. Allocation of a portion of the allowance to one category of loans does not preclude its availability to absorb losses in other categories. (In thousands) Commercial Real Estate Credit Card Other Consumer and Other Unallocated Total Balance, beginning of year $ 2,277 $ 9,692 $ 5,549 $ 1,958 $ 6,940 $ 26,416 Provision for loan losses 576 2,609 3,688 1,175 3,628 11,676 Charge-offs Recoveries (1,411) 621 (3,165) 981 (4,703) 979 (1,890) 604 Net charge-offs (790) (2,184) (3,724) (1,286) -- -- -- (11,169) 3,185 (7,984) Balance, end of year $ 2,063 $ 10,117 $ 5,513 $ 1,847 $ 10,568 $ 30,108 Period-end amount allocated to: Loans individually evaluated for impairment $ 367 $ 2,759 $ 91 $ 266 $ -- $ 3,483 Loans collectively evaluated for impairment 1,696 7,358 5,422 1,581 10,568 26,625 Balance, end of year $ 2,063 $ 10,117 $ 5,513 $ 1,847 $ 10,568 $ 30,108 Activity in the allowance for loan losses for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, was as follows: (In thousands) 2010 2009 Balance, beginning of year $ 25,016 $25,841 Provision for loan losses 14,129 10,316 Charge-offs Recoveries (18,602) 5,873 (14,828) 3,687 Net charge-offs (12,729) (11,141) Balance, end of year $ 26,416 $ 25,016 The Company’s recorded investment in loans, excluding loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements, as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 related to each balance in the allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment on the basis of the Company’s impairment methodology is as follows: (In thousands) Commercial Real Estate Credit Card Other Consumer and Other Total December 31, 2011 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment $ 1,317 $ 36,855 $ 605 $ 1,331 $ 40,108 225,833 964,436 189,365 160,027 1,539,661 Balance, end of period $ 227,150 $ 1,001,291 $ 189,970 $ 161,358 $ 1,579,769 December 31, 2010 Loans individually evaluated for impairment Loans collectively evaluated for impairment $ 2,131 $ 46,211 $ 911 $ 1,362 $ 50,615 234,541 1,020,363 189,418 188,527 1,632,849 Balance, end of period $ 236,672 $ 1,066,574 $ 190,329 $ 189,889 $ 1,683,464 89 NOTE 5: LOANS COVERED BY FDIC LOSS SHARE AGREEMENTS The Company evaluated loans purchased in conjunction with the acquisitions of SWCB and SSB described in Note 2, Acquisitions, for impairment in accordance with the provisions of ASC Topic 310-30. Purchased covered loans are considered impaired if there is evidence of credit deterioration since origination and if it is probable that not all contractually required payments will be collected. The following table reflects the carrying value of all purchased covered impaired loans as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, for the SWCB and SSB FDIC-assisted transactions: (in thousands) Consumer: Other consumer Total consumer Real estate: Construction Single family residential Other commercial Total real estate Commercial: Commercial Agricultural Total commercial Loans Covered by FDIC Loss Share December 31, 2011 2010 $ 23 23 $ 105 105 23,515 26,825 102,198 152,538 5,514 -- 5,514 73,527 50,182 89,495 213,204 17,975 316 18,291 Total covered loans (1) $ 158,075 $ 231,600 (1) These loans were not classified as non-performing assets at December 31, 2011 and 2010, as the loans are accounted for on a pooled basis and the pools are considered to be performing. Therefore, interest income, through accretion of the difference between the carrying amount of the loans and the expected cash flows, is being recognized on all purchased impaired loans. The loans are grouped in pools sharing common risk characteristics and were treated in the aggregate when applying various valuation techniques. The acquired loans were grouped into pools based on common risk characteristics and were recorded at their estimated fair values, which incorporated estimated credit losses at the acquisition date. These loan pools are systematically reviewed by the Company to determine the risk of losses that may exceed those identified at the time of the acquisition. Techniques used in determining risk of loss are similar to the Company’s non-covered loan portfolio, with most focus being placed on those loan pools which include the larger loan relationships and those loan pools which exhibit higher risk characteristics. The following is a summary of the covered impaired loans acquired in the acquisitions during 2010, as of the dates of acquisition. (in thousands) Contractually required principal and interest at acquisition Non-accretable difference (expected losses and foregone interest) Cash flows expected to be collected at acquisition Accretable yield Basis in acquired loans at acquisition SWCB SSB $ 58,739 (15,396) 43,343 (3,166) $ 40,177 $ $ 334,582 (78,139) 256,443 (37,285) 219,158 As of the respective acquisition dates, the estimates of contractually required payments receivable, including interest, for all covered impaired loans acquired in the SWCB and SSB transactions were $393.3 million. The cash flows expected to be collected as of the acquisition dates for these loans were $299.8 million, including interest. These 90 amounts were determined based upon the estimated remaining life of the underlying loans, which includes the effects of estimated prepayments. The amount of the estimated cash flows expected to be received from the acquired loan pools in excess of the fair values recorded for the loan pools is referred to as the accretable yield. The accretable yield is recognized as interest income over the estimated lives of the loans. Each quarter, the Company estimates the cash flows expected to be collected from the acquired loan pools, and adjustments may or may not be required. During the fourth quarter of 2011, the cash flows estimate increased based on payment histories and reduced loss expectations of the loan pools. This resulted in increased interest income that will be spread on a level-yield basis over the remaining expected lives of the loan pools. The increases in expected cash flows also reduced the amount of expected reimbursements under the loss sharing agreements with the FDIC, which are recorded as indemnification assets. The estimated adjustments to the indemnification assets will be amortized on a level-yield basis over the remainder of the loss sharing agreements or the remaining expected lives of the loan pools, whichever is shorter. The impact of the fourth quarter adjustments on the Company’s financial results for the current reporting period is shown below: (In thousands, except basis points data) Impact on net interest income/ net interest margin (in basis points) Non-interest income Net impact to pre-tax income Net impact, net of taxes Year Ended December 31, 2011 4 bps $ $ 1,124 (978) 146 89 Because these adjustments will be recognized over the remaining lives of the loan pools and the remainder of the loss sharing agreements, respectively, they will impact future periods as well. The current estimate of the remaining accretable yield adjustment that will positively impact interest income is $22.6 million and the remaining adjustment to the indemnification assets that will reduce non-interest income is $19.9 million. Of the remaining adjustments, the Company expects to recognize $11.0 million of interest income and a $9.7 million reduction of non-interest income during 2012. The accretable yield adjustments recorded in future periods will change as the Company continues to evaluate expected cash flows from the acquired loan pools. Changes in the carrying amount of the accretable yield for purchased impaired and non-impaired loans were as follows for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, for SWCB and SSB. (in thousands) Balance, January 1, 2010 Additions Accretion Payments received, net Balance, December 31, 2010 Additions Accretable yield adjustments Accretion Payments received, net Balance, December 31, 2011 Accretable Yield $ -- 40,451 (4,204) -- $ 36,247 -- 23,704 (17,118) -- $ 42,833 Carrying Amount of Loans $ $ $ -- 259,335 4,204 (31,939) 231,600 -- -- 17,118 (90,643) 158,075 No pools evaluated by the Company were determined to have experienced impairment in the estimated credit quality or cash flows. There were no allowances for loan losses related to the purchased impaired loans at December 31, 2011 or 2010. 91 NOTE 6: GOODWILL AND CORE DEPOSIT PREMIUMS Goodwill is tested annually for impairment. If the implied fair value of goodwill is lower than its carrying amount, goodwill impairment is indicated, and goodwill is written down to its implied fair value. Subsequent increases in goodwill value are not recognized in the financial statements. Goodwill totaled $60.6 million at December 31, 2011, unchanged from December 31, 2010. Although the Company had two FDIC-assisted acquisitions during the year ended December 31, 2010, no additional goodwill was recorded, as both transactions resulted in a bargain purchase gain. Goodwill impairment was neither indicated nor recorded in 2011 or 2010. Core deposit premiums are periodically evaluated as to the recoverability of their carrying value. The carrying basis and accumulated amortization of core deposit premiums (net of core deposit premiums that were fully amortized) at December 31, 2011 and 2010, were as follows: (In thousands) December 31, 2011 December 31, 2010 Gross Gross Carrying Accumulated Amount Amortization Net Carrying Accumulated Amount Amortization Net Core deposit premiums $ 3,069 $ 1,490 $ 1,579 $ 7,885 $ 5,422 $ 2,463 Core deposit premium amortization expense recorded for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, was $884,000, $786,000 and $805,000, respectively. The Company’s estimated amortization expense for each of the following five years is: 2012 – $295,000; 2013 – $261,000; 2014 – $157,000; 2015 – $151,000; and 2016 – $148,000. NOTE 7: TIME DEPOSITS Time deposits included approximately $378,825,000 and $360,349,000 of certificates of deposit of $100,000 or more, at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Brokered deposits were $20,629,000 and $21,472,000 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Maturities of all time deposits are as follows: 2012 – $696,312,000; 2013 – $93,690,000; 2014 – $59,872,000; 2015 – $7,329,000; 2016 – $21,361,000 and $70,000 thereafter. Deposits are the Company's primary funding source for loans and investment securities. The mix and repricing alternatives can significantly affect the cost of this source of funds and, therefore, impact the interest margin. 92 NOTE 8: INCOME TAXES The provision for income taxes is comprised of the following components: (In thousands) 2011 2010 2009 Income taxes currently payable Deferred income taxes $ 13,996 (3,571) $ 8,886 8,428 $ 8,577 1,613 Provision for income taxes $ 10,425 $ 17,314 $ 10,190 The tax effects of temporary differences related to deferred taxes included in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets were: (In thousands) Deferred tax assets Loans acquired FDIC true-up liability Allowance for loan losses Valuation of foreclosed assets Deferred compensation payable FHLB advances Vacation compensation Loan interest Other Gross deferred tax assets Deferred tax liabilities Goodwill and core deposit premium amortization FDIC indemnification asset Accumulated depreciation Available-for-sale securities Deferred loan fee income and expenses, net FHLB stock dividends Other Gross deferred tax liabilities 2011 2010 $ 7,150 1,341 11,457 393 1,591 547 1,052 767 522 24,820 (9,725) (18,703) (189) (283) (1,742) (430) (569) (31,641) $ 11,002 1,251 9,857 2,393 1,532 1,600 960 767 442 29,804 (3,688) (32,209) (597) (331) (1,413) (414) (1,592) (40,244) Net deferred tax liability $ (6,821) $(10,440) A reconciliation of income tax expense at the statutory rate to the Company's actual income tax expense is shown below. (In thousands) 2011 2010 2009 Computed at the statutory rate (35%) Increase (decrease) in taxes resulting from: State income taxes, net of federal tax benefit Tax exempt interest income Tax exempt earnings on BOLI Other differences, net $ 12,530 $ 19,051 $ 12,390 883 (2,780) (518) 310 1,542 (2,924) (584) 229 566 (2,877) (444) 555 Actual tax provision $ 10,425 $ 17,314 $ 10,190 93 The Company follows ASC Topic 740, Income Taxes, which prescribes a recognition threshold and a measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. Benefits from tax positions should be recognized in the financial statements only when it is more likely than not that the tax position will be sustained upon examination by the appropriate taxing authority that would have full knowledge of all relevant information. A tax position that meets the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold is measured at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement. Tax positions that previously failed to meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold should be recognized in the first subsequent financial reporting period in which that threshold is met. Previously recognized tax positions that no longer meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold should be derecognized in the first subsequent financial reporting period in which that threshold is no longer met. ASC Topic 740 also provides guidance on the accounting for and disclosure of unrecognized tax benefits, interest and penalties. The amount of unrecognized tax benefits may increase or decrease in the future for various reasons including adding amounts for current tax year positions, expiration of open income tax returns due to the statutes of limitation, changes in management’s judgment about the level of uncertainty, status of examinations, litigation and legislative activity and the addition or elimination of uncertain tax positions. The Company files income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction. The Company’s U.S. federal income tax returns are open and subject to examinations from the 2008 tax year and forward. The Company’s various state income tax returns are generally open from the 2005 and later tax return years based on individual state statute of limitations. NOTE 9: LONG-TERM DEBT Long-term debt at December 31, 2011, and 2010 consisted of the following components. (In thousands) FHLB advances, due 2012 to 2033, 0.96% to 8.41%, secured by residential real estate loans Trust preferred securities, due 12/30/2033, fixed at 8.25%, callable without penalty Trust preferred securities, due 12/30/2033, floating rate of 2.80% above the three-month LIBOR rate, reset quarterly, callable without penalty Trust preferred securities, due 12/30/2033, floating rate 2.80% above the three-month LIBOR rate, reset quarterly, callable without penalty Total long-term debt 2011 2010 $ 89,898 $ 133,394 10,310 10,310 10,310 10,310 10,310 10,310 $ 120,828 $ 164,324 At December 31, 2011, the Company had no Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances with original maturities of one year or less. The Company had total FHLB advances of $89.9 million at December 31, 2011, with approximately $333.4 million of additional advances available from the FHLB. The FHLB advances are secured by mortgage loans and investment securities totaling approximately $481.7 million at December 31, 2011. The trust preferred securities are tax-advantaged issues that qualify for Tier 1 capital treatment. Distributions on these securities are included in interest expense on long-term debt. Each of the trusts is a statutory business trust organized for the sole purpose of issuing trust securities and investing the proceeds thereof in junior subordinated debentures of the Company, the sole asset of each trust. The preferred trust securities of each trust represent preferred beneficial interests in the assets of the respective trusts and are subject to mandatory redemption upon payment of the junior subordinated debentures held by the trust. The common securities of each trust are wholly-owned by the Company. Each trust’s ability to pay amounts due on the trust preferred securities is solely dependent upon the Company making payment on the related junior subordinated debentures. The Company’s obligations under the junior subordinated 94 securities and other relevant trust agreements, in aggregate, constitute a full and unconditional guarantee by the Company of each respective trust’s obligations under the trust securities issued by each respective trust. Aggregate annual maturities of long-term debt at December 31, 2011 are as follows: (In thousands) Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Thereafter Annual Maturities $ 7,370 22,275 5,977 9,699 8,002 67,505 Total $ 120,828 NOTE 10: CAPITAL STOCK On February 27, 2009, at a special meeting, the Company’s shareholders approved an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to establish 40,040,000 authorized shares of preferred stock, $0.01 par value. The aggregate liquidation preference of all shares of preferred stock cannot exceed $80,000,000. As of December 31, 2011, no preferred stock has been issued. On November 28, 2007, the Company announced the adoption by the Board of Directors of a stock repurchase program. The program authorizes the repurchase of up to 700,000 shares of Class A common stock, or approximately 5% of the outstanding common stock. Under the repurchase program, there is no time limit for the stock repurchases, nor is there a minimum number of shares the Company intends to repurchase. The Company may discontinue purchases at any time that management determines additional purchases are not warranted. As part of its strategic focus on building capital, management suspended the Company’s stock repurchase program in July 2008. On September 27, 2011, the Company announced that it would reinstate the existing stock repurchase program. Prior to the suspension of the program, the Company had repurchased 54,328 shares, thereby leaving authority to repurchase 645,672 shares under the program. The shares are to be purchased from time to time at prevailing market prices, through open market or unsolicited negotiated transactions, depending upon market conditions. The Company intends to use the repurchased shares to satisfy stock option exercises, for payment of future stock dividends and for general corporate purposes. During 2011, after announcing the reinstatement of the program, the Company repurchased 137,144 shares of stock with a weighted average repurchase price of $23.98 per share. Under the current stock repurchase plan, the Company can repurchase an additional 508,528 shares. On August 26, 2009, the Company filed a shelf registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The shelf registration statement, which was declared effective on September 9, 2009, allows the Company to raise capital from time to time, up to an aggregate of $175 million, through the sale of common stock, preferred stock, or a combination thereof, subject to market conditions. Specific terms and prices are determined at the time of any offering under a separate prospectus supplement that the Company is required to file with the SEC at the time of the specific offering. In November 2009, the Company raised common equity through an underwritten public offering by issuing 2,650,000 shares of common stock at a price of $24.50 per share, less underwriting discounts and commissions. The net proceeds of the offering after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses were $61.3 million. In December 2009, the underwriters of the Company’s stock offering exercised and completed their option to purchase an additional 397,500 shares of common stock at $24.50 to cover over-allotments. The net proceeds of the exercise of the over-allotment option after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions were $9.2 million. The total net proceeds of the offering after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses were approximately $70.5 million. 95 NOTE 11: TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PARTIES At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the subsidiary banks had extensions of credit to executive officers and directors and to companies in which the subsidiary banks' executive officers or directors were principal owners in the amount of $28.5 million in 2011 and $28.7 million in 2010. (In thousands) Balance, beginning of year New extensions of credit Repayments Balance, end of year 2011 2010 $ 28,749 13,556 (13,833) $ 28,472 $ 23,487 14,524 (9,262) $ 28,749 In management's opinion, such loans and other extensions of credit and deposits (which were not material) were made in the ordinary course of business and were made on substantially the same terms (including interest rates and collateral) as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons. Further, in management's opinion, these extensions of credit did not involve more than the normal risk of collectability or present other unfavorable features. NOTE 12: EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS Retirement Plans The Company’s 401(k) retirement plan covers substantially all employees. Contribution expense totaled $625,000, $591,000 and $578,000, in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The Company has a discretionary profit sharing and employee stock ownership plan covering substantially all employees. Contribution expense totaled $2,936,000 for 2011, $2,738,000 for 2010 and $2,640,000 for 2009. The Company also provides deferred compensation agreements with certain active and retired officers. The agreements provide monthly payments which, together with payments from the deferred annuities issued pursuant to the terminated pension plan equal 50 percent of average compensation prior to retirement or death. The charges to income for the plans were $178,000 for 2011, $109,000 for 2010 and $65,000 for 2009. Such charges reflect the straight-line accrual over the employment period of the present value of benefits due each participant, as of their full eligibility date, using an 8 percent discount factor. Employee Stock Purchase Plan The Company established an Employee Stock Purchase Plan in 2006 which generally allows participants to make contributions of up 3% of the employee’s salary, up to a maximum of $7,500 per year, for the purpose of acquiring the Company’s stock. Substantially all employees with at least two years of service are eligible for the plan. At the end of each plan year, full shares of the Company’s stock are purchased for each employee based on that employee’s contributions. The stock is purchased for an amount equal to 95% of its fair market value at the end of the plan year, or, if lower, 95% of its fair market value at the beginning of the plan year. Stock-Based Compensation Plans The Company’s Board of Directors has adopted various stock-based compensation plans. The plans provide for the grant of incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, and bonus stock awards. Pursuant to the plans, shares are reserved for future issuance by the Company upon exercise of stock options or awarding of bonus shares granted to directors, officers and other key employees. Stock-based compensation expense for all stock-based compensation awards granted after January 1, 2006, is based on the grant date fair value. For all awards except stock option awards, the grant date fair value is the market value per 96 share as of the grant date. For stock option awards, the fair value is estimated at the date of grant using the Black- Scholes option-pricing model. This model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, changes to which can materially affect the fair value estimate. Additionally, there may be other factors that would otherwise have a significant effect on the value of employee stock options granted but are not considered by the model. Accordingly, while management believes that the Black-Scholes option-pricing model provides a reasonable estimate of fair value, the model does not necessarily provide the best single measure of fair value for the Company's employee stock options. The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model that uses various assumptions. Expected volatility is based on historical volatility of the Company’s stock and other factors. The Company uses historical data to estimate option exercise and employee termination within the valuation model. The expected term of options granted is derived from the output of the option valuation model and represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding. The risk-free rate for periods within the contractual life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant. Forfeitures are estimated at the time of grant, and are based partially on historical experience. The table below summarizes the transactions under the Company's active stock compensation plans at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, and changes during the years then ended: Balance, December 31, 2008 Granted Stock Options Exercised Stock Awards Vested Forfeited/Expired Balance, December 31, 2009 Granted Stock Options Exercised Stock Awards Vested Forfeited/Expired Balance, December 31, 2010 Granted Stock Options Exercised Stock Awards Vested Forfeited/Expired Balance, December 31, 2011 Exercisable, December 31, 2011 Non-Vested Stock Awards Outstanding Number of Shares (000) Weighted Average Grant-Date Fair-Value 37 28 -- (15) (1) 49 83 -- (17) (4) 111 48 -- (32) -- $ 28.28 25.15 -- 26.90 26.22 26.96 26.92 -- 27.49 26.27 26.81 28.18 -- 26.83 -- 127 $ 26.49 Stock Options Outstanding Weighted Average Exercise Price $ 20.46 -- 12.17 -- 19.36 21.78 -- 13.45 -- 27.88 25.11 -- 12.71 -- 26.20 $ 26.76 $ 26.36 Number of Shares (000) 452 -- (57) -- (21) 374 -- (108) -- (7) 259 -- (30) -- (1) 228 201 97 The following table summarizes information about stock options under the plans outstanding at December 31, 2011: Options Outstanding Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life (Years) 2.56 3.39 4.33 5.41 6.41 Weighted Average Exercise Price $23.78 24.50 26.20 28.42 30.31 Number of Shares (000) 50 31 51 49 47 Options Exercisable Number of Shares (000) 50 31 51 41 28 Weighted Average Exercise Price $23.78 24.50 26.20 28.42 30.31 Range of Exercise Prices $23.78 - $23.78 24.50 24.50 - 27.67 26.19 - 28.42 28.42 - 30.31 30.31 - Stock-based compensation expense totaled $1,204,000 in 2011, $974,000 in 2010 and $627,000 in 2009. Stock-based compensation expense is recognized ratably over the requisite service period for all stock-based awards. Unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to stock options totaled $110,000 at December 31, 2011. At such date, the weighted-average period over which this unrecognized expense is expected to be recognized was 0.7 years. Unrecognized stock-based compensation expense related to non-vested stock awards was $2.5 million at December 31, 2011. At such date, the weighted-average period over which this unrecognized expense is expected to be recognized was 2.5 years. Aggregate intrinsic value of outstanding stock options and exercisable stock options was $99,000 and $167,000, respectively, at December 31, 2011. Aggregate intrinsic value represents the difference between the Company’s closing stock price on the last trading day of the period, which was $27.19 at December 31, 2011, and the exercise price multiplied by the number of options outstanding. The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised was $439,000 in 2011, $1.6 million in 2010 and $886,000 in 2009. The fair value of the Company’s employee stock options granted is estimated on the date of grant using the Black- Scholes option-pricing model. There were no stock options granted in 2011, 2010 or 2009. NOTE 13: ADDITIONAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION The following table presents additional information on cash payments and non-cash items: (In thousands) 2011 2010 2009 Interest paid Income taxes paid Transfers of loans to foreclosed assets held for sale Transfers of loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements to foreclosed assets covered by FDIC loss share agreements $ 20,974 17,638 20,195 $ 27,703 9,177 61,938 $ 40,673 7,040 10,323 11,168 8,933 -- In connection with the SWCB and SSB acquisitions, accounted for by using the purchase method, the Company acquired assets and assumed liabilities as follows: (In thousands) Assets acquired Liabilities assumed Bargain purchase gains 2010 $ $ 559,629 538,315 21,314 98 NOTE 14: OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES Other operating expenses consist of the following: (In thousands) 2011 2010 2009 Professional services Postage Telephone Credit card expense Operating supplies Amortization of core deposit premiums Other expense Total $ 4,574 2,486 2,480 6,565 1,653 884 12,452 $ 31,094 $ 4,476 2,465 2,328 5,839 1,403 786 11,936 $ 29,233 $ 3,643 2,409 2,113 5,051 1,470 805 12,167 $ 27,658 The Company had aggregate annual equipment rental expense of approximately $540,000 in 2011, $311,000 in 2010 and $317,000 in 2009. The Company had aggregate annual occupancy rental expense of approximately $1,412,000 in 2011, $1,381,000 in 2010 and $1,208,000 in 2009. NOTE 15: DISCLOSURES ABOUT FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. ASC Topic 820 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The guidance also establishes a fair value hierarchy that requires the use of observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. Topic 820 describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:  Level 1 Inputs – Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.  Level 2 Inputs – Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities.  Level 3 Inputs – Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. In general, fair value is based upon quoted market prices, where available. If such quoted market prices are not available, fair value is based upon internally developed models that primarily use, as inputs, observable market-based parameters. Valuation adjustments may be made to ensure that financial instruments are recorded at fair value. These adjustments may include amounts to reflect counterparty credit quality and the Company’s creditworthiness, among other things, as well as unobservable parameters. Any such valuation adjustments are applied consistently over time. The Company’s valuation methodologies may produce a fair value calculation that may not be indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future fair values. While management believes the Company’s valuation methodologies are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date. Furthermore, the reported fair value amounts have not been comprehensively revalued since the presentation dates, and therefore, estimates of fair value after the balance sheet date may differ significantly from the amounts presented herein. A more detailed description of the valuation methodologies used for assets and liabilities measured at fair value, as well as the general classification of such instruments pursuant to the valuation hierarchy, is set forth below. 99 Following is a description of the inputs and valuation methodologies used for assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis and recognized in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, as well as the general classification of such assets pursuant to the valuation hierarchy. Available-for-sale securities – Where quoted market prices are available in an active market, securities are classified within Level 1 of the valuation hierarchy. Level 1 securities would include highly liquid government bonds, mortgage products and exchange traded equities. Other securities classified as available-for-sale are reported at fair value utilizing Level 2 inputs. For these securities, the Company obtains fair value measurements from an independent pricing service. The fair value measurements consider observable data that may include dealer quotes, market spreads, cash flows, the U.S. Treasury yield curve, live trading levels, trade execution data, market consensus prepayment speeds, credit information and the security’s terms and conditions, among other things. In certain cases where Level 1 or Level 2 inputs are not available, securities are classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy. The Company’s investment in a government money market mutual fund (the “AIM Fund”) is reported at fair value utilizing Level 1 inputs. The remainder of the Company's available-for-sale securities are reported at fair value utilizing Level 2 inputs. Assets held in trading accounts – The Company’s trading account investment in the AIM Fund is reported at fair value utilizing Level 1 inputs. The remainder of the Company's assets held in trading accounts are reported at fair value utilizing Level 2 inputs. The following table sets forth the Company’s financial assets by level within the fair value hierarchy that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2011 and 2010. (In thousands) Fair Value December 31, 2011 Available-for-sale securities U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities Other securities Assets held in trading accounts $ 153,627 2,557 16,027 7,541 December 31, 2010 Available-for-sale securities U.S. Government agencies Mortgage-backed securities Other securities Assets held in trading accounts $ 125,469 2,789 20,221 7,577 Fair Value Measurements Using Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs Unobservable Inputs Significant (Level 2) (Level 3) $ $ -- -- 1,503 1,800 -- -- 1,503 2,700 $ 153,627 2,557 14,524 5,741 $ 125,469 2,789 18,718 4,877 $ $ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Certain financial assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis; that is, the instruments are not measured at fair value on an ongoing basis but are subject to fair value adjustments in certain circumstances (for example, when there is evidence of impairment). Financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis include the following: Impaired loans (Collateral Dependent) – Loan impairment is reported when full payment under the loan terms is not expected. Allowable methods for determining the amount of impairment include estimating fair value using the fair value of the collateral for collateral-dependent loans. If the impaired loan is identified as collateral dependent, then the fair value method of measuring the amount of impairment is utilized. This method requires obtaining a current independent appraisal of the collateral and applying a discount factor to the value. A portion of the allowance for loan losses is allocated to impaired loans if the value of such loans is deemed to be less than the unpaid balance. If these allocations cause the allowance for loan losses to require an increase, such increase is reported as a component of the provision for loan losses. Loan losses are charged against the allowance when management believes the 100 uncollectability of a loan is confirmed. Impaired loans that are collateral dependent are classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy when impairment is determined using the fair value method. Foreclosed assets held for sale – Foreclosed assets held for sale are reported at fair value, less estimated costs to sell. At foreclosure, if the fair value, less estimated costs to sell, of the real estate acquired is less than the Company’s recorded investment in the related loan, a write-down is recognized through a charge to the allowance for loan losses. Additionally, valuations are periodically performed by management and any subsequent reduction in value is recognized by a charge to income. The fair value of foreclosed assets held for sale is estimated using Level 3 inputs based on observable market data. As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, the fair value of foreclosed assets held for sale, excluding those covered by FDIC loss share agreements, less estimated costs to sell was $22.9 million and $23.2 million, respectively. Mortgage loans held for sale – Mortgage loans held for sale are reported at fair value if, on an aggregate basis, the fair value of the loans is less than cost. In determining whether the fair value of loans held for sale is less than cost when quoted market prices are not available, the Company may consider outstanding investor commitments, discounted cash flow analyses with market assumptions or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. Such loans are classified within either Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Where assumptions are made using significant unobservable inputs, such loans held for sale are classified as Level 3. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the aggregate fair value of mortgage loans held for sale exceeded their cost. Accordingly, no mortgage loans held for sale were marked down and reported at fair value. The following table sets forth the Company’s financial assets by level within the fair value hierarchy that were measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis as of December 31, 2011 and 2010. (In thousands) Fair Value Fair Value Measurements Using Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs Unobservable Inputs Significant (Level 2) (Level 3) December 31, 2011 Impaired loans (1) (2) $ 10,173 $ (collateral dependent) Foreclosed assets held for sale (1) 2,664 December 31, 2010 Impaired loans (collateral dependent) $ 45,380 $ -- -- -- $ $ -- -- -- $ 10,173 2,664 $ 45,380 (1) These amounts represent the resulting carrying amounts on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for impaired collateral dependent loans and foreclosed assets held for sale for which fair value re-measurements took place during the period. (2) Specific allocations of $41,000 were related to the impaired collateral dependent loans for which fair value re- measurements took place during the period. 101 ASC Topic 825, Financial Instruments, requires disclosure in annual financial statements of the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities, including those financial assets and financial liabilities that are not measured and reported at fair value on a recurring basis or nonrecurring basis. The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of each class of financial instruments. Cash and cash equivalents – The carrying amount for cash and cash equivalents approximates fair value. Held-to-maturity securities – Fair values for held-to-maturity securities equal quoted market prices, if available. If quoted market prices are not available, fair values are estimated based on quoted market prices of similar securities. Loans – The fair value of loans, excluding those covered by FDIC loss share agreements, is estimated by discounting the future cash flows, using the current rates at which similar loans would be made to borrowers with similar credit ratings and for the same remaining maturities. Loans with similar characteristics were aggregated for purposes of the calculations. The carrying amount of accrued interest approximates its fair value. Covered loans – Fair values of covered loans are based on a discounted cash flow methodology that considers factors including the type of loan and related collateral, variable or fixed rate, classification status, remaining term, interest rate, historical delinquencies, loan to value ratios, current market rates and remaining loan balance. The loans were grouped together according to similar characteristics and were treated in the aggregate when applying various valuation techniques. The discount rates used for loans were based on current market rates for new originations of similar loans. Estimated credit losses were also factored into the projected cash flows of the loans. FDIC indemnification asset – Fair value of the FDIC indemnification asset is based on the net present value of future cash proceeds expected to be received from the FDIC under the provisions of the loss share agreements using a discount rate that is based on current market rates. Deposits – The fair value of demand deposits, savings accounts and money market deposits is the amount payable on demand at the reporting date (i.e., their carrying amount). The fair value of fixed-maturity time deposits is estimated using a discounted cash flow calculation that applies the rates currently offered for deposits of similar remaining maturities. The carrying amount of accrued interest payable approximates its fair value. Federal Funds purchased, securities sold under agreement to repurchase and short-term debt – The carrying amount for Federal funds purchased, securities sold under agreement to repurchase and short-term debt are a reasonable estimate of fair value. Long-term debt – Rates currently available to the Company for debt with similar terms and remaining maturities are used to estimate the fair value of existing debt. Commitments to Extend Credit, Letters of Credit and Lines of Credit – The fair value of commitments is estimated using the fees currently charged to enter into similar agreements, taking into account the remaining terms of the agreements and the present creditworthiness of the counterparties. For fixed rate loan commitments, fair value also considers the difference between current levels of interest rates and the committed rates. The fair values of letters of credit and lines of credit are based on fees currently charged for similar agreements or on the estimated cost to terminate or otherwise settle the obligations with the counterparties at the reporting date. 102 The following table represents estimated fair values of the Company's financial instruments. The fair values of certain of these instruments were calculated by discounting expected cash flows. This method involves significant judgments by management considering the uncertainties of economic conditions and other factors inherent in the risk management of financial instruments. Fair value is the estimated amount at which financial assets or liabilities could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. Because no market exists for certain of these financial instruments and because management does not intend to sell these financial instruments, the Company does not know whether the fair values shown below represent values at which the respective financial instruments could be sold individually or in the aggregate. (In thousands) Financial assets Cash and cash equivalents Held-to-maturity securities Mortgage loans held for sale Interest receivable Loans not covered by loss share agreements Loans covered by FDIC loss share agreements FDIC indemnification asset December 31, 2011 Fair Value Carrying Amount December 31, 2010 Fair Value Carrying Amount $ 570,206 525,444 22,976 15,126 $ 570,206 532,206 22,976 15,126 $ 452,060 465,183 17,237 17,363 $ 452,060 466,907 17,237 17,363 1,549,661 1,548,034 1,657,048 1,649,773 158,075 47,683 157,424 47,683 231,600 60,235 228,375 60,235 Financial liabilities Non-interest bearing transaction accounts Interest bearing transaction accounts and savings deposits Time deposits Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase Short-term debt Long-term debt Interest payable 532,259 532,259 428,750 428,750 1,239,504 878,634 1,239,504 882,244 1,220,133 959,886 1,220,133 962,535 114,766 272 120,828 1,437 114,766 272 126,962 1,437 109,139 1,033 164,324 2,015 109,139 1,033 176,628 2,015 The fair value of commitments to extend credit, letters of credit and lines of credit is not presented since management believes the fair value to be insignificant. NOTE 16: SIGNIFICANT ESTIMATES AND CONCENTRATIONS The current economic environment presents financial institutions with continuing circumstances and challenges which in some cases have resulted in large declines in the fair values of investments and other assets, constraints on liquidity and significant credit quality problems, including severe volatility in the valuation of real estate and other collateral supporting loans. The financial statements have been prepared using values and information currently available to the Company. Given the volatility of current economic conditions, the values of assets and liabilities recorded in the consolidated financial statements could change rapidly, resulting in material future adjustments in asset values, the allowance for loan losses and capital that could negatively impact the Company’s ability to meet regulatory capital requirements and maintain sufficient liquidity. Estimates related to the allowance for loan losses, covered assets and certain concentrations of credit risk are reflected in Note 4, Loans and Allowance for Loan Losses, Note 5, Loans Covered by FDIC Loss Share Agreements and Note 17, Commitments and Credit Risk. 103 NOTE 17: COMMITMENTS AND CREDIT RISK The Company grants agri-business, credit card, commercial and residential loans to customers throughout Arkansas, Kansas and southern Missouri. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Since a portion of the commitments may expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Each customer's creditworthiness is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained, if deemed necessary, is based on management's credit evaluation of the counterparty. Collateral held varies but may include accounts receivable, inventory, property, plant and equipment, commercial real estate and residential real estate. At December 31, 2011, the Company had outstanding commitments to extend credit aggregating approximately $343,400,000 and $285,487,000 for credit card commitments and other loan commitments, respectively. At December 31, 2010, the Company had outstanding commitments to extend credit aggregating approximately $272,688,000 and $287,055,000 for credit card commitments and other loan commitments, respectively. Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Company to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. Those guarantees are primarily issued to support public and private borrowing arrangements, including commercial paper, bond financing and similar transactions. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loans to customers. The Company had total outstanding letters of credit amounting to $9,269,000 and $11,767,000 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, with terms ranging from one to two years. The Company’s deferred revenue under standby letter of credit agreements was approximately $33,000 and $31,000 at December 31 2011, and 2010, respectively. At December 31, 2011, the Company did not have concentrations of 5% or more of the investment portfolio in bonds issued by a single municipality. NOTE 18: NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820) – Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements. ASU 2010-06 revises two disclosure requirements concerning fair value measurements and clarifies two others. It requires separate presentation of significant transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy and disclosure of the reasons for such transfers. It will also require the presentation of purchases, sales, issuances and settlements within Level 3 on a gross basis rather than a net basis. The amendments also clarify that disclosures should be disaggregated by class of asset or liability and that disclosures about inputs and valuation techniques should be provided for both recurring and nonrecurring fair value measurements. The Company’s disclosures about fair value measurements are presented in Note 15, Disclosures About Fair Value of Financial Instruments. These new disclosure requirements were adopted by the Company on January 1, 2010, with the exception of the requirement concerning gross presentation of Level 3 activity, which was adopted by the Company on January 1, 2011. The adoption of this standard did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or disclosures. In July 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-20, Receivables (Topic 310) – Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses. ASU 2010-20 requires entities to provide disclosures designed to facilitate financial statement users’ evaluation of (i) the nature of credit risk inherent in the entity’s portfolio of financing receivables, (ii) how that risk is analyzed and assessed in arriving at the allowance for credit losses and (iii) the changes and reasons for those changes in the allowance for credit losses. Disclosures must be disaggregated by portfolio segment, the level at which an entity develops and documents a systematic method for determining its allowance for credit losses, and class of financing receivable, which is generally a disaggregation of portfolio segment. The required disclosures include, among other things, a rollforward of the allowance for credit losses as well as information about modified, impaired, nonaccrual and past due loans and credit quality indicators. The Company adopted the disclosure provisions of the new authoritative guidance about activity that occurs during a reporting period on January 1, 2011. The adoption of these provisions did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. The effective date disclosures related to loans modified in a 104 troubled debt restructuring (“TDR”) was temporarily deferred to coincide with the effective date of the then proposed ASU 2011-02, Receivables (Topic 310) – A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring, which is further discussed below. In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-02, Receivables (Topic 310) – A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring. ASU 2011-02 amended prior guidance to provide assistance in determining whether a modification of the terms of a receivable meets the definition of a troubled debt restructuring. The new authoritative guidance provides clarification for evaluating whether a concession has been granted and whether a debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. ASU 2011-02 was effective for the Company on July 1, 2011, and applies retrospectively to restructurings occurring on or after January 1, 2011. The adoption of this guidance did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. See Note 4 for disclosures related to this ASU. New authoritative accounting guidance under ASC Topic 805, Business Combinations, became applicable to the Company’s accounting for business combinations closing on or after January 1, 2009. ASC Topic 805 applies to all transactions and other events in which one entity obtains control over one or more other businesses. ASC Topic 805 requires an acquirer, upon initially obtaining control of another entity, to recognize the assets, liabilities and any non-controlling interest in the acquiree at fair value as of the acquisition date. Contingent consideration is required to be recognized and measured at fair value on the date of acquisition rather than at a later date when the amount of that consideration may be determinable beyond a reasonable doubt. This fair value approach replaces the cost- allocation process required under previous accounting guidance whereby the cost of an acquisition was allocated to the individual assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair value. ASC Topic 805 requires acquirers to expense acquisition-related costs as incurred rather than allocating such costs to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, as was previously the case under prior accounting guidance. Assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination that arise from contingencies are to be recognized at fair value if fair value can be reasonably estimated. If fair value of such an asset or liability cannot be reasonably estimated, the asset or liability would generally be recognized in accordance with ASC Topic 450, Contingencies. Under ASC Topic 805, the requirements of ASC Topic 420, Exit or Disposal Cost Obligations, would have to be met in order to accrue for a restructuring plan in purchase accounting. Pre-acquisition contingencies are to be recognized at fair value, unless it is a non-contractual contingency that is not likely to materialize, in which case, nothing should be recognized in purchase accounting and, instead, that contingency would be subject to the probable and estimable recognition criteria of ASC Topic 450, Contingencies. ASC Topic 805 became effective January 1, 2009; therefore, the Company’s FDIC-assisted acquisitions during 2010 were accounted for in accordance ASC Topic 805. Refer to Note 1, Nature of Operations and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies – Acquisition Accounting, Covered Loans and Related Indemnification Asset and Note 2, Acquisitions for further information. New authoritative accounting guidance under ASU 2010-29, Business Combinations (Topic 805), Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations. ASU 2010-29 provides clarification regarding the acquisition date that should be used for reporting the pro forma financial information disclosures required by Topic 805 when comparative financial statements are presented. ASU 2010-29 also requires entities to provide a description of the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments that are directly attributable to the business combination. ASU 2010-29 became effective for the Company for business combinations occurring after December 31, 2010, and is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s ongoing financial position or results of operations. New authoritative accounting guidance under ASU 2010-28, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350), When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts. ASU 2010-28 modifies Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. In determining whether it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist such as if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. ASU 2010-28 became effective for the Company on January 1, 2011, and did not have a significant impact on the Company’s ongoing financial position or results of operations. 105 In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-03, Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860) – Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements. ASU 2011-03 is intended to improve financial reporting of repurchase agreements and other agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. ASU 2011-03 removes from the assessment of effective control (i) the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee, and (ii) the collateral maintenance guidance related to that criterion. ASU 2011-03 will be effective for the Company on January 1, 2012, and is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s ongoing financial position or results of operations. In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) – Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs, to converge the fair value of measurement guidance in U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and International Financial Reporting Standards. ASU 2011-04 clarifies the application of existing fair value measurement requirements, changes certain principles in Topic 820 and requires additional fair value disclosures. ASU 2011-04 is effective for the Company for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, and is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s ongoing financial position or results of operations. In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220) – Presentation of Comprehensive Income, to require that all non-owner changes in stockholders’ equity be presented in either a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. Additionally, ASU 2011-05 requires entities to present, on the face of the financial statements, reclassification adjustments for items that are reclassified from other comprehensive income to net income in the statement or statements where the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income are presented. The option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity was eliminated. ASU 2011-05 is effective for the Company for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011, and is expected to result in presentation changes to the Company’s statements of income and the addition of a statement of comprehensive income. The adoption of ASU 2011-05 is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s ongoing financial position or results of operations. In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350) –Testing Goodwill for Impairment. ASU 2011-08 amends Topic 350 to give entities the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary. However, if an entity concludes otherwise, then it is required to perform the first step of the two-step impairment test by calculating the fair value of the reporting unit and comparing the fair value with the carrying amount of the reporting unit. ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim impairment tests beginning after December 15, 2011, and is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s ongoing financial position or results of operations. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220) – Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05. ASU 2011-12 defers changes in ASU 2011-05 that relate to the presentation of reclassification adjustments to allow the FASB time to redeliberate whether to require presentation of such adjustments on the face of the financial statements to show the effects of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the components of net income and other comprehensive income. ASU 2011-12 allows entities to continue to report reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income consistent with the presentation requirements in effect before ASU 2011-05. All other requirements in ASU 2011- 05 are not affected by ASU 2011-12. ASU 2011-12 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011, and is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s ongoing financial position or results of operations. Presently, the Company is not aware of any other changes to the Accounting Standards Codification that will have a material impact on the Company’s present or future financial position or results of operations. 106 NOTE 19: CONTINGENT LIABILITIES The Company and/or its subsidiaries have various unrelated legal proceedings, most of which involve loan foreclosure activity pending, which, in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company and its subsidiaries. The Company or its subsidiaries remain the subject of the following lawsuit asserting claims against the Company or its subsidiaries. On October 1, 2003, an action in Pulaski County Circuit Court was filed by Thomas F. Carter, Tena P. Carter and certain related entities against Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas and Simmons First National Bank alleging wrongful conduct by the banks in the collection of certain loans. The Company was later added as a party defendant. The plaintiffs were seeking $2,000,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. The Company and the banks filed Motions to Dismiss. The plaintiffs were granted additional time to discover any evidence for litigation, and submitted such findings. At the hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court dismissed Simmons First National Bank due to lack of venue. Venue was changed to Jefferson County for the Company and Simmons First Bank of South Arkansas. Non-binding mediation failed on June 24, 2008. A pretrial was conducted on July 24, 2008. Several dispositive motions previously filed were heard on April 9, 2009, and arguments were presented on June 22, 2009. On July 10, 2009, the Court issued its Order dismissing five claims, leaving only a single claim for further pursuit in this matter. On August 18, 2009, plaintiffs took a nonsuit on their remaining claim of breach of good faith and fair dealing, thereby bringing all claims set forth in this action to a conclusion. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Notice of Appeal to the appellate court, lodged the transcript with the Arkansas Supreme Court Clerk, and filed their initial Brief. The Company and South Arkansas timely filed their Brief in response. On September 8, 2010, the Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal without prejudice, finding that the Trial Court had not entered a final Order, which may allow the plaintiffs to re-file the appeal at a later date. On September 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for requesting the circuit court enter a judgment on this matter. The Company and South Arkansas timely filed an objection to the plaintiffs' motion. On November 3, 2011, the circuit court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the denial of the motion and have until late February, 2012 to lodge the record for appeal. On February 13, 2012, the Company and South Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss the appeal along with a brief and a partial transcript. At this time, no basis for any material liability has been identified. 107 NOTE 20: STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY The Company’s subsidiaries are subject to a legal limitation on dividends that can be paid to the parent company without prior approval of the applicable regulatory agencies. The approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is required if the total of all the dividends declared by a national bank in any calendar year exceeds the total of its net profits, as defined, for that year, combined with its retained net profits of the preceding two years. Arkansas bank regulators have specified that the maximum dividend limit state banks may pay to the parent company without prior approval is 75% of the current year earnings plus 75% of the retained net earnings of the preceding year. At December 31, 2011, the Company subsidiaries had approximately $18.7 million in undivided profits available for payment of dividends to the Company without prior approval of the regulatory agencies. The Company’s subsidiaries are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory and possibly additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on the Company’s financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, the Company must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of the Company’s assets, liabilities and certain off-balance-sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. The Company’s capital amounts and classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors. Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require the Company to maintain minimum amounts and ratios (set forth in the table below) of total and Tier 1 capital (as defined in the regulations) to risk- weighted assets (as defined) and of Tier 1 capital (as defined) to average assets (as defined). Management believes that, as of December 31, 2011, the Company meets all capital adequacy requirements to which it is subject. As of the most recent notification from regulatory agencies, the subsidiaries were well capitalized under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. To be categorized as well capitalized, the Company and subsidiaries must maintain minimum total risk-based, Tier 1 risk-based and Tier 1 leverage ratios as set forth in the table. There are no conditions or events since that notification that management believes have changed the institutions’ categories. 108 The Company’s actual capital amounts and ratios along with the Company’s most significant subsidiaries are presented in the following table. To Be Well Capitalized Under Prompt Corrective Adequacy Purposes Action Provision Minimum For Capital Amount Ratio-% Amount Ratio-% Actual Amount Ratio-% (In thousands) As of December 31, 2011 Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio Simmons First National Corporation Simmons First National Bank Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas Simmons First Bank of Russellville Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas Simmons First Bank of El Dorado $ 412,274 176,929 34,434 28,159 35,357 23,624 22.8 $ 144,658 72,960 19.4 19,537 14.1 9,047 24.9 13,156 21.5 8,552 22.1 8.0 $ 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Tier 1 Capital Ratio Simmons First National Corporation Simmons First National Bank Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas Simmons First Bank of Russellville Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas Simmons First Bank of El Dorado Leverage Ratio Simmons First National Corporation Simmons First National Bank Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas Simmons First Bank of Russellville Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas Simmons First Bank of El Dorado As of December 31, 2010 Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio 389,583 168,382 31,438 26,735 33,281 22,285 389,583 168,382 31,438 26,735 33,281 22,285 21.6 18.5 12.8 23.6 20.2 20.9 11.9 9.2 9.5 15.2 13.2 9.8 72,145 36,407 9,824 4,531 6,590 4,265 130,952 73,210 13,237 7,036 10,085 9,096 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Simmons First National Corporation Simmons First National Bank Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas Simmons First Bank of Russellville Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas Simmons First Bank of El Dorado $ 400,465 169,870 32,618 27,061 35,348 22,877 21.3 $ 150,409 75,498 18.0 20,228 12.9 9,413 23.0 14,428 19.6 9,683 18.9 8.0 $ 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Tier 1 Capital Ratio Simmons First National Corporation Simmons First National Bank Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas Simmons First Bank of Russellville Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas Simmons First Bank of El Dorado Leverage Ratio Simmons First National Corporation Simmons First National Bank Simmons First Bank of Northeast Arkansas Simmons First Bank of Russellville Simmons First Bank of Northwest Arkansas Simmons First Bank of El Dorado 376,906 160,978 29,909 25,579 33,091 21,486 376,906 160,978 29,909 25,579 33,091 21,486 20.0 17.1 11.8 21.7 18.4 17.7 11.3 8.2 9.1 14.8 12.4 8.7 75,381 37,656 10,139 4,715 7,194 4,856 133,418 78,526 13,147 6,913 10,675 9,879 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 N/A 91,201 24,421 11,309 16,445 10,690 N/A 54,610 14,737 6,797 9,885 6,398 N/A 91,512 16,546 8,794 12,606 11,370 N/A 94,372 25,285 11,766 18,035 12,104 N/A 56,484 15,208 7,073 10,791 7,283 N/A 98,157 16,434 8,642 13,343 12,348 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 109 NOTE 21: CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION (PARENT COMPANY ONLY) CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 2011 and 2010 (In thousands) 2011 2010 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Investment securities Investments in wholly-owned subsidiaries Intangible assets, net Premises and equipment Other assets TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES Long-term debt Other liabilities Total liabilities STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY Common stock Surplus Undivided profits Accumulated other comprehensive income Unrealized appreciation on available-for-sale securities, net of income taxes of $283 and $331 at December 31, 2011 and 2010 respectively Total stockholders’ equity TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY $ 43,431 3,251 381,236 133 687 10,103 $ 438,841 $ 49,792 3,320 370,402 133 731 6,416 $ 430,794 $ 30,930 -- 30,930 $ 30,930 2,493 33,423 172 112,436 294,864 173 114,040 282,646 439 407,911 $ 438,841 512 397,371 $ 430,794 CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 (In thousands) INCOME Dividends from subsidiaries Other income EXPENSE Income before income taxes and equity in undistributed net income of subsidiaries Provision for income taxes Income before equity in undistributed net income of subsidiaries Equity in undistributed net income of subsidiaries 2011 2010 2009 $ 19,291 6,189 25,480 13,756 11,724 (2,743) $ 18,080 6,763 24,843 15,601 9,242 (3,278) $ 20,082 6,308 26,390 12,201 14,189 (1,931) 14,467 10,907 12,520 24,597 16,120 9,090 NET INCOME $ 25,374 $ 37,117 $ 25,210 110 CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 (In thousands) 2011 2010 2009 251 (411) (9,090) (202) (885) 14,873 (172) (5,000) (59,825) -- (64,997) 70,918 -- (11,245) 59,673 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net income Items not requiring (providing) cash Depreciation and amortization Deferred income taxes Equity in undistributed income of bank subsidiaries Changes in Other assets Other liabilities Net cash provided by operating activities CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES $ 25,374 $ 37,117 $ 25,210 187 120 (10,907) (3,738) (2,493) 8,543 204 204 (24,597) 183 1,384 14,495 Net purchases of premises and equipment Additional investment in subsidiary Purchase of available-for-sale securities Proceeds from sale or maturity of investment securities Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities (143) -- -- -- (143) (218) (43,000) (100,070) 159,890 16,602 CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES Issuance of common stock, net Payment to repurchase common stock Dividends paid Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities 1,678 (3,283) (13,156) (14,761) 2,347 -- (13,091) (10,744) (DECREASE) INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF YEAR (6,361) 20,353 9,549 49,792 29,439 19,890 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF YEAR $ 43,431 $ 49,792 $ 29,439 111 ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE No items are reportable. ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (a) Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures. The Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in 15 C. F. R. 240.13a-14(c) and 15 C. F. R. 240.15-14(c)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that the Company's current disclosure controls and procedures are effective. (b) Changes in Internal Controls. There were no changes in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2011, which materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION No items are reportable. PART III ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY Incorporated herein by reference from the Company's definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 17, 2012, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A on or about March 19, 2012. ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Incorporated herein by reference from the Company's definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 17, 2012, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A on or about March 19, 2012. ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT Incorporated herein by reference from the Company's definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 17, 2012, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A on or about March 19, 2012. ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS Incorporated herein by reference from the Company's definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 17, 2012, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A on or about March 19, 2012. ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES Incorporated herein by reference from the Company's definitive proxy statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 17, 2012, to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A on or about March 19, 2012. 112 PART IV ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES (a) 1 and 2. Financial Statements and any Financial Statement Schedules The financial statements and financial statement schedules listed in the accompanying index to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules are filed as part of this report. (b) Listing of Exhibits Exhibit No. Description 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 10.1 10.2 Purchase and Assumption Agreement, dated as of May 14, 2010, among Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation, Receiver of Southwest Community Bank, Springfield, Missouri, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Simmons First National Bank (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K, as amended, for May 19, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Purchase and Assumption Agreement, dated as of October 15, 2010, among Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation, Receiver of Security Savings Bank F.S.B., Olathe, Kansas, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Simmons First National Bank (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K, as amended, for October 21, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Restated Articles of Incorporation of Simmons First National Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2009 (File No. 000-06253)). Amended By-Laws of Simmons First National Corporation (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2007 (File No. 000-06253)). Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2003, among the Company, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware and each of J. Thomas May, Barry L. Crow and Bob Fehlman as administrative trustees, with respect to Simmons First Capital Trust II (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). Guarantee Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2003, between the Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as guarantee trustee, with respect to Simmons First Capital Trust II (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). 113 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 Junior Subordinated Indenture, dated as of December 16, 2003, among the Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, with respect to the junior subordinated note held by Simmons First Capital Trust II (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2003, among the Company, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware and each of J. Thomas May, Barry L. Crow and Bob Fehlman as administrative trustees, with respect to Simmons First Capital Trust III (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). Guarantee Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2003, between the Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as guarantee trustee, with respect to Simmons First Capital Trust III (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). Junior Subordinated Indenture, dated as of December 16, 2003, among the Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, with respect to the junior subordinated note held by Simmons First Capital Trust III (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). Amended and Restated Trust Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2003, among the Company, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware and each of J. Thomas May, Barry L. Crow and Bob Fehlman as administrative trustees, with respect to Simmons First Capital Trust IV (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). Guarantee Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2003, between the Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as guarantee trustee, with respect to Simmons First Capital Trust IV (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). Junior Subordinated Indenture, dated as of December 16, 2003, among the Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, with respect to the junior subordinated note held by Simmons First Capital Trust IV (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). Notice of discretionary bonuses to J. Thomas May, David L. Bartlett, Robert A. Fehlman, Marty D. Casteel and Robert C. Dill (incorporated by reference to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K for January 25, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Deferred Compensation Agreements, adopted January 25, 2010, between Simmons First National Corporation and Robert A. Fehlman and Marty D. Casteel (incorporated by reference to Exhibits 10.2 and 10.3 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K for January 25, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Simmons First National Corporation Executive Retention Program, adopted January 25, 2010, and notice of retention bonuses to David Bartlett, Robert A. Fehlman and Marty D. Casteel (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K for January 25, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). 114 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19 10.20 10.21 10.22 10.23 10.24 10.25 Simmons First National Corporation Executive Stock Incentive Plan – 2010, adopted January 25, 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K for January 25, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Deferred Compensation Agreement for Marty D. Casteel (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K for January 25, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Simmons First National Corporation Executive Retention Program (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K for January 25, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Simmons First National Corporation Executive Stock Incentive Plan - 2010 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K for January 25, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Change in Control Agreement for J. Thomas May (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(a) to Simmons First National Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed August 9, 2001 (File No. 000-06253)). Change in Control Agreement for Robert A. Fehlman (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 29, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Change in Control Agreement for David Bartlett (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed March 2, 2006 (File No. 000-06253)). Change in Control Agreement for Marty D. Casteel (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed January 29, 2010 (File No. 000-06253)). Change in Control Agreement for Robert Dill (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.21 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2009 (File No. 000-06253)). Amendment to Change in Control Agreement for Robert C. Dill (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2009 (File No. 000-06253)). Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Agreement for J. Thomas May (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2009 (File No. 000-06253)). First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Agreement for J. Thomas May (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2009 (File No. 000-06253)). Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Agreement for J. Thomas May (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2009 (File No. 000-06253)). 115 10.26 10.27 10.28 10.29 10.30 10.31 10.32 10.33 10.34 10.35 10.36 10.37 Executive Salary Continuation Agreement for David L. Bartlett (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2009 (File No. 000-06253)). 409A Amendment to the Simmons First Bank of Hot Springs Executive Salary Continuation Agreement for David Bartlett (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.27 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2009 (File No. 000-06253)). Simmons First National Corporation Incentive and Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed May 19, 2006 (File No. 333-134276)). Simmons First National Corporation Executive Stock Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed May 19, 2006 (File No. 333-134301)). Simmons First National Corporation Executive Stock Incentive Plan – 2001 (incorporated by reference to Definitive Additional Materials to Simmons First National Corporation’s Definitive Proxy Materials on Schedule 14A filed April 2, 2001 (File No. 000-06253)). Simmons First National Corporation Executive Stock Incentive Plan – 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1.2 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Definitive Proxy Materials on Schedule 14A filed March 10, 2006 (File No. 000-06253)). First Amendment to Simmons First National Corporation Executive Stock Incentive Plan – 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed June 4, 2007 (File No. 000-06253)). Simmons First National Corporation Outside Director's Stock Incentive Plan - 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1.3 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Definitive Proxy Materials on Schedule 14A filed March 10, 2006 (File No. 000-06253)). Amended and Restated Simmons First National Corporation Outside Director's Stock Incentive Plan - 2006 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 1.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Definitive Proxy Materials on Schedule 14A filed March 10, 2008 (File No. 000-06253)). Simmons First National Corporation Dividend Reinvestment Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-3D filed May 20, 1998 (File No. 333-53119)). Simmons First National Corporation Amended and Restated Dividend Reinvestment Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-3D filed July 14, 2004 (File No. 333-117350)). Form of Lock-Up Agreement (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed November 12, 2009 (File No. 000- 06253)). 12.1 Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges.* 14 Code of Ethics, dated December 2003, for CEO, CFO, controller and other accounting officers (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 14 to Simmons First National Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2003 (File No. 000-06253)). 116 23 Consent of BKD, LLP.* 31.1 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification – J. Thomas May, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.* 31.2 32.1 32.2 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification – Robert A. Fehlman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.* Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 – J. Thomas May, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.* Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 – Robert A. Fehlman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.* * Filed herewith. 117 Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. SIGNATURES /s/ Marty D. Casteel Marty D. Casteel, Secretary March 7, 2012 Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities indicated on or about March 7, 2012. Signature Title /s/ J. Thomas May J. Thomas May /s/ Robert A. Fehlman Robert A. Fehlman /s/ William E. Clark II William E. Clark II /s/ Steven A. Cossé Steven A. Cossé /s/ Edward Drilling Edward Drilling /s/ Sharon L. Gaber Sharon L. Gaber /s/ Eugene Hunt Eugene Hunt /s/ George A. Makris, Jr. George A. Makris, Jr. /s/ W. Scott McGeorge W. Scott McGeorge /s/ Harry L. Ryburn Harry L. Ryburn /s/ Robert L. Shoptaw Robert L. Shoptaw Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Director Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director 118 Exhibit 31.1 I, J. Thomas May, certify that: CERTIFICATION 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Simmons First National Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 7, 2012 /s/ J. Thomas May J. Thomas May Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 119 Exhibit 31.2 I, Robert A. Fehlman, certify that: CERTIFICATION 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Simmons First National Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 7, 2012 /s/ Robert A. Fehlman Robert A. Fehlman Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 120 Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Simmons First National Corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, J. Thomas May, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ J. Thomas May J. Thomas May Chairman and Chief Executive Officer March 7, 2012 121 Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Simmons First National Corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Robert A. Fehlman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Robert A. Fehlman Robert A. Fehlman Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer March 7, 2012 122 SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL CORPORATION 2011 ANNUAL REPORT Corporate Headquarters: Little Rock Corporate Office: 501 Main Street 100 Morgan Keegan Dr., Suite 410 Pine Bluff, AR 71601 (870) 541-1000 Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 558-3100 w w w.SIMMONSFIRST.COM 

Continue reading text version or see original annual report in PDF format above