lafayette, louisiana august 5, 2013 public disclosure ... · presence in arkansas and tennessee)...

Iberia Bank CRA Public Evaluation

Lafayette, Louisiana August 5, 2013

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

August 5, 2013

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

IBERIABANK

RSSD ID NUMBER: 808176

Lafayette, Louisiana 71501

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA

1000 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4470

NOTE: This document is an evaluation of this institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community,

including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operation of the institution. This

evaluation is not, nor should it be construed as, an assessment of the financial condition of this institution. The rating

assigned to the institution does not represent an analysis, conclusion or opinion of the federal financial supervisory agency

concerning the safety and soundness of this financial institution.

IBERIABANK August 5, 2013

Lafayette, Louisiana RSSD ID NUMBER: 808176

Table of Contents

i

Institution Rating

Institution’s CRA Rating…………………………..………………….…………………. 1

Table of Performance Test Ratings………………………………………………………. 1

Summary of Major Factors Supporting Rating……………………………………….…... 1

Institution

Description of Institution………………………...……………………………………….. 2

Scope of Examination……………………………..……….……………………………… 3

Conclusions With Respect to Performance Tests……………………………………..…... 6

State of Louisiana

Summary

State Rating……………………………………………..….…………...……… 12

Scope of Examination…………………………………….…………….....…… 13

Description of Operations……………………………………………………… 13

Conclusions With Respect to Performance Tests……………………………… 13

New Orleans Metropolitan Area (Full Review)



Lafayette Metropolitan Area (Full Review)



Metropolitan Areas (Limited Review)...……………………….................................... 49

Nonmetropolitan Areas (Limited Review)...…………………………………………... 50

State of Arkansas

Summary

State Rating………………………………………………………...…...……… 52

Scope of Examination………………………………………………………….. 53





Table of Contents

ii

Little Rock Metropolitan Area (Full Review)



Fayetteville Metropolitan Area (Full Review)





State of Florida

Summary

State Rating……………………………………………..….…………...……… 85

Scope of Examination…………………………………….…………….....…….. 86



Sarasota Metropolitan Area (Full Review)



Naples Metropolitan Area (Full Review)





State of Alabama

Summary

State Rating……………………………………………..….…………...……… 119

Scope of Examination…………………………………….…………….....…….. 120





Table of Contents

iii

Birmingham Metropolitan Area (Full Review)



Metropolitan Areas (Limited Review)...………………………................................ 136


State of Texas

Summary

State Rating……………………………………………..….…………...…... 139

Scope of Examination…………………………………….…………….....… 140

Description of Operations…………………………………………………… 140

Conclusions With Respect to Performance Tests…………………………… 140

Houston Metropolitan Area (Full Review)



State of Tennessee

Summary

State Rating……………………………………………..….…………...……. 157

Scope of Examination…………………………………….…………….....…. 158

Description of Operations……………………………………………………. 158

Conclusions With Respect to Performance Tests……………………………. 158

Memphis Metropolitan Area (Full Review)



Appendices

Appendix A: Scope of Examination…………………………………………….…… 175

Appendix B: Summary of State Ratings…………………………………………….. 178

Appendix C: CRA Abbreviations and Definitions...………..…………….…….…… 179

Appendix D: Glossary……………………………………………………...………… 181



Table of Contents

iv

Appendix E: General Information……………….……………………………….… 185

Appendix F: Institution Tables……………….……………………………….……. 186

Appendix G: 2011 Full Scope Lending Tables ……….……………………….…… 188

Appendix H: 2012 Full Scope Lending Tables ……………………………….…… 217

Appendix I: 2011 Limited Scope Tables…..….…………………………………….. 246

Appendix J: 2012 Limited Scope Tables…..………… …………………………….. 300

Appendix K: Qualified Investments and Contributions …………………………….. 354



Institution

1

INSTITUTION'S CRA RATING: SATISFACTORY

The following table indicates the performance level of IBERIABANK with respect to the lending, investment,

and service tests.

PERFORMANCE LEVELS

IBERIABANK

PERFORMANCE TESTS

Lending Test* Investment Test Service Test

Outstanding

High Satisfactory X X X

Low Satisfactory

Needs to Improve

Substantial Noncompliance

*Note: The lending test is weighted more heavily than the investment and service tests when arriving at

an overall rating.

Major factors supporting the institution’s rating include:

The geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment areas;

The distribution of HMDA1 lending among borrowers reflects adequate penetration among customers of

different income levels;

The distribution of small business lending reflects adequate penetration among businesses of different

revenue sizes;

The bank makes a relatively high level of community development loans;

The bank has a good level of qualified investments;

Retail delivery systems are reasonably accessible to the bank’s geographies and to individuals of

different income levels in its assessment areas;

The bank’s record of opening and closing branches has not adversely affected the accessibility of its

delivery systems, particularly in low- and moderate-income geographies and to low- and moderate-

income individuals; and

The bank provides an excellent level of community development services.

1 Home mortgage loans are reported by institutions on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Loan Application Register

(LAR). The register includes home purchase, refinance, home improvement, and multi-family loans originated and purchased by the

institution.



Institution

2

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION

IBERIABANK is a multi-state commercial bank headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana. The bank operates 182

branch offices in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas. As of December 31, 2012,

IBERIABANK had total assets of $13.1 billion. The bank received a “Satisfactory” rating at its previous

evaluation dated June 13, 2011. No known legal impediments exist that would restrain the bank from meeting

the credit needs of its assessment areas.

For this examination, 27 assessment areas were reviewed. Total deposits for the 27 assessment areas as of

June 30, 2012, were $9.4 billion. Descriptions of the full-scope assessment areas can be found in the applicable

state sections of this report.

Business Structure

IBERIABANK Corporation, headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana, is a one-bank, financial holding company

with $13.1 billion in consolidated assets as of December 31, 2012. IBERIABANK Corporation is the parent

company for IBERIABANK, which is a state member bank and a full-service provider of deposit, credit, trust,

and investment services to a broad range of retail, business, and institutional clients. IBERIABANK operates

and wholly owns a mortgage affiliate, IBERIABANK Mortgage, which is headquartered in Little Rock,

Arkansas, and does the majority of the bank’s HMDA lending. Other non-bank subsidiaries include: Lenders

Title Company, a title insurance and closing services agency headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas; IBERIA

Wealth Advisors (IWA); and IBERIA Capital Partners, a corporate finance services firm in New Orleans.

IBERIABANK Corporation is also the parent of IBERIA CDE, LLC, which was created for the purpose of

investing in tax credits.

IBERIABANK has more than doubled in size over the past five years primarily from the acquisition of problem

banks (some via the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) loss-share program). IBERIABANK’s

legacy loan portfolio did not experience the significant losses experienced by other banks that had

concentrations in commercial real estate during the recent recession. The acquired banks were quickly

integrated into IBERIABANK’s operations, and a division was created to specifically manage the assets

covered by the FDIC loss-share program.

In 2011, IBERIABANK completed the merger with the company’s IBERIABANKfsb subsidiary (with a

presence in Arkansas and Tennessee) and completed the acquisitions of OMNI BANCSHARES, Inc., and

Cameron Bancshares, Inc. In addition, the bank purchased certain assets of Florida Trust Company, a wholly-

owned subsidiary of the Bank of Florida Corporation. In 2012, IBERIABANK acquired Florida Gulf Bancorp,

Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Florida Gulf Bank, headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida. As a result of

these acquisitions, the bank has significantly expanded its presence in Florida, and Louisiana, and added

Tennessee and Arkansas to the geographic footprint.

Credit Products and Loan Portfolio

IBERIABANK offers a variety of consumer, residential real estate, and commercial loan products to fulfill the

credit needs of the residents and businesses in its assessment areas. Consumer loan products include credit

cards, personal lines of credit, installment loans, home equity loans, mortgage loans and auto loans. The bank

also offers construction lending. Commercial loan products include loans and lines of credit, business credit

cards, and real estate loans. IBERIABANK does not offer Small Business Administration (SBA) loans directly

but has a partnership with an external vendor that allows the bank to refer customers across the bank’s entire

footprint for possible SBA loans.



Institution

3

The following table shows the distribution of IBERIABANK’s loan portfolio as of March 31, 2013, and

December 31, 2012, and 2013. Loans secured by nonfarm, nonresidential real estate comprised the greatest

percentage by dollar volume of IBERIABANK’s loan portfolio each of the three years. The next highest

volume by dollar amount was loans secured by one- to four-family dwellings, followed by commercial and

industrial loans, loans to individuals, and construction and development loans. As the table depicts, small farm

loans accounted for less than 1 percent of the bank’s loan portfolio during the review period.

SCOPE OF EXAMINATION

All assessment areas for IBERIABANK were evaluated for lending, investment, and service performance. Full-

scope reviews were conducted for 9 of the bank’s 27 assessment areas. The assessment areas were selected for

full-scope reviews based on the volume of lending, number of branches, percentage of total deposits, amount of

community development activity, length of time since the last full-scope evaluation, and other nonfinancial

considerations. The bank is an interstate bank; therefore, the scope of the evaluation includes a full-scope

review of at least one assessment area in each state where the bank has offices. Arkansas and Tennessee were

added to the bank’s geographic footprint during the review period, so this is the first time the bank’s

performance in these states has been evaluated.

Assessment areas receiving full-scope reviews were New Orleans and Lafayette in the state of Louisiana; Little

Rock and Fayetteville in the state of Arkansas; Sarasota and Naples in the state of Florida; Birmingham in the

state of Alabama; Houston, in the state of Texas; and Memphis, in the state of Tennessee. The remaining

assessment areas received limited-scope reviews. The state of Louisiana had the greatest number of branches

and largest concentration of lending and deposit activity. Therefore, performance in Louisiana had the greatest

weight in determining the overall rating for the institution, followed by the remaining states in the order in

which they are presented in the evaluation. Within each state, the full-scope assessment areas are presented in

the order of their relative weight on the performance rating for that state. A description of each full-scope

assessment area is included in the applicable assessment area sections of this report.

Examination Review Period and Products Reviewed

The lending test performance was based upon loan data for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31,

2012. HMDA-reportable loans and CRA-reportable small business loans were the major products included in

the evaluation. HMDA loans from both IBERIABANK and IBERIABANK Mortgage were considered for the

lending analysis. CRA-reportable small farm loans and HMDA-reportable multi-family loans were generally

not considered in the overall assessment due to limited activity and volume. Additionally, the analysis did not

include other types of consumer loans, credit cards, or commercial loans.

$ (000s) Percent $ (000s) Percent $ (000s) Percent

Construction and Development 565,161 6.7% 554,199 6.6% 559,620 7.7%

Secured by One- to Four- Family Dwellings 2,213,077 26.4% 2,294,628 27.3% 2,043,535 28.1%

Other Real Estate: Farmland 40,492 0.5% 41,657 0.5% 36,641 0.5%

Multifamily 216,288 2.6% 222,257 2.6% 194,899 2.7%

Nonfarm nonresidential 2,544,449 30.4% 2,598,718 30.9% 2,235,014 30.8%

Commercial and Industrial 2,176,044 26.0% 2,124,952 25.3% 1,713,676 23.6%

Loans to Individuals 610,466 7.3% 559,437 6.7% 458,245 6.3%

Agricultural Loans 15,276 0.2% 16,466 0.2% 19,348 0.3%

Total $8,381,253 100.00% $8,412,314 100.00% $7,260,978 100.00%

COMPOSITION OF LOAN PORTFOLIO

* This table does not include the entire loan portfo lio . Specifically, it excludes loans to depository institutions, bankers acceptances, lease financing receivables,

obligations of state and political subdivisions, and other loans that do not meet any other category. Contra assets are also not included in this table.

3/31/2013 12/31/2011

Loan Type

12/31/2012



Institution

4

Community development loans and investments funded by the bank from January 1, 2011, through March 31,

2013, were reviewed for the lending and investment tests. In addition, the bank’s community development

services for the same time period were evaluated for the service test.

Examination Analysis

The evaluation of the bank’s record of lending in the individual assessment areas includes the use of and

comparison to demographic characteristics. The primary sources for the demographic information are the 2000

and 2010 U.S. Census and Dunn & Bradstreet data. Demographic characteristics of a particular assessment area

are useful in analyzing the bank’s record of lending since they provide a means of estimating loan demand and

identifying lending opportunities. To understand small business loan demand, self-reported data of revenue size

and geographical location from business entities are collected and published by Dunn & Bradstreet. The

demographic data should not be construed as defining an expected level of lending in a particular area or to a

particular group of borrowers. In addition to demographic data, general housing and economic conditions are

also considered in order to understand the bank’s performance context and to evaluate the bank appropriately.

Loans are evaluated to determine the lending activity inside the bank’s assessment area. In addition, loans

inside the assessment area are evaluated using the geographic and borrower income distribution for each

assessment area. The bank’s geographic distribution with respect to HMDA loans is assessed by comparing the

percentage of loans made in each geography type (low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income) to the

percentage of owner-occupied units in each geography type. Small business loans are compared to the

percentage of small businesses within each geographic income category.

The bank’s borrower income distribution with respect to HMDA loans is assessed by comparing the percentage

of loans made to borrowers in each income category (low-, moderate-, middle-, and upper-income) to the

percentage of families in each income category. The bank’s borrower income distribution with respect to small

business loans is assessed by comparing the percentage of loans made to businesses in each revenue category

(less than or equal to $1 million or greater than $1 million) to the percentage of total businesses in each revenue

category.

The bank’s lending performance is also compared to the performance of aggregate lenders. Aggregate lenders

include all lenders required to report HMDA and CRA data within the respective assessment areas. The bank’s

market share of deposits and lending is discussed to provide an understanding of how IBERIABANK ranks

within the respective assessment areas.

Community development activities were reviewed to determine if they have community development as a

primary purpose and meet the geographic requirements of the regulation. Qualified community development

activities were analyzed from both the quantitative and qualitative perspectives to understand the volume of

activity impacting a particular assessment area, the innovativeness of those activities and their responsiveness to

local community development and credit needs. When appropriate, peer comparisons were conducted using

annualized performance metrics to gauge the relative performance of the institution in a particular assessment

area.

In order to understand community development and community credit needs in the respective assessment areas,

several sources are used. These sources include contacts with community representatives familiar with

affordable housing and/or small business and community development; review of publically accessible data;

and analysis of documents and plans that describe the community development environment in local markets.

The community contacts are located throughout the bank’s assessment areas and include representatives of

community-based organizations, municipalities, and quasi-government agencies.



Institution

5

Certain comments concerning the local economies were consistent throughout the assessment areas. The recent

recession has had a major impact on many of the bank’s assessment areas leading to job losses and foreclosures.

Community contacts agreed that the recovery was underway in most markets but the lingering effects of the

housing and economic crisis were still evident, particularly in low- and moderate-income communities. Many

contacts also noted that the jobs lost during the recession were being replaced by new jobs in lower wage

sectors. Therefore, despite the recovery, many lower-income households are still struggling. Based on

discussions with the community contacts, common needs identified in all assessment areas that could provide

opportunities for bank participation included affordable housing, small business lending, and investment in

community development organizations, financial education, and household financial stability.



Institution

6

CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO PERFORMANCE TESTS

Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s overall lending test rating is High Satisfactory. The overall lending performance is good in

four states (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas) while performance is adequate in two states (Florida and

Tennessee). The bank’s geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate distribution throughout the

assessment areas. The bank’s penetration of loans among borrowers of different income levels and businesses

of different sizes is adequate. The bank made a relatively high level of community development loans during

the review period.

References are made throughout the report to IBERIABANK’s lending distribution by geography and borrower

income, as described in the preceding section. Detailed information about the bank’s HMDA- and CRA-

reportable loans in the full scope assessment areas can be found in Appendices G and H while details of lending

in limited scope assessment areas can be found in Appendices I-J. In some assessment area and product

discussions, specific numbers are quoted from these tables to support relevant points; otherwise, general

references are made comparing performance and the reader should refer to the tables for specific data.

The following table summarizes IBERIABANK’s lending activity from January 1, 2011, through December 31,

2012. As shown, the bank originated more HMDA loans than small business loans by number during the

review period so HMDA loans were weighted more heavily in deriving the final lending ratings. In addition,

the bank’s overall lending activity increased by almost 40 percent between 2011 and 2012. While loans in both

2011 and 2012 were evaluated, due to the bank’s significant growth and expansion over the review period, the

bank’s performance in 2012 was weighted slightly more than the performance in 2011 in determining the final

lending rating. A breakdown of the bank’s lending activity for 2011 and 2012 can be found in Appendix F.

Detailed information about the bank’s lending activity can be found in the state sections of this report.

IBERIABANK offers several programs with the specific purpose of helping to meet housing-related needs of

low- and moderate-income individuals and communities. Notably, the bank created the IBERIABANK Subsidy

Program in 2012 to provide up to $4,000 in down payment or closing cost assistance for the purchase or

refinance of loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers. The bank has pledged to provide up to $1.0

million in assistance over the next three years. The bank also created a new home improvement loan product,

which is an unsecured loan that can be used for improving or renovating a borrower’s primary residence. The

product was designed to assist homeowners who lacked the equity in their homes to secure a traditional home

improvement loan to complete needed home improvements or repairs. In addition, IBERIABANK leverages

Loan Type # % $(000s) %

Total Consumer related 0 0 0

Home Improvement 1,554 -- $17,750 --

Home Purchase 8,118 -- $582,407 --

Multi-Family Housing 91 -- $53,186 --

Refinancing 7,187 -- $558,825 --

Total HMDA related 16,950 73 $1,212,168 68

Small Business 5,858 -- $534,103 --

Total Small Business related 5,858 25 $534,103 30

Small Farm 352 -- $19,135 --

Total Small Farm related 352 2 $19,135 1

TO TAL LO ANS 23,160 100 $1,765,406 100

Summary of Lending Activity



Institution

7

funding from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas to provide additional down payment and closing cost

assistance grants and subsidized financing for affordable housing projects. Finally, across the bank’s entire

footprint, mortgage lenders originate loans utilizing many different down payment assistance and other subsidy

programs for low- and moderate borrowers. All of these actions contributed to the increase in the bank’s

lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers during the review period.

The table below shows the distribution of IBERIABANK’s lending inside and outside its assessment area.

Affiliate loan data, in accordance with the CRA, is not included in the assessment area concentration

performance review. IBERIABANK originated a substantial majority of its loans within its assessment areas,

reflecting excellent assessment area penetration.

Geographic Distribution and Distribution by Borrower Income and Business Revenue Size

The overall geographic distribution of HMDA and small business lending reflects adequate penetration in low-

and moderate-income geographies. Two of the nine full-scope assessment areas are considered good, five are

considered adequate, and two are considered poor for overall geographic distribution. The overall distribution

among borrowers of different income levels and businesses of different sizes is adequate. Eight of the nine full-

scope assessment areas are considered adequate and one is considered poor for borrower distribution.

Loan Types

% $(000s) % # % $(000s) %

Home Improvement 82.2% $29,527 83.7% 276 17.8% $5,758 16.3%

Home Purchase - Conventional 87.7% $166,929 77.4% 111 12.3% $48,642 22.6%

Home Purchase - FHA 100.0% $22,694 100.0% 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

Home Purchase - VA 100.0% $2,024 100.0% 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

Multi-Family Housing 87.9% $104,795 80.7% 11 12.1% $25,073 19.3%

Refinancing 88.7% $291,893 85.0% 185 11.3% $51,478 15.0%

Total HMDA related 86.7% $617,862 82.5% 583 13.3% $130,951 17.5%

Small Business 88.2% $1,043,956 85.2% 689 11.8% $181,677 14.8%

Total Small Bus. related 88.2% $1,043,956 85.2% 689 11.8% $181,677 14.8%

Small Farm 92.3% $32,876 85.1% 27 7.7% $5,737 14.9%

Total Small Farm related 92.3% $32,876 85.1% 27 7.7% $5,737 14.9%

TOTAL LOANS 87.7% $1,694,694 84.2% 1,299 12.3% $318,365 15.8%

Note: Affiliate loans not included

Lending Inside and Outside the Assessment Area

5,169

5,169

325

325

9,305

792

190

14

80

1,457

3,811

Inside Outside

#

1,278



Institution

8

Community Development Lending

IBERIABANK made a high level of community

development loans during the review period. The bank

originated or renewed 81 community development loans

totaling more than $258.3 million during the review

period. The largest concentration of community

development loans by state was in Louisiana with $118.5

million, accounting for nearly 46 percent of bank-wide

community development lending. The performance in

Louisiana was driven by the amount of community

development lending in the New Orleans assessment area.

Texas accounted for approximately 16 percent of the

community development lending, followed by Arkansas, and Florida with about 15 percent each of the activity.

The community development loans originated or renewed during the evaluation period were for a variety of

purposes, including the financing of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals; promoting

economic development by financing small businesses that resulted in job creation and/or retention; revitalizing

and/or stabilizing targeted low- and moderate-income census tracts or other qualified geographies; and

community services targeted to low- and moderate-income individuals. During the review period, the bank

provided over $22 million in financing to support the development of 3 Low Income Housing Tax Credit

(LIHTC) projects providing over 230 units of new affordable housing for low- and moderate-income

individuals.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s investment performance is rated High Satisfactory based on the overall level of qualified

community development investments and contributions provided in the various assessment areas and across the

bank’s footprint. Specifically, the bank’s performance is excellent in one state (Louisiana), while performance

is good in three states (Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas), and adequate in two states (Florida and Tennessee). By

assessment area, the bank had excellent performance in one full-scope assessment area while performance was

good in five full-scope assessment areas, and adequate in three full-scope assessment areas.

IBERIABANK had qualified investments totaling

approximately $97.2 million within its assessment areas,

including $57.1 million in investments made during the review

period. Most of the bank’s investments (by dollar) support

affordable housing through the purchase of securities backed

by government-guaranteed mortgages to qualified low- and

moderate-income borrowers. The bank also invested in

several Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects

that provide affordable rental housing primarily for individuals

earning less than 60 percent of the area median income.

Finally, the bank provided support for community

revitalization and stabilization by purchasing New Market Tax

Credits which provided equity capital for projects in low- and moderate-income communities or designated

disaster areas. The bank was very involved with recovery efforts in New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast

Loan Purpose # $('000s)

Affordable Housing 32 101,793

Community Services 19 65,358

Economic Development 8 7,403

Revitalize & Stabilize 23 83,784

Total 81 258,338

Investment Purpose # $('000s)

Affordable Housing 271 $57,637

Community Services 0 $0

Economic

Development

1 $1,000

Revitalize & Stabilize 10 $38,554

Total 282 $97,191



Institution

9

after Hurricane Katrina, and through the NMTC program, invested over $38.6 million in equity capital for

projects that helped stabilize and revitalize low-income communities and those that were impacted by the

hurricane.

IBERIABANK made 591 qualified grants totaling $2.5 million

to organizations with a purpose of community development

within the assessment areas. The majority of the donations

provided support for organizations engaged in community

services for low- and moderate-income individuals or

communities, including but not limited to financial counseling;

youth and family programs; education and charter schools;

emergency assistance including food and housing; job training;

and mental health services. The bank also provided significant

financial support for affordable housing, including almost

$650,000 in mortgage grants through the IBERIABANK

Subsidy Program to help low- and moderate-income borrowers

with downpayment and closing cost assistance. The grants were provided in partnership with nonprofit

organizations in the local communities.

A summary of the bank’s investments and contributions can be found in Appendix K; additional detail

regarding specific investments and contributions can be found in the state and full-scope assessment area

sections.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test is rated High Satisfactory. IBERIABANK’s performance

is considered good in four states (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee) and adequate in two states

(Alabama and Texas). Under the service test, both retail and community development services are considered.

During the review period, the bank expanded its geographic coverage significantly and added a number of new

branches. Therefore, retail services were weighted slightly more than community development services in

developing the final service test rating. Specific details of the service performance are discussed in the

respective full scope assessment area sections of this report.

Retail Services

Retail delivery systems are reasonably accessible to geographies and individuals of different income levels.

During the exam period of January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, IBERIABANK opened 20 de novo

branches, including 5 new branches within low- and moderate-income census tracts. The bank closed 17

branches and relocated 5 branches; 4 of the branches closed were in moderate-income census tracts. Three of

the closures in moderate-income tracts were the result of the bank’s exit from the Jacksonville, Florida market.

A specific listing of the branches opened or closed during the period may be obtained by accessing

IBERIABANK’s CRA public file, which is available at any IBERIABANK branch.

IBERIABANK’s record of opening and closing of branches has not adversely affected the accessibility of

banking services to low- and moderate-income geographies. In addition, banking services and business hours

do not vary in a way that inconveniences any portion of IBERIABANK’s assessment areas, particularly low-

and moderate-income geographies and individuals. The bank does not offer weekend or extended hours in

many markets but in those where extended hours are offered, they are also offered at some branches in low- and

moderate-income geographies. Branches located in low-income census tracts are in New Orleans market only;

however, in the Little Rock and Sarasota assessment areas, the bank has a relatively high number of branches in

moderate-income geographies.

Contribution Purpose # $('000s)

Affordable Housing 221 $910

Community Services 341 $1,457

Economic Development 19 $122

Revitalize & Stabilize 10 $23

Total 591 $2,512



Institution

10

In an effort to expand access to retail banking services, IBERIABANK offers several retail products to meet the

financial needs of lower-income customers and small businesses. For instance, the bank offers free business

banking and a free checking account for consumers with a low opening deposit requirement assuming the client

receives $500 in direct deposits each month. In addition, the bank introduced the IBERIABANK credit builder

product during the examination period, which is a CD-secured loan to assist borrowers with little or no credit

establish or improve their credit profile. The bank also participates in organized programs and other outreach

efforts across its footprint to expand banking access to low- and moderate-income consumers.

The geographic distribution of IBERIABANK’s branches as of December 31, 2012, is found in the table below.

This distribution is based on 2010 census tracts. The bank’s branch distribution as of December 31, 2011,

which is based on the 2000 census can be found in Appendix F. The bank’s branch distribution changed during

the review period due to branching activity and the realignment of census tracts as a result of the 2010 census.

Specifically, the percentage of branches in moderate income census tracts increased from 7.6 percent to 17.6

percent of all branches, while the share of branches in middle-income census tracts declined from 49.1 percent

to 39.6 percent. While branch distribution for both time frames was taken into account in the service test

analysis, emphasis was placed on branch distribution as of December 31, 2012.

Community Development Services

IBERIABANK provides an excellent level of community development services throughout its assessment areas

with 10,030 hours of community development services through 345 service activities during the review period.

Community development services were excellent in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Tennessee, and good in

Alabama and Texas. IBERIABANK’s directors, officers, and staff members are involved in numerous

organizations and activities that promote or facilitate affordable housing for low- and moderate-income

individuals, services for low- and moderate-income individuals, economic development, and revitalization of

low- and moderate-income areas. Bank representatives are also involved with financial education outreach

efforts in every assessment area. Notably, board service hours represent the majority of service hours reported

in most of the full scope assessment areas, indicating that the bank has an ongoing commitment to individual

communities. Also, an IBERIABANK team provided extensive loss mitigation services to low- and moderate-

O pen Closed O pen Closed O pen Closed

# # # # # # # # % # # # %

Low 3 1.6% 1 0 1 0 0 Total 5 2.4% 4 2.1% 1 0 1 6.3% 0 0

DTO 0 0 0 SA 3 2 0 0 1 0 0

Moderate 32 17.6% 6 0 28 20 10 Total 35 16.6% 34 17.4% 6 0 1 6.3% 0 0

DTO 0 0 0 SA 2 1 0 0 1 0 0

Middle 72 39.6% 6 5 68 33 27 Total 80 37.9% 75 38.5% 6 3 5 31.3% 0 2

DTO 1 0 0 SA 6 1 0 0 5 0 0

Upper 75 41.2% 10 4 68 27 20 Total 91 43.1% 82 42.1% 9 4 9 56.3% 0 0

DTO 3 0 0 1 SA 10 2 0 0 8 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

DTO 0 0 0 SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 182 100.0% 23 9 165 80 57 Total 211 100.0% 195 100.0% 22 7 16 100.0% 0 2

DTO 4 0 0 1 SA 21 6 0 0 15 0 0

DTO - Drive thru only is a subset of total branches.

Closed branches/ATMs are not included in the totals. SA = Stand Alone ATM; a subset of total ATMs

1073 30.0%

34 1.0%

3,577 100.0%

10.1%

898 25.1%

1211 33.9%

# % # %

361

2012 Geographic Distribution of Branches & ATMS

Tract

Category

Branches ATMs Demographics

Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours

Total ATMs Full Service ATMs Cash only ATMs

Census Tracts

# %



Institution

11

income homebuyers facing foreclosure, primarily in Alabama, and Florida. Finally, several bank

representatives provided hundreds of hours in technical assistance to nonprofit organizations, including a

community development financial institution, and many hours of one-on-one credit and financial counseling for

low- and moderate-income individuals.

FAIR LENDING OR OTHER ILLEGAL CREDIT PRACTICES REVIEW

Pursuant to 12 CFR 228.28(c) in determining a bank’s CRA rating, the Federal Reserve System considers

evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices in any geography by the bank, or in any assessment

area by an affiliate whose loans have been considered as a part of the bank’s lending performance. The Federal

Reserve Bank of Atlanta did not identify evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices with respect

to this institution.

Further, section 1025 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203)

assigns to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) exclusive examination authority, and primary

enforcement authority, to ensure compliance by banks with Federal consumer financial laws, if the bank has

more than $10 billion in assets. The CFPB has not provided the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta with any

information about, or other evidence of, discriminatory or other illegal credit practices relative to this institution

with respect to the Federal consumer financial laws.



Louisiana

12

CRA RATING FOR LOUISANA: Satisfactory

The Lending Test is rated: High Satisfactory

The Investment Test is rated: Outstanding

The Service Test is rated: High Satisfactory

Major factors supporting the rating include the following:

The geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment areas. In

addition, the distribution of borrowers reflects adequate penetration among customers of different

income levels and businesses of different revenue sizes.

The bank is a leader in making community development loans within the assessment areas.

The bank provides an excellent level of qualified community development investments and grants that

are responsive to several identified community development needs of the assessment areas.

Retail services are accessible to the bank’s geographies and individuals of different income levels in the

assessment areas.

The bank is a leader in providing community development services throughout the assessment areas.



Louisiana

13


A full scope review was conducted for two assessment area in the State of Louisiana:

Lafayette New Orleans

Limited scope reviews were conducted for the remaining nine assessment areas:

Acadiana

Allen

Baton Rouge

Houma

Lake Charles

Lincoln

Monroe

Morehouse

Shreveport

The time period, products, and affiliates evaluated for these assessment areas are consistent with the scope

discussed in the institution section of this report.

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN LOUISIANA

Lending activity in Louisiana accounted for 51.5 percent of the bank’s total lending activity. HMDA-reportable

lending in Louisiana represented 47.7 percent of the bank’s total HMDA-reportable lending, while small

business and small farm lending represented 63.6 percent of the bank’s total small business and small farm

lending. As of June 30, 2012, the bank had $5.2 billion in deposits in Louisiana accounting for 54.8 percent of

IBERIABANK’s total deposits. IBERIABANK ranks 5th

out of 158 insured institutions in the state with 5.8

percent of total deposits. As of December 31, 2012, IBERIABANK operated 81 branch offices in Louisiana

representing 44.3 percent of the bank’s total branches.


Lending Test

The lending test rating in the state of Louisiana is High Satisfactory. IBERIABANK is both a HMDA and

small business lender; HMDA lending was given greater consideration in determining the lending test rating for

Louisiana because the bank originated more HMDA loans by number than small business loans. Additionally,

the New Orleans assessment area received slightly greater consideration when determining the state rating

because it holds a greater percentage of the bank’s deposits, loans, and branches in the state of Louisiana than

the Lafayette assessment area. The full-scope areas selected together represent 53.9 percent of the deposits in

the assessment areas in Louisiana as well as 43.2 percent of the branches. The full-scope assessment areas

represent 49.8 percent of the HMDA loans and 51.4 percent of the small business loans in the state. Lastly,

74.9 percent of community development loans occurred in the two full scope assessment areas. Thus, the two

full-scope assessment areas represent a majority of the branches, deposits and lending in the state of Louisiana.

IBERIABANK originated a relatively low number of small farm loans in Louisiana during the review period

(50); therefore, no detailed discussion of these loans is included in this section of the report.

IBERIABANK offers several programs with the specific purpose of helping to meet housing-related needs of

low- and moderate-income individuals and communities in Louisiana. Most notably, IBERIABANK partners

with Southern Mutual Financial Services, Inc., a community development financial institution (CDFI) to

originate flexible mortgage products for low- and moderate-income borrowers throughout the state of



Louisiana

14

Louisiana. Over the exam period, IBERIABANK purchased 49 loans totaling over $3.8 million to qualified

homeowners. The bank is also very involved with this organization from a community development service

perspective, with a bank representative serving on the loan committee and providing hundreds of hours in

technical assistance.

The following table shows lending activity from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012.

Details of the bank’s HMDA and small business lending and information regarding lending by peers in the full

scope assessment areas can be found in Appendices F-H while details on lending in the limited scope

assessment areas can be found in Appendices I-J.

Geographic and Borrower Distribution

The geographic distribution of IBERIABANK’s HMDA and small business loans is adequate. The geographic

distribution of loans was adequate in both full scope assessment areas. Additionally, the distribution of loans by

borrower income and business revenue size is adequate. The borrower distribution is considered adequate in

both full scope assessment areas. A detailed discussion of the geographic and borrower distribution of lending

for the full scope assessment areas is included in the next section of this report.


IBERIABANK is a leader in making community development loans in Louisiana. The bank made 33

community development loans totaling $118.5 million across the state during the review period. Loans

primarily supported the revitalization and stabilization of low-income and designated disaster areas and

affordable housing. More information on community development lending can be found in each full-scope

assessment area section.

Investment Test

The investment test rating for Louisiana is Outstanding. The bank made excellent use of qualified investments

and contributions with total investments of $58.1 million and contributions of $1.4 million in the state. The

bank exhibited excellent responsiveness to the credit and community development needs through its investment

activities in the New Orleans assessment area while performance in Lafayette was good. Altogether, almost 83

percent of the total investments and contributions were made in the two full scope assessment areas.

Loan Type # % $ (000s) %

HMDA Home Purchase 3,406 30.6% $607,111 29.9%

HMDA Refinance 3,617 32.5% $720,628 35.4%

HMDA Home Improvement 740 6.6% $18,867 0.9%

HMDA Multi-Family 40 0.4% $44,728 2.2%

Total HMDA 7,803 70.0% $1,391,334 68.4%

Total Small Business 3,289 29.5% $639,533 31.4%

Total Farm 50 0.4% $2,882 0.1%

TOTAL LOANS 11,142 100.0% $2,033,749 100.0%

Statewide Summary of Lending ActivityAssessment Areas Located in

Louisiana

Originations and Purchases



Louisiana

15

Additionally, the bank had several statewide contributions to support affordable housing and economic

development initiatives that benefitted all of the bank’s assessment areas in Louisiana.

As discussed earlier, the IBERIABANK has a longstanding partnership with the Southern Mutual Help

Association and its financing affiliate, Southern Mutual Financial Services in the Acadiana assessment area.

The bank has committed to multi-year support totaling $250,000 to help the organization provide

homeownership and financial counseling, as well as assistance with new affordable housing development. The

bank has also partnered with the organization to provide down-payment and closing cost assistance grants to

low- and moderate-income homebuyers and by purchasing first mortgages from the organization in order to

create new loan capital for the CDFI.

A summary of the bank’s investments and contributions for full scope and limited scope assessment areas can

be found in Appendix K; additional details regarding specific investments and contributions can be found in the

full-scope assessment area sections.

Service Test

The service test rating for Louisiana is High Satisfactory.

Retail Services

Delivery systems, including ATMs and branch office locations, are accessible to the bank’s geographies and

individuals of different income levels in the assessment areas. Overall, banking services and hours of operation

do not vary in a way that inconveniences the assessment areas, including low- and moderate-income

geographies or low- and moderate-income individuals. The bank’s record of opening and closing of offices has

not affected the accessibility of its delivery systems, including to low- and moderate-income geographies and/or

low- and moderate-income individuals.


The bank is a leader in providing community development services that benefit residents and small businesses

in Louisiana. The bank’s community development services were excellent in both full scope assessment areas

in the state. Notably, IBERIABANK reported a significant number of community development board service

hours indicating local bank employees are engaged in markets across the state. For example, a bank employee

has given hundreds of hours providing technical assistance and serving on the loan review committee for a

statewide CDFI. Additional details regarding specific community development services can be found in the




New Orleans, Louisiana

16

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUION’S OPERATIONS IN THE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

ASSESSMENT AREA

The New Orleans assessment area includes Jefferson, Orleans, St. John the Baptist, and St. Tammany.

Parishes and is part of the seven-parish New Orleans-Metairie MSA. IBERIABANK operates 23 branches in

the assessment area, including one in a low-income census tract and 3 in moderate-income census tracts; 11

branches are in Jefferson Parish, 7 branches in Orleans Parish, 4 branches in St. Tammany Parish, and one

branch in St. John the Baptist Parish.

Population and Income Characteristics

New Orleans, located in Orleans Parish, is the principal city within the assessment area. Hurricane Katrina led

to dramatic population loss across the entire MSA, but over the past eight years, the region has slowly

recovered. According to the Greater New Orleans Data Community Data Center, as of July 2012, the U.S.

Census Bureau estimated New Orleans’ population at 369,250, or 76 percent of its 2000 population of 484,674.

The metro area, with 1.2 million residents, has 92 percent of its 2000 population of 1.3 million.2

The demographics of the New Orleans metro area have changed since Katrina. While the city of New Orleans

is still majority African-American, the percentage of African-American residents has declined from 67 percent

in 2000 to 59 percent in 2012. The region has become much more diverse due to a significant increase in the

Hispanic population.

For purposes of classifying borrower income, this evaluation uses the Department of Housing and Urban

Development’s (HUD) estimated median family income for the relevant area. The following table sets forth the

estimated median family income for 2011 and 2012 for the New Orleans-Metairie, LA MSA and also provides a

breakdown of the estimated annual family income for each income category (low, moderate, middle, and

upper). The table indicates that the HUD estimated median family income for New Orleans increased slightly

from $61,100 in 2011 to $61,900 in 2012.

Demographic Characteristics by Census Tract

The following tables based on 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census and 2012 Dun & Bradstreet data present key

demographic and business information used to help develop a performance context for the assessment area.

2 Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. Facts for Features: Hurricane Katrina Recovery. August 28, 2013. (accessed on

November 4, 2013); available at: http://www.gnocdc.org/Factsforfeatures/HurricaneKatrinaRecovery/

0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $61,100 0 - $30,549 $30,550 - $48,879 $48,880 - $73,319 $73,320 - & above

2012 $61,900 0 - $30,949 $30,950 - $49,519 $49,520 - $74,279 $74,280 - & above

Borrower Income Levels

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA MSA

HUD Estimated Median

Family Income

Low Moderate Middle Upper




17

The first table presents 2000 census data that is used for the 2011 lending analysis and the second table presents

the 2010 census data that is used for the 2012 lending analysis.

The data shows the substantial changes that have occurred in the region as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Overall, the assessment area lost five census tracts between 2000 and 2010. The number of low-income tracts

remained constant but the percentage of low-income tracts declined slightly from 16.6 to 16.3 percent. The

percentage of moderate income tracts increased slightly from 24.6 percent to 25.9 percent.

U.S. Census data indicates that there were 453,985 housing units in the assessment area in 2010, of which 53.0

percent were owner-occupied, 29.8 percent were rental units, and 17.2 percent were vacant. In low-income

tracts, 24.8 percent of housing units are owner-occupied and in moderate-income tracts, 38.5 percent of units

were owner-occupied. The median age of the housing units in low-and moderate-income tracts is significantly

higher than the median age for the assessment area overall.

The total number of housing units in the assessment area declined by 7.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, but

the loss of units was even more pronounced low-income tracts, where the number of units fell by 20 percent

while the number of vacant housing units increased by 72 percent. While low- and moderate-income

neighborhoods have always struggled with housing vacancy, as a result of Hurricane Katrina, 28.6 percent of all

housing units in low-income census tracts and 22.9 percent of units in moderate-income census tracts are

vacant.

The loss of housing units in low-income tracts, the high concentration of vacant housing units and age of the

housing stock indicate that lending opportunities in the low- and moderate-income tracts may be limited.




18

Combined Demographics Report

Assessment Area: LA New Orleans

Income Categories

Tract Distribution

Families by Tract Income

Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract

Families by Family Income

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

58

16.6

30,859

10.3

14,294

46.3

72,951

24.4

Moderate-income

86

24.6

62,530

20.9

15,435

24.7

48,186

16.1

Middle-income

110

31.4

111,520

37.3

11,812

10.6

55,800

18.7

Upper-income

94

26.9

94,197

31.5

4,119

4.4

122,169

40.8

Unknown-income

2

0.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Total Assessment Area

350

100.0

299,106

100.0

45,660

15.3

299,106

100.0

Housing

Housing Types by Tract

Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

56,436

13,530

5.1

24.0

32,979

58.4

9,927

17.6

Moderate-income

111,699

45,249

16.9

40.5

54,168

48.5

12,282

11.0

Middle-income

177,181

107,910

40.4

60.9

55,424

31.3

13,847

7.8

Upper-income

148,612

100,681

37.7

67.7

38,080

25.6

9,851

6.6

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


493,928

267,370

100.0

54.1

180,651

36.6

45,907

9.3

Total Businesses by

Businesses by Tract & Revenue Size

Tract

Less Than or = $1 Million

Over $1 Million

Revenue Not Reported

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4,886

6.0

4,267

5.8

384

9.6

235

7.5

Moderate-income

14,871

18.3

13,312

18.0

867

21.7

692

22.1

Middle-income

28,988

35.7

26,596

35.9

1,301

32.5

1,091

34.8

Upper-income

32,406

39.9

29,846

40.3

1,450

36.2

1,110

35.5

Unknown-income

38

0.0

33

0.0

2

0.0

3

0.1


81,189

100.0

74,054

100.0

4,004

100.0

3,131

100.0

Percentage of Total Businesses:

91.2

4.9

3.9

Total Farms by

Farms by Tract & Revenue Size

Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

7

1.9

7

1.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

37

10.0

35

9.7

2

22.2

0

0.0

Middle-income

195

52.6

189

52.2

6

66.7

0

0.0

Upper-income

132

35.6

131

36.2

1

11.1

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


371

100.0

362

100.0

9

100.0

0

.0

Percentage of Total Farms:

97.6

2.4

.0

Based on 2011 D&B information according to 2000 Census Boundaries.




19



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

58

16.3

18,212

7.4

6,894

37.9

57,312

23.4

Moderate-income

92

25.9

51,590

21.1

9,577

18.6

41,063

16.8

Middle-income

104

29.3

97,681

39.9

9,530

9.8

45,138

18.5

Upper-income

94

26.5

77,067

31.5

2,860

3.7

101,037

41.3

Unknown-income

7

2.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


355

100.0

244,550

100.0

28,861

11.8

244,550

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

45,408

11,258

4.6

24.8

21,153

46.6

12,997

28.6

Moderate-income

110,302

42,474

17.5

38.5

42,541

38.6

25,287

22.9

Middle-income

167,308

102,162

42.0

61.1

42,512

25.4

22,634

13.5

Upper-income

135,786

87,354

35.9

64.3

30,353

22.4

18,079

13.3

Unknown-income

181

11

0.0

6.1

9

5.0

161

89.0


458,985

243,259

100.0

53.0

136,568

29.8

79,158

17.2

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3,744

6.2

3,285

6.0

282

8.2

177

7.6

Moderate-income

11,297

18.7

10,060

18.4

721

21.0

516

22.0

Middle-income

19,305

32.0

17,790

32.6

850

24.8

665

28.4

Upper-income

25,958

43.0

23,422

42.9

1,563

45.6

973

41.5

Unknown-income

76

0.1

49

0.1

15

0.4

12

0.5


60,380

100.0

54,606

100.0

3,431

100.0

2,343

100.0


90.4

5.7

3.9

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

7

2.4

7

2.5

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

21

7.2

19

6.7

2

28.6

0

0.0

Middle-income

132

45.4

130

45.8

2

28.6

0

0.0

Upper-income

131

45.0

128

45.1

3

42.9

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


291

100.0

284

100.0

7

100.0

0

.0


97.6

2.4

.0

Based on 2012 D&B information according to 2010 ACS Boundaries.




20

Housing Characteristics

Several major economic shocks, including Hurricane Katrina, the BP Oil Spill in 2010 and the national

economic downturn have taken a heavy toll on the housing market in New Orleans but overall, the market is

starting to recover. According to the National Association of Realtors, the median housing price for the New

Orleans MSA declined between 2010 and 2011, but started rising again in 2012 to $156,200.3 Home prices are

highest in Orleans parish.

Single-family home sales in the metro area have fallen substantially since 2007 due to the credit crunch and

weak economy. However, the market hit bottom in 2011, and for the first time in four years, the number of

home sales rose in 2012. Not all markets have rebounded equally, with stronger sales and price increases in

eastern Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish, while eastern New Orleans and the West Bank in Orleans Parish, as

well as St John’s Parish continue to struggle.4 Another indication that the market is improving is the decline in

distressed sales. In the 12 months ending August 2013, distressed sales comprised 18 percent of total sales

compared to 23 percent a year earlier.5

New home construction, as evidenced by the number of building permits issued, declined by 51 percent during

the recession (2007 to 2010) before slowly picking up again in 2011. Most of the new construction is occurring

in St. Tammany Parish.6

The New Orleans housing market has been adversely impacted by foreclosures and mortgage delinquencies

though conditions are improving. The percent of seriously delinquent mortgages in the assessment area

(defined as more than 90 days past due or in foreclosure) fell from 8.7 percent in January 2011 to 7.6 percent in

December 2012, but remains well above the rate statewide of 6.2 percent.7

Housing costs, particularly for lower income renters, are a significant challenge in New Orleans. In Orleans

Parish, 56 percent of renters are considered housing cost burdened, meaning that housing costs account for more

than 30 percent of household income. Housing is a bit more affordable in the remainder of the assessment area,

yet almost 50 percent of renters in Jefferson and St Tammany parishes are cost-burdened.8 The 2013 Out of

Reach study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition confirms housing affordability is a problem,

finding that a minimum wage worker would have to work 2.5 jobs (assuming 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a

year) in order to afford the fair market rent for a two bedroom apartment in the New Orleans MSA.9

The significant number of vacant or blighted properties in the New Orleans has negatively impacted the housing

market and neighborhood stabilization more generally. As of March 2012, there were an estimated 35,700

blighted homes and empty lots in New Orleans, down from 43,755 in September 2010, as indicated by United

3 National Association of Realtors. “Metropolitan Median Area Prices and Affordability” (accessed on November 3, 2013); available

from: http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/reports/2012/embargoes/2012-q1-metro-home-prices-

49bc10b1efdc1b8cc3eb66dbcdad55f7/metro-home-prices-q1-single-family-2012-05-09.pdf 4 The Times-Picayune. “Local real estate market on rebound as housing recession nears end.” February 15, 2013. (accessed on

November 5, 2013); available at: http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/02/local_real_estate_market_on_re.html 5 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Market at a Glance: New

Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA CBSA. (accessed on November 6, 2013); available at:

http://www.huduser.org/portal/MCCharts/php/pdf/223538.pdf 6 U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey. Accessed through PolicyMap (accessed on November 6, 2013); available from

www.policymap.com 7 Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta calculations of data provided by LPS.

8 U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on June 5, 2013); available at: http://www.policymap.com

9 National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach 2013.” (accessed on June 27, 2013); available at: http://nlihc.org/oor/2013

http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/reports/2012/embargoes/2012-q1-metro-home-prices-49bc10b1efdc1b8cc3eb66dbcdad55f7/metro-home-prices-q1-single-family-2012-05-09.pdf


http://www.huduser.org/portal/MCCharts/php/pdf/223538.pdf

http://www.policymap.com/





21

States Postal Service (USPS) data.10

However, as described earlier, vacant and blighted properties are more

concentrated in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, creating additional hardship for the residents of

these neighborhoods and challenging neighborhood revitalization efforts.

Employment and Economic Conditions

The New Orleans economy has gone through upheaval in the last ten years, though conditions have improved

significantly in the last few years. Since the onset of the recession, job losses in the New Orleans metro area

have been less severe than across the nation. From 2008 to 2010, the New Orleans metro lost only 1 percent of

jobs compared to 5 percent of jobs lost nationwide. The economic performance was fueled by the $100 billion

in government investment to aid in the region’s rebuilding, which also buffered the region from the impact of

the national recession. The region did experience some job loss but by 2012, New Orleans had recouped all its

recession-era losses and reached 1 percent above its 2008 job level, while the nation remained more than 2

percent below 2008 job levels.11

Despite the relatively strong performance during the recession, the total

number of jobs in the New Orleans metro remains at about 87 percent of pre-Katrina job levels.12

Jobs have

been shifting within the metro area, with more jobs moving out to suburban parishes. Jefferson Parish was the

top job center in 2011 with 38 percent of metro area jobs.13

New Orleans is still heavily dependent on the energy sector, but the economy has become much more diverse,

and is receiving national recognition as a center for innovation. The region has employment concentrations in

multiple industry sectors, including wholesale and retail trade, leisure and hospitality, government, professional

and business services, education and health services, and mining and construction. Major employers in the

region include the Oschner Health System, the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Northrop

Grumman Ship Systems, and Tulane University.14

Small businesses have traditionally been an anchor to the New Orleans economy. However, D&B information

indicates that the number of small businesses in the assessment area declined by 26 percent over the review

period. In 2012, there were 60,380 businesses within the New Orleans assessment area of which 90.4 percent

had total annual revenues less than or equal to $1 million, and were therefore considered to be small

businesses.15

Access to credit for small businesses declined significantly during the recession. Between 2007

and 2010, small business lending to firms with revenues $1.0 million or less fell by 72 percent before beginning

10

Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. Benchmarks for Blight: How much blight does New Orleans have? August 21,

2012. (accessed on November 5, 2013); available at: http://www.gnocdc.org/BenchmarksForBlight/index.html 11

Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. Facts for Features: Hurricane Katrina Recovery. August 28, 2013. (accessed on

November 4, 2013); available at: http://www.gnocdc.org/Factsforfeatures/HurricaneKatrinaRecovery/ 12

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Market at a Glance: New

Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA CBSA. (accessed on November 6, 2013); available at:

http://www.huduser.org/portal/MCCharts/php/pdf/223538.pdf 13

Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. The New Orleans Index at Eight. August, 2013. (accessed on November 4, 2013);

available at: https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/GNOCDC_NewOrleansIndexAtEight.pdf 14

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. New Orleans, Louisiana.

April 1, 2011. (accessed November 5, 2013); available at:

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pdf/NewOrleans_Comp.pdf 15

FRB Atlanta Calculations of Dun & Bradstreet, 2010 American Community Survey data.

http://www.huduser.org/portal/MCCharts/php/pdf/223538.pdf




22

to stabilize in 2011. However, small business lending remains at about 50 percent of peak lending levels.16

The

region has experienced strong growth in the number of start-ups. The New Orleans metro area’s rate of

business startups continues to grow, reaching 501 startups per 100,000 adults during the most recent three-year

period ending in 2012 — a level which is 56 percent higher than the national average.17

New Orleans was spared from the worst of the national recession but still experienced rising unemployment

starting in 2009. Unemployment peaked in 2010 and as shown in the table below, the unemployment rate in

New Orleans MSA declined from 7.2 percent to 6.5 percent between 2011 and 2012. Unemployment is highest

in Orleans Parish and lowest in St. Tammany Parish.

The New Orleans economy was starting to stabilize from Katrina when the 2008 recession hit and stalled the

recovery. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and subsequent moratorium on oil drilling created another

setback. Since 2010, however, most sectors have been adding jobs, with the exception of manufacturing, oil

and gas, government, administrative, and waste services. The strongest growth has occurred in leisure and

hospitality and business and professional services. Tourism hit record levels in the last few years, creating

many new jobs, though the jobs typically pay less than $32,000 per year.18

There is a sense of optimism regarding New Orleans economic future. Several major projects are underway,

including the new Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the new University Medical Center. These projects will

cost an estimated $2.2 billion, and are expected to create thousands of new jobs. In addition, these projects will

anchor a new economic development district near downtown New Orleans focused on biosciences that is

16

FRB Atlanta Calculations of Dun & Bradstreet, 2010 American Community Survey data. 17


available at: https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/GNOCDC_NewOrleansIndexAtEight.pdf 18


available at: https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/GNOCDC_NewOrleansIndexAtEight.pdf

2011 2012

Jefferson Parish 6.8 6.2

Orleans Parish 8.6 7.8

St. John the Baptist Parish 9.4 7.9

St. Tammany Parish 5.8 5.2

New Orleans MSA 7.2 6.5

Louisiana 7.3 6.4

Not Seasonally Adjusted

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment Rates


AreaYears - Annualized

https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/GNOCDC_NewOrleansIndexAtEight.pdf




23

expected to bring additional jobs and investment.19

Overall, since Katrina, $4.2 billion has been invested or is

slated to be invested in the revitalization of downtown New Orleans in the form of housing, hospitals, schools,

infrastructure improvements, parks, grocery stores, and other neighborhood amenities.20

Competition

The New Orleans banking market is competitive, yet three institutions hold more than 60 percent of all deposits.

According to the June 30, 2012 FDIC Summary of Deposits Report, Capital One has 30.7 percent of deposits,

followed by Whitney with 17.1 percent and JP Morgan Chase with 15.1 percent. IBERIABANK is ranked 6th

in the market with 5.0 percent of deposits ($1.4 billion). Overall, there are 36 banks active in the market

operating 333 branches and a total of $27.8 billion in deposits.

Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase are the largest HMDA lenders in the New Orleans market, with 18.4 percent

and 10.3 percent of total HMDA loans, respectively in 2012. IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked 9th

and

IBERIABANK ranked 21st in 2011 and combined, reported 3.4 percent of HMDA loans in 2011. In 2012,

IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked 5th

and IBERIABANK ranked 22nd

and combined, reported 3.9 percent of

total HMDA loans.

IBERIABANK ranked 12th

in CRA lending in both 2011 and 2012, though the volume of the bank’s CRA

lending increased over the review period. In 2011, IBERIABANK had 1.7 percent of total CRA loans and in

2012 the bank reported 2.2 percent of loans.

Community Development Opportunities

Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Stabilization

The New Orleans area faced affordable housing issues prior to Katrina striking. The significant damage caused

by the hurricane and the related spikes in the cost of living only compounded the problem. 2010 housing needs

assessment found that insurance increased by as much as 400 percent, construction costs increased 33 percent

and the fair market rent increased by 40 percent. Households that previously could afford a market rate unit

could no longer afford to rent even a subsidized unit and it was extremely difficult for low- and moderate-

income households to afford housing in the New Orleans MSA.21

According to the City of New Orleans 2011 Draft Action Plan, these affordable housing issues persist. Some of

the primary barriers to affordable housing in New Orleans are the limited supply of housing and the resulting

high costs for rental and ownership; credit related issues; predatory lending practices; and a lack of funds for

down payments.22

The 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan mentions that 28 percent of working households are faced with severe

housing costs burdens, with renters, particularly elderly ones, carrying the highest burden. Although rent

increases have subsided in the past two years, they remain about 35 percent above the pre-Katrina levels.

19

BioDistrict New Orleans. (accessed on November 6, 2013); available at: http://biodistrictneworleans.org/ 20

NEWCITY Neighborhood partnership. (accessed on November 20, 2013); available at: http://newcitynola.org/ 21

Louisiana Housing Finance Agency. 2010 Louisiana Housing Needs Assessment. (accessed on November 6, 2013);available from:

http://www.lhc.la.gov/downloads/gcr/LHFA_2010_ExecSummaryf2_14Dec10.pdf 22

City of New Orleans, Office of Community Development. 2011 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report.

(accessed on November 7, 2013); available from: http://www.nola.gov/RESIDENTS/Office-of-Community-

Development/Consolidated-Annual-Performance-and-Evaluation-Report/

http://www.lhc.la.gov/downloads/gcr/LHFA_2010_ExecSummaryf2_14Dec10.pdf

http://www.nola.gov/RESIDENTS/Office-of-Community-Development/Consolidated-Annual-Performance-and-Evaluation-Report/

http://www.nola.gov/RESIDENTS/Office-of-Community-Development/Consolidated-Annual-Performance-and-Evaluation-Report/




24

According to the consolidated plan, an affordable rent for a lower-income family is well below the fair market

rent in the region. Moreover, the lack of quality rental property and overcrowding (more than one person per

room) is a housing concern.23

The reduction in federal funds is impacting the development of affordable housing. Per the city’s 2012-2016

Consolidated Plan, entitlement funding to New Orleans has been significantly reduced due to population loss

coupled with general cuts in federal funds. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program has

been reduced over the past two years by about 40 percent, and the HOME program was reduced by over 70

percent. As a result, the city has had to implement significant changes to the types of projects funded, and

many projects that historically relied on these sources have to look to for different funding options.24

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) are an important financing tool for increasing affordable rental

housing, and present a good opportunity for local bank investment. The LIHTC program was the primary

financing tool for rebuilding the rental market in Louisiana after Katrina. Between 2006 and 2008, the state

received $56.8 million annually in GO Zone credits. Approximately 60 percent of the funds were targeted to

the New Orleans MSA.25

According to the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, 3,513 new

affordable units were expected to be completed in Orleans Parish alone between 2009 and 2011. Due to the

significant amount of new construction post Katrina, LIHTC allocations to the New Orleans area have slowed

significantly in the past few years as the rental market adjusts to current levels of supply demand.26

Much of the New Orleans public housing was damaged by Hurricane Katrina and city of New Orleans received

approval from HUD for a massive revitalization effort focused around the city’s four largest housing projects.

The new model for public housing focuses on reduced density and creating more mixed income communities at

the original project site and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Several developments are underway, including

Faubourg Lafitte, which is a mixed income project built on the site for the former Lafitte public housing project.

These projects are creating new, higher quality and affordable rental while also bringing new investment and

population growth to traditionally depressed communities.

Given the significant foreclosure rate in the area, the city of New Orleans and the New Orleans Redevelopment

Authority received Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Funds in the amount of $2.3 million and $29.8

million respectively. Funds for the city of New Orleans are primarily being used for acquisition of foreclosed

homes and rehabilitation of residential property. Funds for the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority focus

more on new construction of residential properties, as well as the rehabilitation of older units.27

A community contact specializing in affordable housing noted the tremendous new investment in the city’s

public housing and mixed income developments in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The contact

indicated that there is great demand for the new subsidized rental housing and the affordable single-family

23

City of New Orleans, Office of Community Development. 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan. (accessed on November 6, 2013);

available from: http://new.nola.gov/community-development/documents/general-reports/2012-2016-consolidated-plan-city-of-new-

orleans-w/ 24

City of New Orleans, Office of Community Development. 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan. (accessed on November 6, 2013);

available from: http://new.nola.gov/community-development/documents/general-reports/2012-2016-consolidated-plan-city-of-new-

orleans-w/ 25

Louisiana Housing Finance Agency. 2010 Louisiana Housing Needs Assessment. (accessed on November 6, 2013);available from:

http://www.lhc.la.gov/downloads/gcr/LHFA_2010_ExecSummaryf2_14Dec10.pdf 26

Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. Housing Production Needs: Three Scenarios for New Orleans. November 2009.

(accessed on November 7, 2013) available at: http://www.gnocdc.org/HousingProductionScenarios/index.html 27

Neighborhood Stabilization Program. New Orleans, LA Redevelopment Authority NSP2 Report. (accessed on November 6, 2013);

available from: http://hudnsphelp.info/index.cfm?do=viewGranteeAreaResults.

http://new.nola.gov/community-development/documents/general-reports/2012-2016-consolidated-plan-city-of-new-orleans-w/




http://www.lhc.la.gov/downloads/gcr/LHFA_2010_ExecSummaryf2_14Dec10.pdf

http://www.gnocdc.org/HousingProductionScenarios/index.html

http://hudnsphelp.info/index.cfm?do=viewGranteeAreaResults




25

housing, but many buyers are struggling to obtain first mortgage financing. The contact noted that there are a

number of credit needs related to affordable housing. First, more flexible first mortgage products are needed.

Second, there is an opportunity to create a lease purchase program for individuals who would like to buy a

home, but do not currently have the equity needed or are not deemed credit worthy. Third, the contact noted

that there is a need for additional subsidies (in the form of soft-seconds) to help cover the difference between

the cost of construction and appraised values for new construction. Homeowners rebuilding homes damaged by

Katrina also need an additional source of funds to help cover the gap between the funds they received through

the Road Home program and the cost of restoring the home. Finally, the contact indicated that nonprofits were

still the primary developers of affordable housing in low- and moderate-income communities. These

organizations need access to more affordable construction financing, as well as credit lines to help with the

acquisition of blighted properties.

Small Business and Economic Development

Small business assistance and access to credit were identified by both bank management and community

contacts as important needs in New Orleans. Bank management states that there is a need for continued

education to help businesses take advantage of lower cost bank financing. In addition, there are opportunities

for more support of nonprofits, small business incubators, and community development financial institutions

(CDFIs) that provide important support and financing for small businesses.

A community contact that specializes in microenterprises stated that CDFIs and credit unions are typically the

best option for the small dollar loans that these businesses require. However, there are still opportunities for

banks to assist these businesses by providing additional capital for CDFI loan funds, and by funding technical

assistance programs or providing the advisory services directly to small business owners. One key area that the

community contact felt was needed is credit counseling. Many of the small businesses that survived the

recession have damaged credit scores and there is a great opportunity to help these business owners repair their

credit, in addition to other types of training, so they are on a firm foundation to access traditional bank financing

at the appropriate time.

Financial Stability

New Orleans has been plagued by poverty for years and historically, the poverty rates in New Orleans have

been much higher than in the surrounding suburban parishes and the nation. In 2011, the poverty rate in New

Orleans was 29 percent compared to a poverty rate of 15 percent in the suburban parishes and 16 percent

nationwide. However, following a national pattern, poverty has been increasing in suburban areas in New

Orleans; Hurricane Katrina and the recession accelerated this trend. Today, the majority of the metro’s poor

population (56 percent) resides in the suburban parishes. Many of the suburban communities lack the social

services and the network of organizations to aid very low-income people. Insufficient public transit makes it

very challenging for these individuals to get to the services they need.28

In light of the many economic challenges, there is a great need for more financial education and other

household financial stability efforts targeting low- and moderate-income households. According to the FDIC’s

2011 National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, 12.5 percent of households in the city of

New Orleans are unbanked, meaning they have no type of deposit account with a mainstream financial

28


available at: https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/GNOCDC_NewOrleansIndexAtEight.pdf

https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/reports/GNOCDC_NewOrleansIndexAtEight.pdf




26

institution. In addition, 25.5 percent of households are considered underbanked, meaning they have a deposit

account but they also rely on alternative financial services providers on a regular basis. The unbanked are

disproportionately lower income and minority households.29

There are a number of opportunities for banks to participate in local initiatives focused on the financial stability

including programs to increase banking access and encourage savings, free tax assistance programs and

financial counseling through local nonprofits. Bank management has also stated that there is a need to

capitalize an Individual Development Account (IDA) program to help lower-income individuals save for a

house, to start a small business, or education.

New Orleans has been recognized nationwide for its economic resurgence, yet lower income individuals have

been largely left behind. More resources are needed for workforce development, mass transit, childcare, public

safety, and other support services to help ensure the most disadvantaged can participate in the region’s recovery.

29

Calculations by CFED of data from the 2009 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. (accessed

February); available at: http://joinbankon.org/

http://joinbankon.org/




27


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the New Orleans assessment area is good. The geographic

distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment area and the distribution of

borrowers reflects adequate penetration among individuals of different income levels and businesses of different

revenue sizes. In addition, the bank is a leader in making community development loans.

During the review period, the bank reported 2,544 HMDA loans, excluding multifamily loans and 841small

business loans in the New Orleans assessment area. HMDA lending represented 75.2 percent of total lending

and small business lending accounted for 24.8 percent. Therefore, the performance of HMDA lending is

weighted more heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The New

Orleans assessment area contains 15.5 percent of the bank’s total HMDA lending and 16.3 percent of its total

small business lending by number of loans. In comparison, 15.0 percent of the bank’s total deposits are in this

assessment area.

Details of the bank’s mortgage and small business lending and information regarding lending by peers can be

found in Appendices G and H.

Geographic Distribution of Loans

For this analysis the geographic distribution of HMDA and small business lending, including both originations

and purchases, was compared with available demographic information. Performance context information and

aggregate lending data were also taken into consideration. Considering all of these factors, IBERIABANK

Bank’s geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment area.

Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending in low-income tracts is adequate. The percentage of home purchase

loans was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in low-income tracts throughout the review period.

The bank increased home purchase lending between 2011 and 2012 and performance was similar to the

aggregate in 2012. In 2012, 3.6 percent of bank loans were originated in low-income tracts compared to 3.7

percent of aggregate loans.

Home purchase lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The percentage of home purchase loans in

moderate-income tracts was below the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts in both 2011 and

2012; however, the bank’s lending was similar to aggregate in both years. Most recently, in 2012, 12.6 percent

of the bank’s loans were originated in moderate-income tracts compared with 13.4 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home purchase lending in middle-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied

units in these tracts, while lending in upper-income tracts exceeded the percentage of units.

Home Refinance Loans

IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank’s refinance

lending in low-income tracts was significantly less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in low-income

tracts throughout the review period. The bank’s performance significantly exceeded the aggregated in 2011 but

declined slightly in 2012; in 2012, the bank made 1.9 percent of home refinance loans in low-income tracts

compared to 2.6 percent of aggregate loans.




28

The bank’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. In both 2011 and 2012, the

percentage of loans originated in moderate-income tracts was well below the percentage of owner-occupied

housing units in these tracts. The percentage of bank loans in moderate income tracts exceeded the percentage

of aggregate loans in 2011 but fell slightly in 2012; in 2012, 9.3 percent of the bank’s refinance loans were

made in moderate-income tracts compared to 10.8 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s refinance lending in middle-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in

these tracts throughout the review period, while lending in upper-income tracts was greater than the percentage

of owner-occupied units.

Home Improvement Loans

IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The number of home

improvement loans increased over the review period. In 2012, 7.4 percent of the bank’s loans were made in

low-income tracts, which was substantially greater than the percentage of owner-occupied units in the low-

income tracts. Moreover, while less than aggregate in 2011, the percentage of the bank’s loans in low-income

tracts was greater than aggregate lending in 2012.

The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income census tracts is excellent. The bank increased the

number of home improvement loans in moderate-income census tracts over the review period. In both years,

the percentage of the bank’s home improvement loans in moderate-income tracts was greater than the

percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts, and significantly exceeded the aggregate.

The bank’s home improvement lending in middle- and upper-income census tracts was less than the percentage

of owner-occupied units in middle- and upper-income census tracts throughout the review period.

Small Business Loans

IBERIABANK’s small business lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank’s small business

lending in low-income tracts increased during the review period but was less than the percentage of small

businesses in those tracts and below aggregate lending in both 2011 and 2012.

The bank’s small business lending in moderate-income tracts is good. The bank’s small business lending in

moderate-income tracts was greater than the percentage of small businesses in those tracts and exceeded

aggregate performance throughout the review period. In 2012, 21.1 percent of the bank’s small business loans

were originated in moderate-income tracts compared to 17.9 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s small business lending in middle-income census tracts was less than the percentage of small

businesses located in middle-income tracts, while lending in upper-income tracts was greater than the

percentage of small businesses in upper-income tracts in the assessment area over the review period.

Lending to Borrowers of Different Income Levels and Businesses of Different Sizes

The distribution of loans based on borrower income or business revenues is adequate. For this analysis, the

distribution of HMDA lending across borrower income levels and small business lending across business

revenue sizes was compared to available demographic information. Performance context issues were also

considered, as well as the performance of other banks.




29

Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The percentage of the bank’s

loans to low-income borrowers increased over the review period but was less than the percentage of low-income

families in the assessment area and less than aggregate for both years. In 2012, 5.5 percent of the bank’s loans

were made to low-income borrowers compared to 6.8 percent of the aggregate loans.

The bank’s home purchase lending to moderate-income borrowers is adequate. The percentage of home

purchase loans to moderate-income borrowers was below the percentage of moderate-income families living in

the assessment area; in 2012, the bank originated 14.9 percent of home purchase loans to moderate-income

borrowers while 16.8 percent of families were classified as moderate-income in the assessment area. The

bank’s lending to moderate-income borrowers increased over the review period but was less than the aggregate

in both 2011 and 2012.

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to middle-income borrowers was less than the percentage of middle-

income families in the assessment area, while lending to upper-income borrowers was greater than the

percentage of upper-income families over the review period.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending to low-income borrowers is poor. The percentage of refinance loans

to low-income borrowers was substantially less than the percentage of low-income families in the assessment

area for both years. In 2012, the bank originated 4.0 percent of its home refinance loans to low-income

borrowers, compared to 23.4 percent of families classified as low-income in the assessment area. In addition,

the percentage of the bank’s loans to low-income borrowers was below aggregate lending throughout the review

period.

The bank’s home refinance lending to moderate-income borrowers is adequate. The share of home refinance

loans to moderate-income borrowers was less than the percentage of moderate-income families in the

assessment area over the review period. However, the bank’s performance improved relative to aggregate over

the review period. In 2012, 11.4 percent of the bank’s loans were made to moderate-income borrowers


The bank’s home refinance lending to middle-income borrowers was less than the percentage of middle-income

families in the assessment area while lending to upper-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of

upper-income families throughout the review period.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The bank increased the

number of home improvement loan to low-income borrowers between 2011 and 2012, though the percentage of

the bank’s home improvement loans to low-income borrowers was less than the percentage of low-income

families in the assessment area for both years. The bank performed below aggregate in 2011, but in 2012 the

bank significantly exceeded the aggregate, originating 16.1 percent of home improvement loans to low-income

borrowers compared to 11.8 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers is good. The percentage of the bank’s

home improvement loans to moderate-income borrowers was similar to the percentage of moderate-income

families in the assessment area in 2011 and 2012. The bank’s performance was slightly below aggregate in

2011 but in 2012, the bank originated 17.7 percent of home improvement loans to moderate income borrowers,

outperforming the aggregate at 15.4 percent.




30

The bank’s home purchase lending to middle-income borrowers was less than the percentage of middle-income

families in the assessment area in 2011, but greater than the percentage of middle income families in 2012. The

bank’s lending to upper income borrowers exceeded the percentage of families in 2011 but fell well below in

2012.

Small Business Lending

IBERIABANK’s distribution of small business loans to businesses of different sizes is adequate. The

percentage of small business loans to businesses with revenues of $1 million or less was significantly less than

the percentage of small businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. Most recently, in 2012,

the bank originated 43.5 percent of its loans to small businesses, although 90.4 percent of total businesses in the

assessment area are classified as small businesses; however, the bank performed similarly to or above the

aggregate during the review period.


IBERIABANK is a leader in making community development loans in the New Orleans assessment area. The

bank originated 14 community development loans totaling $61.0 million during the review period. Several

community development loans supported revitalization and stabilization of low- and moderate-income

communities as well as designated disaster areas. Other loans supported community services and affordable

multi-family housing. Notably, several of the loans provided bridge financing to New Market Tax Credit and

other projects financed with state and federal tax credits. The bank also provided support to one of the major

public housing revitalization projects underway in New Orleans. The bank’s community development lending

portfolio is responsive to a number of identified community development needs and indicates that the bank is an

active participant in the revitalization of distressed communities and the continued rebuilding of New Orleans

after Hurricane Katrina.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the New Orleans assessment area is

excellent. The bank had 49 investments totaling $29.6 million; $6.0 million were current period investments.

The prior period investments were primarily New Market Tax Credits that were used to finance housing,

community services and commercial real estate to support the revitalization of distressed communities in New

Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The current period investments are all government-guaranteed mortgage

backed securities.

The bank made 73 contributions totaling $665,000. The majority of the contributions supported community

services to low- and moderate-income individuals and economic development. Of particular note, the bank

provided 16 grants totaling almost $60,000 to help qualified low- and moderate-income homebuyers with down

payment and closing costs to purchase a home. The mortgage grant was administered in partnership with a

local nonprofit organization. The bank also provided significant contributions to support entrepreneurship,

youth workforce development, charter schools and financial education.

The bank’s investments and contributions exhibited responsiveness to several identified needs, including the

development of affordable housing, revitalization and stabilization of distressed and designated disaster areas,

small business assistance and the financial stability of low- and moderate-income individuals.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the New Orleans assessment area is good. Its retail and

community development services reflect good responsiveness to the needs of the assessment area.




31

Retail Services

IBERIABANK’s delivery systems in the assessment area are reasonably accessible to the bank’s geographies

and individuals of different income levels. The distribution of 23 branch offices and 35 ATMs as of

December 31, 2012, was compared to the distribution of households and businesses among the tract categories

within the assessment area. The bank has one branch in a low-income tract representing 4.3 percent of total

branches and three in moderate-income tracts representing 13 percent of branches. For comparison purposes, in

2010 8.5 percent of households and 6.2 percent of businesses were located in low-income census tracts and 22.4

percent of households and 18.7 percent of businesses were located in in moderate-income communities. During

the review period, the bank opened 18 branches and closed 3 branches. One of the new branches was opened in

a low-income tract and three were opened in moderate-income tracts; once of the closures occurred in a

moderate-income tract.

Alternative delivery systems, such as ATMs, toll-free telephone and text banking, and online banking, were also

considered in determining accessibility. Banking services and hours of operations do not vary in a way that

inconveniences the assessment area, particularly in low- and moderate-income geographies or to low- and

moderate-income individuals. IBERIABANK offers weekend hours at one branch in a moderate-income tract

(33 percent) compared to 10 of the branches in middle- and upper-income tracts (53 percent); the bank does not

offer extended hours at any of its branch offices in the New Orleans assessment area. Bank products, services,

and standard business hours are consistent throughout the assessment area.

In addition to the one branch located in a moderate-income geography, a branch analysis conducted by the bank

found that 15 branches located in middle- or upper- income geographies provide loan and deposit services to

individuals from low- or moderate-income areas within the assessment area.


# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 1 4.3% 1 0 0 0 0 Total 2 5.7% 2 6.3% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 3 13.0% 1 0 2 0 1 Total 4 11.4% 4 12.5% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle 6 26.1% 0 0 6 0 3 Total 9 25.7% 9 28.1% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

DTO 1 1 SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 13 56.5% 2 0 10 0 7 Total 20 57.1% 17 53.1% 2 0 3 100.0% 0 0

DTO 2 2 SA 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 23 100.0% 4 0 18 0 11 Total 35 100.0% 32 100.0% 4 0 3 100.0% 0 0

DTO 3 3 SA 4 1 0 0 3 0 0

LPOS are not included in this table.DTO - Drive thru only


7 2.0% 0.0% 0.1%

355 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

104 29.3% 38.1% 32.0%

94 26.5% 31.0% 43.0%

58 16.3% 8.5% 6.2%

92 25.9% 22.4% 18.7%

Census

Tracts

# % # % #

House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours

%

Total ATMs Full Service ATMs Cash only ATMs




32


IBERIABANK is a leader in providing community development services in the assessment area. During the

review period, IBERIABANK employees provided 945 service hours in various capacities for community

development organizations, by participating in 33 different community development services. Multiple bank

employees served on boards for qualified nonprofit organizations or provided technical assistance in other

capacities; almost 50 percent of the qualified hours were board service. Bank employees primarily engaged

with organizations that provided community services including affordable housing, financial education,

education, youth-services, and various other community services that aided low- and moderate-income

geographies and low- and moderate-income individuals. One bank employee provided over 350 hours over the

review period in credit and homeownership counseling with a local nonprofit.



Lafayette, Louisiana

33

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUION’S OPERATIONS IN THE LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA,

ASSESSMENT AREA

Overview

The Lafayette assessment consists of Lafayette and St. Martin parishes, which make up the Lafayette MSA.

The parish seat of Lafayette Parish is Lafayette, while the parish seat of St. Martin Parish is St. Martinsville.

IBERIABANK operates 12 branches in the assessment area, with three in moderate-income tracts; all 12

branches are located in Lafayette Parish.


According to the U.S. Census, the population in the assessment area was 273,738 in 2010, representing a 14.5

percent increase since 2000. Much of this population increase can be attributed to Hurricane Katrina and Rita

evacuees who permanently relocated to Lafayette. U.S. Census data indicate that between July 2005 and July

2007, the Lafayette MSA population increased by 9,033 or 3.7 percent.30


Development’s (HUD) estimated median family income for the relevant area. The following chart sets forth the

estimated median family income for the years 2011 through 2012 for the Lafayette MSA. As shown, the

median family income increased slightly between 2011 and 2012 from $60,400 to $61,200.


The following tables, based on 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census and 2012 Dun & Bradstreet data, presents key




As shown in the tables below, the number of low-income census tracts remained the same but the overall

percentage declined, from 8 percent in 2000 to 7.4 percent in 2010. The percentage of moderate-income census

tracts increased from 16 percent to 27.8 percent. The number of total housing units in low-income tracts

increased from 3,425 in 2000 to 4,757 in 2010, an increase of 38.9 percent, while the number of housing units

in moderate- tracts doubled from 14,431 in 2000 to 29,660 in 2010 or a 106 percent increase. Over the same

30

FRB Atlanta Calculations of data provided by 2010 American Community Survey.

0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $60,400 0 - $30,199 $30,200 - $48,319 $48,320 - $72,479 $72,480 - & above

2012 $61,200 0 - $30,599 $30,600 - $48,959 $48,960 - $73,439 $73,440 - & above



Family Income


Lafayette, LA MSA




34

time period, the number of housing units in middle- and upper-income census tracts declined by approximately

2.3 percent. The share of vacant housing units increased across all income categories with the exception of

middle income tracts; the total number of vacant units accounted for 9.0 percent of all housing units in 2000 and

increased slightly to 9.1 percent in 2010.




35


Assessment Area: LA Lafayette

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4

8.0

2,148

3.5

798

37.2

14,433

23.2

Moderate-income

8

16.0

9,278

14.9

2,152

23.2

9,911

16.0

Middle-income

23

46.0

31,581

50.9

4,036

12.8

12,205

19.7

Upper-income

15

30.0

19,079

30.7

1,210

6.3

25,537

41.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


50

100.0

62,086

100.0

8,196

13.2

62,086

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3,425

1,544

2.5

45.1

1,554

45.4

327

9.5

Moderate-income

14,431

8,768

14.2

60.8

4,497

31.2

1,166

8.1

Middle-income

50,764

31,703

51.3

62.5

13,495

26.6

5,566

11.0

Upper-income

29,747

19,810

32.0

66.6

8,165

27.4

1,772

6.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


98,367

61,825

100.0

62.9

27,711

28.2

8,831

9.0

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

573

2.8

489

2.6

58

4.6

26

3.9

Moderate-income

2,291

11.2

2,091

11.3

109

8.6

91

13.6

Middle-income

9,607

46.9

8,700

46.9

579

45.7

328

48.9

Upper-income

8,029

39.2

7,281

39.2

522

41.2

226

33.7

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


20,500

100.0

18,561

100.0

1,268

100.0

671

100.0


90.5

6.2

3.3

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

0.4

1

0.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

32

11.8

31

11.6

1

25.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

150

55.4

148

55.4

2

50.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

88

32.5

87

32.6

1

25.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


271

100.0

267

100.0

4

100.0

0

.0


98.5

1.5

.0





36



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4

7.4

2,297

3.4

581

25.3

16,198

24.2

Moderate-income

15

27.8

17,162

25.6

3,748

21.8

11,115

16.6

Middle-income

23

42.6

29,271

43.7

2,835

9.7

11,920

17.8

Upper-income

11

20.4

18,246

27.2

883

4.8

27,743

41.4

Unknown-income

1

1.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


54

100.0

66,976

100.0

8,047

12.0

66,976

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4,757

1,916

2.8

40.3

2,127

44.7

714

15.0

Moderate-income

29,660

16,139

23.3

54.4

10,861

36.6

2,660

9.0

Middle-income

50,639

32,055

46.2

63.3

13,702

27.1

4,882

9.6

Upper-income

27,975

19,305

27.8

69.0

6,636

23.7

2,034

7.3

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


113,031

69,415

100.0

61.4

33,326

29.5

10,290

9.1

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

524

2.9

444

2.8

60

5.3

20

3.2

Moderate-income

4,297

24.0

3,865

24.0

257

22.6

175

27.9

Middle-income

8,155

45.6

7,246

45.0

634

55.7

275

43.9

Upper-income

4,882

27.3

4,545

28.2

181

15.9

156

24.9

Unknown-income

19

0.1

11

0.1

7

0.6

1

0.2


17,877

100.0

16,111

100.0

1,139

100.0

627

100.0


90.1

6.4

3.5

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

0.4

1

0.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

54

20.3

52

19.8

2

50.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

141

53.0

140

53.4

1

25.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

70

26.3

69

26.3

1

25.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


266

100.0

262

100.0

4

100.0

0

.0


98.5

1.5

.0





37


U.S. Census data indicates that there were 113,031 housing units located in the assessment area in 2010, of

which 61.4 percent were owner-occupied, 29.5 percent were rental units, and 9.1 percent were vacant. Rental

units are more highly concentrated in low- and moderate-income tracts. The median age of the housing stock

across the assessment area was 30 years, though housing was much older in the low- and moderate-income

census tracts compared to the assessment area overall.

The housing market in the assessment area softened during the recent economic downturn but since hitting

bottom in 2010 with a 60.4 percent decline in home sales from its 2007 peak, the market has been steadily

improving. Home sales in Lafayette metro for the 12-month period ending June 2013 were up 20 percent over

the previous 12-month period and up 67 percent from the average of 2,600 homes sold annually from 2007

through 2008. Prices and homebuilding activity remain lower than pre-recessionary levels, however these

numbers are increasing. The average home sales price for the 12-month period ending June 2013 was $197,000

or up 11 percent compared with the average price recorded during the same period the previous year.31,32

After

slowing significantly between 2008 and 2011, the number of homes permitted was up significantly in 2012.33

Mortgage delinquencies rose during the economic downturn, but have gradually declined during the past two

years. The percent of mortgages considered seriously delinquent (defined as more than 90 days past due or in

foreclosure) declined from 4.6 percent in January 2011 to 3.5 percent in December 2012. This current rate is

significantly less than the state and national rates of 5.6 and 5.4 percent, respectively.34


The state’s fourth largest MSA had approximately 158,500 people employed as of the second quarter of 2013.35

Given Lafayette’s location in south-central Louisiana and its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, it has been

historically positioned for the oil and gas exploration industry and to those companies that provide services to

the industry. The MSA derives 11 percent of its jobs directly from the exploration industry, the highest

concentration among the state’s eight MSAs.36

The other significant sectors in the MSA as a percent of total

employment include the following: healthcare (12.3 percent); retail trade (10.5 percent); and government (9.3

percent). Top employers include Lafayette General Medical Center, Schlumberger (oil and gas), Wood Group

Production Services (oil and gas), Wal-Mart Inc., local government and the parish school system.37

Additionally, Lafayette is home to one of the state's larger public universities and one of the leading employers

in the area with approximately 16,400 students and 2,100 employees.

In addition to the recession, the Lafayette MSA experienced the impact of BP’s Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in

the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 and the six-month off-shore drilling moratorium that followed. Prior to the

31

HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research. July, 2013. (accessed November 18, 2013); available at:

http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/ushmc/reg/LafayetteLA_HMP_1Jul13.pdf 32

Local home sales and average home price data in the Lafayette, LA MSA was not available for year end 2012 or the end of the

review period; June 2013 represents the most current data available and is comparable to data provided throughout the remainder of

the evaluation. 33

U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on November 19, 2013); available from http://www.policymap.com 34

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta calculations of data provided by LPS. 35

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. “Housing Market Profiles,

Lafayette, Louisiana, July 2013” (accessed October 29, 2013);

http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/ushmc/reg/LafayetteLA_HMP_1Jul13.pdf 36

The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2014 and 2015; Loren C. Scott and James A. Richardson, Louisiana State University. (accessed

on November 21, 2013); available from http://www.acadianabusiness.com/extras/DR_LOREN_SCOTT_LEO_2014-15.pdf. 37


http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/ushmc/reg/LafayetteLA_HMP_1Jul13.pdf







38

spill, there were 33 rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico. With the moratorium in place and drill ships leaving

the Gulf for other geographies with allowable drilling, the number of rigs dipped to 11. However, analysts with

the International Strategy and Investment Group recently issued a report entitled, “U.S. Gulf of Mexico

Deepwater Outlook: Rising Up From the Ashes,” which projects that the number of floating rigs will grow to

60 in 2015.38

This activity will further fuel the local economy and bolster exploration and energy service firms

in the region.

As mentioned previously, economic conditions across the Lafayette MSA declined during the recession, but the

region quickly recovered with increasing jobs and falling unemployment over the review period. The MSA

began recording job losses in the latter half of 2008; the Lafayette MSA lost a total of 4,400 jobs, or a 3 percent

decline between 2009 and 2010. The Lafayette MSA then added 10,200 jobs, or a 6.9 percent growth rate for

2010-2013 period; this was also the best recovery of all eight Louisiana MSAs during this period. However, a

significant number of the new jobs have been in lower wage sectors, including leisure and hospitality.39

As

shown in the table below, the unemployment rate fell from 5.7 to 4.7 percent between 2011 and 2012, and is

well below the unemployment rate for the state at 6.4 percent.40

Small businesses play an important role in the Lafayette economy though it should be noted that the number of

small businesses in the assessment area declined by about 15 percent over the review period. According to

2012 D&B information, there were 17,877 businesses within the Lafayette assessment area of which 90 percent

had total annual revenues less than or equal to $1 million, and were therefore considered to be small

businesses.41

Small business lending to firms with revenues $1.0 million or less fell by 77 percent between

2007 and 2010. However, starting in 2010, lending started to increase, and between 2010 and 2011, the number

of loans to small businesses increased by about 86 percent. While small business lending has increased, a

disproportionate amount of all small business loans are made to firms with revenues greater than $1.0 million,

indicating that most likely there is unmet loan demand from smaller firms.42

Competition

The Lafayette assessment area is a highly competitive banking market with several regional and national banks

represented. According to the June 30, 2012, FDIC Summary of Deposit Report, 26 financial institutions

38

FuelFix. “Gulf of Mexico will be strongest offshore market, analysts say.” January 2, 2013. (accessed on December 10, 2013);

available from: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/01/02/gulf-of-mexico-will-be-strongest-offshore-market-analysts-say/ 39

The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2014 and 2015; Loren C. Scott and James A. Richardson, Louisiana State University. (accessed

on November 21, 2013); available from http://www.acadianabusiness.com/extras/DR_LOREN_SCOTT_LEO_2014-15.pdf. 40

Bureau of Labor Statistics 41


U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on November 19, 2013); available from http://www.policymap.com

2011 2012

Lafayette MSA 5.7 4.7

Louisiana 7.3 6.4



Unemployment Rates







39

operated 122 offices in the assessment area. IBERIABANK ranked first with a deposit market share of 23.5

percent ($1.4 billion) and 12 of the 122 offices. JP Morgan, Mid-South Bank, and Capital One were the next

three financial institutions with deposit market share at 17.6 percent, 9.3 percent, and 8.0 percent, respectively.

HMDA and CRA lending is also dominated by regional and national banks. In 2011, IBERIABANK Mortgage

ranked 4th

out of 228 lenders with 3.4 percent of total HMDA loans and IBERIABANK ranked 11th

. HMDA

lending increased in 2012 and IBERIABANK Mortgage increased its ranking to 3rd

out of 238 lenders with 4.1

percent of total HMDA lending, while IBERIABANK jumped to 4th

. Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase held

the top two slots for largest HMDA lenders. For CRA lending, IBERIABANK ranked 4th

in 2011 and 5th

in

2012 with an average of 6.6 percent of CRA loans in each year. CRA lending is dominated by the national

credit card issuers (American Express and Capital One) followed by Chase Bank.



Access to quality, affordable housing is an ongoing need in Lafayette. According to a report by the National

Low Income Housing Coalition, the fair market rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in the Lafayette MSA is $772,

which would be affordable for a worker earning a wage of $14.85 per hour. Mean wages for renters is $14.19

and $9.42 in Lafayette and St. Martin Parishes, respectively.43

In addition, a 2010 Louisiana Housing Needs

Assessment reports that low-income households, and particularly low-income renters, have the greatest housing

needs, with 52 percent (22,835) of all households earning 80 percent AMI or less, experiencing housing

problems.44

Households with housing problems as defined by HUD are households that are paying more than

30 percent of their income towards housing costs and/or households living within inadequate conditions.45

This

does not factor in homes in blighted conditions. It is important to note that the need for affordable senior

housing in Lafayette is high as well. A recent 41-unit subsidized complex serving individuals at least 62 years

old and living at 50 percent of the AMI already reports a three-year waiting list.46

There are several groups operating in the affordable housing arena in Lafayette that are either providing

advocacy, technical assistance or financing mechanisms. They include, but are not limited to: Louisiana

Housing Corp., the state agency which administers several housing programs including low-income tax credits;

Lafayette Public Trust Financing Authority, which offers a first-time home-buyer program and develops various

community development projects; Louisiana Housing Alliance, a statewide coalition working to preserve and

produce quality affordable housing for low to moderate income Louisianans; and Habitat for Humanity.

Small Businesses and Economic Development

There are numerous federal and state financing mechanisms that can be useful to financial institutions in

partnering or financing small business enterprises and community economic development projects. In

particular, the Louisiana State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) provides opportunities for banks to

partner on small business financing by providing loan guarantees. The SSBCI is made possible by $13.2

43

National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2013, accessed on November 19, 2013; available at:

http://nlihc.org/oor/2013 44

Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, 2010 Louisiana Housing Needs Assessment; (accessed on November 19, 2013); available from

http://www.lhfa.state.la.us/downloads/gcr/LHFA_2010_FULLREPORT_f3_14Dec10.pdf 45

HUD defines inadequate conditions are defined as households living without adequate kitchen or plumbing facilities or households

living in overcrowded conditions (more than one person per room). 46

“Senior Living Apartment Complex Receives AHP Grant for Major Renovation,” dated November 6, 2013. The Katy News;

accessed on November 19, 2013; available from http://thekatynews.com/2013/11/06/senior-living-apartment-complex-receives-ahp-

grant-for-major-renovation/#sthash.roSlP8w9.dpuf

http://nlihc.org/oor/2013

http://www.lhfa.state.la.us/downloads/gcr/LHFA_2010_FULLREPORT_f3_14Dec10.pdf

http://thekatynews.com/2013/11/06/senior-living-apartment-complex-receives-ahp-grant-for-major-renovation/#sthash.roSlP8w9.dpuf

http://thekatynews.com/2013/11/06/senior-living-apartment-complex-receives-ahp-grant-for-major-renovation/#sthash.roSlP8w9.dpuf




40

million in federal funding under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and administered by Louisiana Economic

Development Corporation (LEDC). Similarly, eight organizations have been awarded $430 million in tax credit

authority under the New Markets Tax Credits Program (NMTC Program) since 2010; however no projects were

completed with NMTCs in the assessment area during this review period.47

Additionally, as a result of

Hurricane Isaac both parishes in the assessment area are eligible for FEMA’s Public Assistance as declared

disaster areas. Lafayette is also eligible for USDA low interest emergency loans as a contiguous parish to areas

impacted by drought in 2013.

As it relates to local financial and technical assistance support for existing and start-up businesses in the

Lafayette MSA, there is an extensive list of resources and possible partners for financial institutions. Resource

and service delivery providers include: Lafayette Economic Development Authority, Acadiana Small Business

Development Center (SBDC), Opportunity Machine, and the Enterprise Center of Louisiana (a business

incubator). For women-owned and disadvantaged businesses, they can also seek assistance from the Acadiana

Regional Development District and its subsidiary, the Enterprise Consortium of the Gulf Coast (ECGC), which

operates one of two SBA-supported women’s business centers in the state. There were two Community

Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) loan funds identified that serve Lafayette MSA, as well as one

SBA certified micro-lender. It should be noted though that two community contacts familiar with the area and

serving this sector stated that there are opportunities for banks to increase support for small business

development, such as providing investments into organizations serving small businesses, establishing an “angel

fund” or loan consortium, and creating a robust referral program for business owners that do not qualify for

traditional business financing.

Increasing Financial Capability and Stability

Poverty and financial instability are also concerns throughout the assessment area. The percentage of people

living in poverty is high in both parishes in the assessment area; 18.1 percent and 16.1 percent of individuals

lived under the poverty level between 2007 and 2011 in St. Martin and Lafayette parishes, respectively.

Moreover, there were 34.5 percent of children living in poverty between 2007 and 2011 in the assessment area.

Given the level of childhood poverty in Louisiana, Save the Children has been working in Louisiana since 2006.

They currently partner with six schools in three parishes in Louisiana, including St. Martin, to help break the

cycle of poverty. Food stamp usage, another indicator of financial distress, has also been rising in the

assessment area. In 2010, 20.2 percent of the population in St. Martin Parish was receiving food stamps, which

is higher than the state average.48

In light of increasing poverty and economic challenges for low- and moderate-income individuals, there is an

opportunity for banks to support activities that improve financial capability and household financial stability.

One opportunity is expanding access to mainstream financial services. According to the FDIC’s National

Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, 8.4 percent of households are unbanked, meaning they

have no type of deposit account with a mainstream financial institution. In addition, 22 percent of households

are considered underbanked, meaning they have a deposit account but they also rely on alternative financial

services providers on a regular basis.49

According to the Louisiana Budget Project, Louisiana has one of the

highest concentrations of payday lenders in the country with 945 lenders operating statewide, and more

specifically, Lafayette’s 70501 zip code ranks among the top ten zip codes in Louisiana for payday lending.

The Louisiana Budget Project is currently conducting a statewide initiative to educate Louisiana residents about

47

U.S. Treasury, CDFI Fund. (Accessed on November 22, 2013); available from

http://www.cdfifund.gov/awardees/db/advancedSearchResults.asp 48


2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. (accessed November 1, 2013); available at:

http://webtools.joinbankon.org/community/profile?state=LA&county=Lafayette percent20Parish

http://www.cdfifund.gov/awardees/db/advancedSearchResults.asp


http://webtools.joinbankon.org/community/profile?state=LA&county=Lafayette%20Parish




41

the pitfalls of payday lending. Banks have an opportunity to create more flexible, non-predatory products to

reach this potential customer base, and to partner with the Louisiana Budget Project.50

There are a number of opportunities for bank participation in financial stability programs including BankOn

Lafayette in collaboration with United Way Acadiana. In addition, there is a nascent movement in the region,

Louisianans Building Economic Stability Together (LABEST), which has begun working to increase access to

financial education and address policy issues related to predatory lending. They are partnering with the

Southern Regional Asset Building Coalition (SRABC) and other state coalitions to help advance policies that

build economic security for low-wealth communities. SRABC is funded by the Ford Foundation’s Building

Economic Security Over a Lifetime (BESOL) Initiative.

50

Louisiana Budget Project. (accessed on November 21, 2013); available from http://www.labudget.org/lbp/wp-

content/uploads/2011/07/Payday-Lenders.pdf

http://www.labudget.org/lbp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Payday-Lenders.pdf

http://www.labudget.org/lbp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Payday-Lenders.pdf




42


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the Lafayette assessment area is adequate. The geographic



revenue sizes. In addition, the bank made a relatively high level of community development loans in the

Lafayette assessment area.

During the review period, the bank reported 1,319 HMDA loans, excluding multifamily loans and 851 small

business loans in the Lafayette assessment area. HMDA lending represented 60.8 percent of total lending and

small business lending accounted for 39.2 percent. Therefore, the performance of HMDA lending is weighted

more heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The Lafayette assessment

area contains 8.1 percent of the bank’s total HMDA lending and 16.5 percent of its total small business lending

by number of loans. In comparison, 14.7 percent of the bank’s total deposits are in this assessment area.







Bank’s geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment area.

Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending in low-income tracts is good. IBERIABANK had a very low volume

of home purchase loans in low-income tracts in 2011 and there was limited aggregate lending activity.

Therefore minimal weighting was given to home purchase lending in low-income tracts in 2011. The bank’s

performance improved in 2012. While the percentage of loans in low-income tracts was less than the

percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts, that bank’s performance significantly exceeded aggregate.

Home purchase lending in moderate-income tracts is good. The bank’s home purchase lending increased

significantly between 2011 and 2012. The percentage of loans in 2011 was less than the percentage of owner-

occupied units in moderate-income tracts and also less than aggregate. However, in 2012, 27.6 percent of

IERIABANK’s mortgages were originated in moderate-income tracts, compared to 23.3 percent of owner-

occupied housing units in moderate-income tracts and 20.1 percent of aggregate loans.


units in these tracts while lending in upper-income tracts exceeded the percentage of units throughout the

review period.


During the review period, the bank did not originate any home refinance loans in low-income census tracts in

the assessment area where 2.8 percent of owner-occupied units are located. It should be noted that the

aggregate also had very low lending levels in both 2011 and 2012, which may suggest a lack of lending




43

opportunity in the low-income tracts in this assessment area. Due to the low level of owner-occupied units, as

well as limited aggregate activity, the bank’s performance is adequate, with minimal weighting given to home

refinance lending in low-income tracts.

IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The bank’s home refinance

lending in moderate-income tracts increased between 2011 and 2012. The percentage of loans in both years

was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in moderate-income tracts. However, the bank’s

performance improved relative to aggregate over the review period. In 2012, 15.6 percent of the bank’s home

refinance loans were originated in moderate-income tracts, compared to 16.9 percent of aggregate loans.


these tracts, while lending in upper-income tracts was greater than the percentage of owner-occupied units

throughout the review period.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank’s home

improvement lending in low-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in low-income

tracts in 2011, but significantly exceeded the percentage of owner-occupied units in 2012. The bank’s

performance relative to aggregate improved over the review period. In 2012, 4.1 percent of the bank’s home

improvement loans were originated in low-income tracts, compared to 2.0 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income census tracts is good. The bank increased the

number of home improvement loans in moderate-income census tracts over the review period. The percentage

of loans in moderate-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in 2011, but

significantly exceeded the percentage of owner-occupied units in 2012. The bank’s performance relative to

aggregate also improved over the review period. In 2012, 35.0 percent of the bank’s home improvement loans

were originated in a moderate-income tract, compared to 23.1 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home improvement lending in middle- and upper-income census tracts was greater than the

percentage of owner-occupied units in middle- and upper-income census tracts in 2011, but declined in both

categories in 2012.


IBERIABANK’s small business lending in low-income census tracts is poor. The bank’s small business

lending activity in low-income tracts declined during the review period and was less than the percentage of

small businesses in those tracts and below aggregate lending. In 2012, 0.9 percent of the bank’s small business

loans were originated in low-income tracts where 2.8 percent of small businesses are located. Additionally, 2.3

percent of aggregate loans were originated in low-income tracts.


moderate-income tracts was less than the percentage of small businesses in those tracts and less than aggregate

in 2011. However, in 2012, the bank’s small business lending performance improved. The bank originated

23.2 percent of total small business loans in moderate-income tracts where 24.0 percent of small businesses are

located; 22.3 percent of aggregate lending occurred in moderate-income tracts in 2012.







44






Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The number of loans to low-

income borrowers increased significantly over the review period. In 2011, 3.1 percent of the banks loans were

made to low-income borrowers compared to 15.2 percent of home purchase loans in 2012. In both years, the

percentage of loans to low-income borrowers was below the percentage of low-income families in the

assessment area. In 2011, the bank’s lending was substantially less than aggregate lending to low-income

borrowers; in 2012, the bank significantly exceeded aggregate.

The bank’s home purchase lending to moderate-income borrowers is good. The percentage of home purchase

loans to moderate-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of moderate-income families living in the

assessment area for both years; in 2012, the bank originated 21.8 percent of home purchase loans to moderate-

income borrowers while 16.6 percent of families were classified as moderate-income in the assessment area.

The bank’s lending to moderate-income borrowers was similar to aggregate throughout the review period.



percentage of upper-income families over the review period.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending to low-income borrowers is poor. The percentage of refinance loans

to low-income borrowers was substantially less than the percentage of low-income families in the assessment

area for both years. In 2012, the bank originated 3.6 percent of its home refinance loans to low-income

borrowers, compared to 24.2 percent of families classified as low-income in the assessment area. Additionally,

the bank’s lending to low-income borrowers was less than aggregate lending throughout the review period. In

2012, 4.9 percent of aggregate loans were made to low-income borrowers.

The bank’s home refinance lending to moderate-income borrowers is poor. The share of home refinance loans

to moderate-income borrowers was less than the percentage of moderate-income families in the assessment area

and similar to or slightly below aggregate over the review period. In 2012, 9.6 percent of the bank’s loans were

made to moderate-income borrowers compared to 11.0 percent of aggregate loans.





IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The percentage of home

improvement loans originated to low-income borrowers was less than the percentage of families classified as

low-income throughout the review period. The bank originated 20.3 percent of home improvement loans to

low-income borrowers in 2011 compared to 18.9 percent of aggregate loans. The bank's performance declined

in 2012, with 12.2 percent of home improvement loans to low-income borrowers compared to 14.9 percent of

aggregate loans.




45

The bank’s home improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers is adequate. The bank increased home

improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers over the review period. The percentage of loans to

moderate-income borrower was slightly below the percentage of moderate-income families in the assessment

area in 2011 but similar to the percentage of families in 2012. The bank’s performance was slightly below

aggregate in 2011 and 2012; in 2012, the bank originated 16.3 percent of home improvement loans to moderate-

income borrowers compared to 17.7 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home improvement lending to middle-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of middle-

income families throughout the review period. The bank’s lending to upper-income borrowers exceeded the

percentage of upper-income families in 2011, but fell below in 2012.


IBERIABANK’s distribution of small business loans to businesses of different sizes is good. The percentage of

small business loans to businesses with revenues of $1 million or less was significantly less than the percentage

of small businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. However, the bank outperformed the

aggregate for both years. Most recently, in 2012, the bank originated 44.2 percent of its loans to small

businesses, although 90.1 percent of total businesses in the assessment area are classified as small businesses;

30.3 percent of aggregate loans were made to small businesses.


IBERIABANK made a relatively high level of community development loans in the Lafayette assessment

area. The bank originated 9 community development loans totaling $27.8 million during the review

period. Most of the community development loans supported revitalization and stabilization of low- and

moderate-income communities and designated disaster areas. The remaining loans provided support to

community services. The bank’s community development loan portfolio is responsive to several identified

community development needs including the revitalization of designated disaster areas. IBERIABANK has

worked closely with local municipalities and parishes in the assessment area that were impacted by Hurricane

Katrina and several subsequent hurricanes. Several of the community development loans have provided

financing assistance to these jurisdictions for infrastructure and other improvements needed to help these areas

recover from the disasters and remove blighted conditions in their communities.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the Lafayette assessment area is good.

The bank had 39 investments totaling $18.6 million; $5.4 million were current period investments. The largest

prior period investment was a New Market Tax Credit investment in a medical center located in a low-income

census tract. The bank also had a prior period investment in a low-income housing tax credit fund. All of the

current period investments were government-guaranteed mortgage backed securities.


services to low- and moderate-income individuals. Of particular note, the bank provided 10 grants totaling

almost $35,000 to help qualified low- and moderate-income homebuyers with down payment and closing costs

to purchase a home. The mortgage grant was administered in partnership with a local nonprofit organization.

The bank also provided significant contributions to support emergency assistance to families in distress, and

individuals and families facing homelessness; provide safe and secure senior living communities; provide

financial education, and a range of other community services targeting low- and moderate-income individuals

and communities. In addition to the contributions in the assessment area, the bank had several statewide and

regional contributions for affordable housing and small business initiatives that benefitted the assessment area.




46


development of affordable housing, revitalization and stabilization of distressed and designated disaster areas,

and the financial stability of low- and moderate-income individuals.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the Lafayette assessment area is good. Its retail and


Retail Services

IBERIABANK’s delivery systems in the assessment area are accessible to the bank’s geographies and

individuals of different income levels. The distribution of 12 branch offices and 15 ATMs as of December 31,

2012, was compared to the distribution of households and businesses among the tract categories within the

assessment area. The bank has three branches located in moderate-income tracts, representing 25 percent of

total branches, compared to 26.3 percent of households and 24 percent of businesses located in moderate-

income communities. During the review period, no branches were opened or closed in the assessment area.




moderate-income individuals. IBERIABANK offers extended hours at all of its branch locations in the

Lafayette assessment area, and provides weekend hours at many of its branch offices, including those located in

moderate-income tracts. Bank products, services, and standard business hours are consistent throughout the

assessment area.


# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 3 25.0% 0 0 3 3 1 Total 5 33.3% 4 30.8% 0 0 1 50.0% 0 0

SA 2 1 0 0 1 0 0

Middle 7 58.3% 0 0 7 7 3 Total 7 46.7% 7 53.8% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 2 16.7% 0 0 2 2 1 Total 3 20.0% 2 15.4% 0 0 1 50.0% 0 0

SA 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 12 100.0% 0 0 12 12 5 Total 15 100.0% 13 100.0% 0 0 2 100.0% 0 0

SA 3 1 0 0 2 0 0

LPOS are not included in this table.

House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours

%

Total ATMs Full Service ATMs Cash only ATMs Census

Tracts

# % # % #

4 7.4% 3.9% 2.9%

15 27.8% 26.3% 24.0%

23 42.6% 44.5% 45.6%

11 20.4% 25.2% 27.3%

0.1%

54 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


1 1.9% 0.0%




47




development organizations, by participating in 31 different community development services. Board service

represented approximately 63 percent of the total community development service hours. Bank employees

engaged in providing financial education, homeownership counseling and fundraising assistance; employees

also worked with a variety of organizations that provided community services in low- and moderate-income

geographies and for low- and moderate-income individuals.



Metropolitan Areas (Limited Review)

48

The following metropolitan assessment areas were reviewed using limited-scope examination procedures.

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE LOUISIANA METROPOLITAN

ASSESSMENT AREAS

Baton Rouge Assessment Area (East Baton Rouge and Livingston Parishes)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated eight branches in the assessment area, representing

10 percent of its branches in Louisiana.

o As of June 30, 2012, the bank had $527.4 million in deposits in this assessment area,

representing a market share of 3.6 percent and 10 percent of IBERIABANK’s total deposits in

Louisiana.

Houma Assessment Area (Terrebonne Parish)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated one branch in the assessment area, representing 1

percent of its branches in Louisiana.

o As of June 30, 2012, the bank had $17.5 million in deposits in this assessment area, representing

a market share of 0.91 percent and 0.3 percent of IBERIABANK’s total deposits in Louisiana.

Lake Charles Assessment Area (Calcasieu and Cameron Parishes)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated 15 branches in the assessment area, representing




Louisiana.

Monroe Assessment Area (Ouachita Parish)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated six branches in the assessment area, representing 7




Louisiana.

Shreveport Assessment Area (Caddo Parish)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated two branches in the assessment area, representing



representing a market share of 3.3 percent and 3.0 percent of IBERIABANK’s total deposits in

Louisiana.




49


Through the use of available facts and data, including performance and demographic information, each

assessment area’s performance was evaluated and compared with the bank’s performance in the state. The

conclusions regarding performance are provided in the tables below. Please refer to the tables in Appendices I

and J for information regarding these areas.

Metropolitan Assessment Areas

Assessment Areas Lending Test Investment Test Service Test

Baton Rouge Below Below Below

Houma Below Below Below

Lake Charles Below Below Consistent

Monroe Below Below Above

Shreveport Below Below Above

For the lending test, IBERIABANK received a High Satisfactory rating for the state of Louisiana. Performance

in all limited-scope metropolitan assessment areas was weaker than the bank’s performance in the state. In all

of the limited-scope assessment areas, weaker performance was attributable to poorer geographic distribution of

loans and community development lending. With the exception of Lake Charles, the remaining limited-scope

assessment areas also had weaker levels of borrower distribution of loans relative to the bank’s performance in

the state. While the bank had lower levels of community development lending in Baton Rouge compared to the

rest of the state, the bank’s community development lending was good in the assessment area, including a $3.1

million loan to support a New Markets Tax Credit project.

For the investment test, IBERIABANK received an Outstanding rating for the state of Louisiana. Performance

in all limited-scope metropolitan assessment areas (Baton Rouge, Houma, Lake Charles, Monroe, and

Shreveport) was weaker than the bank’s performance in the state due to lower levels of qualified investments

relative to the bank’s operations in the assessment areas; however, all assessment areas were still considered

satisfactory.

For the service test, IBERIABANK received a High Satisfactory rating for the state. Performance in the Baton

Rouge and Houma assessment areas was weaker than the bank’s performance in the state due to the lack of

accessible retail delivery systems. Performance in the Lake Charles assessment area was consistent with the

bank’s performance in the state. Performance in the Monroe and Shreveport assessment areas was stronger than

IBERIABANK’s statewide performance due to greater accessibility of delivery systems. The level of

community development services in the Baton Rouge and Monroe assessment areas was excellent.

The performance in the limited-scope assessment areas did not affect the overall state rating.



Non-Metropolitan Areas (Limited Review)

50

The following non-metropolitan assessment areas were reviewed using limited-scope examination procedures.

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE LOUISIANA NON-METROPOLITAN

ASSESSMENT AREAS

Acadiana Assessment Area (Acadia, Iberia, and Vermilion Parishes)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated eight branches in the assessment area, representing




Louisiana.

Allen Assessment Area (Allen Parish)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated three branches in the assessment area, representing




Lincoln Assessment Area (Lincoln Parish)


2.0 percent of its branches in Louisiana.



Morehouse Assessment Area (Morehouse Parish)










Nonmetropolitan Assessment Areas


Acadiana Below Below Below

Allen Below Below Below

Lincoln Below Below Below

Morehouse Below Below Below

For the lending test, the bank’s performance in the nonmetropolitan limited scope assessment was not as strong

as the bank’s performance in the state due to weaker geographic and borrower distribution of loans.

Community development lending was insignificant in the Allen and Lincoln assessment areas, while

community development lending in the Acadiana and Morehouse assessment areas was consistent with the

bank’s statewide performance.




51

For the investment test, the performance in each of the limited-scope assessment areas (Acadiana, Allen,

Lincoln, and Morehouse) was weaker than the bank’s performance in the state due to lower levels of qualified

investments relative to the bank’s operations in the assessment areas; performance was considered satisfactory

in only the Acadiana and Morehouse assessment areas.

For the service test, the performance in each of the limited-scope assessment areas was weaker than the bank’s

performance in the state due to lower levels of community development services and insufficient retail delivery

systems. In the Acadiana assessment area, while the level of community development services relative to the

bank’s presence in the assessment area was not as strong as the state, the bank’s performance was still

considered good.




Arkansas

52

CRA RATING FOR ARKANSAS: Satisfactory


The Investment Test is rated: High Satisfactory



The geographic distribution of loans and the distribution of loans by borrower income and revenue size

of business reflect adequate penetration among customers of different income levels and businesses of

different revenue sizes.

The bank made a good level community development loans within the assessment areas.

The bank provides a significant level of qualified community development investments and grants that



assessment areas.




Arkansas

53


A full scope review was conducted for the following two assessment areas in the State of Arkansas:

Fayetteville

Little Rock

Limited scope reviews were conducted for the remaining two assessment areas:

Jonesboro

Northeast Arkansas

The time period, products, and affiliates evaluated for these assessment areas is consistent with the scope


DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN ARKANSAS

Lending activity in Arkansas accounted for 24.3 percent of the bank’s total lending activity. HMDA-reportable

lending in Arkansas represented 27.6 percent of the bank’s total HMDA-reportable lending, while small

business and small farm lending represented 13.8 percent of the bank’s total small business and small farm

lending. As of June 30, 2012, the bank had $983.9 million in deposits in Arkansas accounting for 10.4 percent

of IBERIABANK’s total deposits. There are 144 financial institutions active in Arkansas and IBERIABANK

holds 1.8 percent of total deposits in the state. As of December 31, 2012, IBERIABANK operated 34 branch

offices in Arkansas representing 18.6 percent of the bank’s total branches.


Lending Test

The lending test rating in the state of Arkansas is High Satisfactory. IBERIABANK is both a HMDA and small

business lender; HMDA lending was given greater consideration in determining the lending test rating for the

state given that the bank originated more HMDA loans by number than small business loans. Additionally, the

Little Rock assessment area received slightly greater consideration when determining the state rating because it

holds a greater percentage of the bank’s deposits, loans, and branches in the state of Arkansas than the

Fayetteville assessment area. The full-scope areas selected together represent 54.1 percent of the deposits in the

assessment areas in Arkansas, as well as 53.0 percent of the branches. The full-scope assessment areas

represent 84.1 percent of the HMDA loans and 56.8 percent of the small business loans in the state. Lastly,

58.0 percent of community development loans occurred in the two full scope assessment areas. Thus, the two

full-scope assessment areas represent a majority of the branches, deposits and lending in the state of Arkansas.

IBERIABANK originated 272 small farm loans in Arkansas over the review period, representing 83 percent of

the bank’s total small farm lending. Of the total small farm loans in the state, just two were originated in the

full scope assessment areas and the remaining loans were originated in the two limited scope assessment areas.

In Northeast Arkansas, the bank originated 226 small farm loans during the review period. However, given that

small farm loans are a small percentage of the bank’s overall lending and most of the loans were originated in

limited scope assessment areas, there is no detailed discussion of these loans is included in this section of the

report.




Arkansas

54


scope assessment areas can be found in Appendices F-H while details on lending in the lending scope




distribution of loans was adequate in the Little Rock assessment area and poor in Fayetteville. Additionally, the

distribution of loans by borrower income and business revenue size is adequate. The borrower distribution is

considered adequate in both full scope assessment areas. A detailed discussion of the geographic and borrower

distribution of lending for the full scope assessment areas is included in the next section of this report.


IBERIABANK made a good level of community development loans in Arkansas, primarily driven by

community development lending in the Little Rock assessment area. The bank originated 12 community

development loans totaling $39.3 million in the state; 58.0 percent of community development loans were in the

Fayetteville and Little Rock assessment areas. More information on community development lending can be

found in the full-scope assessment area section.

Investment Test

The investment test rating for Arkansas is High Satisfactory. The bank made significant use of qualified

investments and contributions with total investments of $8.5 million and contributions of $309,700 in the state.

The bank exhibited good responsiveness to credit and community development needs through its investment

activities in the Fayetteville and Little Rock assessment areas.




Service Test

The service test rating for Arkansas is High Satisfactory.

Loan Type # % $ (000s) %


HMDA Refinance 1,914 34.8% $302,441 37.4%



Total HMDA 4,521 82.1% $652,136 80.7%

Total Small Business 711 12.9% $126,192 15.6%

Total Farm 272 4.9% $29,594 3.7%

TOTAL LOANS 5,504 100.0% $807,922 100.0%


Arkansas




Arkansas

55

Retail Services




geographies or low- and moderate-income individuals. The bank opened 2 branches and closed 5 branches in

the assessment areas during the review period but there has been no change to the accessibility of its delivery

systems for low- and moderate-income geographies and/or low- and moderate-income individuals. Additional

detail on the bank’s retail services can be found in the full-scope assessment area section.



of the assessment area.

Additional detail on the bank’s retail and community development services can be found in the full-scope

assessment area section.



Little Rock, Arkansas

56

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUION’S OPERATIONS IN THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS,

ASSESSMENT AREA

Overview

The Little Rock assessment area includes portions of Pulaski County (76 of 95 census tracts) and Saline County

(4 of 21 census tracts). The assessment area is part of the six-county Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway,

Arkansas MSA (Little Rock MSA), which is the largest population center in Arkansas. Within the assessment

area there are 9 low-income and 25 moderate-income tracts. All of the low- or moderate-income (LMI) tracts

are located in Pulaski County. As of December 2012, Iberiabank operated 11 branches in the Little Rock

Assessment Area with 10 in Pulaski County and one in Saline County. Four branches are located in moderate-

income census tracts. FEMA declared Pulaski and Saline counties a federal disaster area in June 2011 due to

severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding.



percent increase since 2000. The majority of the population resides in Pulaski County; however, Saline County

was one of the fastest growing counties in the state between 2000 and 2010, growing by more than 28 percent.

Statewide, the population increased by approximately 9.1 percent between 2000 and 2010.51



estimated median family income for the years 2011 through 2012 for the Little Rock MSA. As shown, the

median family income increased slightly from $61,500 to $62,300 between 2011 and 2012.

Demographic Characteristics





As shown in the tables below, the percentage of low-income census tracts increased between 2000 and 2010,

from 10.1 percent to 11.3 percent, while the percentage of moderate-income census tracts declined from 34.8

percent to 31.3 percent. The number of total housing units in low-income tracts increased from 8,058 in 2000 to

13,435 in 2010, an increase of 67 percent, while the number of housing units in moderate- tracts increased by 23

51

U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on February 4, 2013); available from www.policymap.com

0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $61,500 0 - $30,749 $30,750 - $49,199 $49,200 - $73,799 $73,800 - & above

2012 $62,300 0 - $31,149 $31,150 - $49,839 $49,840 - $74,759 $74,760 - & above


Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR MSA


Family Income





57

percent. The number of housing units in middle-income census tracts fell by 11 percent and the number of

housing units in upper-income tracts increased by 8 percent. The share of vacant housing units increased across

all income categories; the total number of vacant units accounted for 8.1 percent of all housing units in 2000

and increased to 10.9 percent by 2010.




58


Assessment Area: AR Little Rock

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

7

10.1

3,789

4.6

1,319

34.8

17,123

21.0

Moderate-income

24

34.8

20,179

24.7

4,002

19.8

13,679

16.8

Middle-income

21

30.4

26,882

32.9

2,283

8.5

16,605

20.4

Upper-income

17

24.6

30,736

37.7

810

2.6

34,179

41.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


69

100.0

81,586

100.0

8,414

10.3

81,586

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

8,058

2,339

3.0

29.0

4,665

57.9

1,054

13.1

Moderate-income

35,054

16,972

21.5

48.4

13,654

39.0

4,428

12.6

Middle-income

47,093

26,541

33.7

56.4

17,174

36.5

3,378

7.2

Upper-income

48,628

32,905

41.8

67.7

13,277

27.3

2,446

5.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


138,833

78,757

100.0

56.7

48,770

35.1

11,306

8.1

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2,225

8.5

1,806

7.8

279

15.0

140

12.2

Moderate-income

5,881

22.4

5,013

21.5

588

31.7

280

24.3

Middle-income

8,460

32.2

7,603

32.6

527

28.4

330

28.6

Upper-income

9,738

37.0

8,876

38.1

460

24.8

402

34.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


26,304

100.0

23,298

100.0

1,854

100.0

1,152

100.0


88.6

7.0

4.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

13

5.1

13

5.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

21

8.3

18

7.3

2

33.3

1

100.0

Middle-income

76

30.0

74

30.1

2

33.3

0

0.0

Upper-income

143

56.5

141

57.3

2

33.3

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


253

100.0

246

100.0

6

100.0

1

100.0


97.2

2.4

.4





59



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

9

11.3

6,192

7.4

2,316

37.4

19,244

23.0

Moderate-income

25

31.3

22,927

27.4

4,615

20.1

14,906

17.8

Middle-income

23

28.8

22,335

26.7

1,962

8.8

15,400

18.4

Upper-income

22

27.5

32,149

38.5

1,452

4.5

34,053

40.7

Unknown-income

1

1.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


80

100.0

83,603

100.0

10,345

12.4

83,603

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

13,435

4,359

5.3

32.4

6,769

50.4

2,307

17.2

Moderate-income

43,199

19,975

24.4

46.2

17,060

39.5

6,164

14.3

Middle-income

42,127

23,011

28.1

54.6

14,629

34.7

4,487

10.7

Upper-income

52,509

34,441

42.1

65.6

14,608

27.8

3,460

6.6

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


151,270

81,786

100.0

54.1

53,066

35.1

16,418

10.9

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,661

6.4

1,376

6.0

212

11.7

73

6.4

Moderate-income

8,146

31.5

6,972

30.5

739

40.9

435

38.0

Middle-income

6,568

25.4

5,956

26.0

369

20.4

243

21.2

Upper-income

9,444

36.6

8,566

37.5

485

26.9

393

34.4

Unknown-income

3

0.0

3

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


25,822

100.0

22,873

100.0

1,805

100.0

1,144

100.0


88.6

7.0

4.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

10

3.7

10

3.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

29

10.7

27

10.2

2

33.3

0

0.0

Middle-income

98

36.0

95

35.7

3

50.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

135

49.6

134

50.4

1

16.7

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


272

100.0

266

100.0

6

100.0

0

.0


97.8

2.2

.0





60



which 54.1 percent were owner-occupied, 35.1 percent were rental units, and 10.9 percent were vacant. Rental



census tracts compared to the assessment area overall. These factors indicate that lending opportunities in the

low- and moderate-income tracts are likely to be more limited.52

The assessment area housing market was impacted by the recent housing crisis but there are signs of recovery.

The Arkansas Realtors Association reports that Pulaski County has seen average housing prices recover and

increase beyond 2008 prices and while home sales are down compared to the peak in 2008, they are once again

on the rise. In Pulaski County, 4,151 new and existing housing units were sold in 2012 for an average price of

$188,131, representing an increase of 5.4 percent in units sold and 6.8 percent higher than in the average price

in 2011. In Saline County home sales were up by 1.3 percent between 2011 and 2012, while average sales price

was up by 7.3 percent. The average sales price in Saline County was lower than Pulaski at $169,376.53

New

home construction fell significantly between 2005 and 2009 and remains at about 50 percent of the 2005 level,

though the number of permits issued has been increasing over the past couple years.54

Housing costs are a challenge across the assessment area, particularly for lower income renters. In Pulaski

County, 47.1 percent of all renters and almost 60 percent of renters earning less than $50,000 a year are

considered cost-burdened, meaning that rental costs account for more than 30 percent of household income.

Renters fare a bit better in Saline County, though more than 50 percent of lower income renters are still cost

burdened.55

The 2013 Out of Reach study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition confirms housing

affordability is a problem, finding a minimum wage worker would have to work two jobs (assuming 40 hours a

week for 52 weeks a year) in order to afford the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the Pulaski or

Saline counties.56

Mortgage delinquencies have had an adverse impact on the local housing market. In the assessment area, the

percentage of seriously delinquent mortgages, which includes loans more than 90 days past due, rose from 4.9

percent in January 2011 to 6.4 percent in December 2012.57


The assessment area is home to the city of Little Rock, which is the capital of Arkansas and the state’s most

populous city; Little Rock is the economic engine of the assessment area and the greater metropolitan area fuels

much of the state’s economic activity. Total employment in 2011 in Pulaski and Saline counties was 340,974.

Leading private nonfarm employment sectors included health care and social assistance, retail trade, and

administrative and waste management services. These sectors typically have lower wage jobs. As home to the

52

U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap (accessed on February 4, 2013); available from www.policymap.com. 53

Arkansas Realtors Association. “Housing Market Reports.” (accessed on October 21, 2013); available from

http://www.arkansasrealtors.com/news-events/housing-market-reports. 54


U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on June 5, 2013); available at: http://www.policymap.com 56

National Low Income Housing Coalition. Out of Reach, 2013. (accessed on October 16, 2013); available at:


Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta calculations of data provided by LPS.





61

state capital and Little Rock Air Force Base, the area also has a large government employer base. Almost 50

percent of the government jobs were in state government and about 10 percent were U.S. military.58

The heavy

concentration of government jobs in the area has created strains on the local economy as all levels of

government cut spending.

Small businesses play an important role in the overall Little Rock economy though the number of small

businesses in the assessment area declined by about 2 percent over the review period. According to 2012 D&B

information, there were 25,822 businesses within the Little Rock assessment area of which 88.6 percent had

total annual revenues less than or equal to $1 million, and were therefore considered to be small businesses.59

In Pulaski County, small business lending to firms with revenues $1.0 million or less fell by 72 percent between

2007 and 2009. However, small business lending started to recover in 2010 and between 2009 and 2011, the

number of loans to small businesses increased by about 60 percent. Small business lending remains less than 50

percent of peak lending levels, and less than 50 percent of all small business loans are made to firms with

revenues under $1.0 million, indicating that most likely there is unmet loan demand from smaller firms.60

Little Rock’s city manager reports that the city has seen a steady increase in economic development activities

while manufacturing, transportation, and service sector employment are growing at a steady rate. Little Rock is

one of the more aggressive development markets in the nation and has doubled in the past 30 years, with

projections indicating it will double again over the next 20 years.61

Several major companies have expanded

their operations in the Little Rock market in recent years. In 2010 Caterpillar, manufacturer of construction and

mining equipment located its new North American motor grader production facility in North Little Rock. The

company is investing $140 million and employs approximately 600 people at this location.62

Also in 2010,

computer company Hewlett-Packard opened a state-of-the-art customer service center in Conway, citing the

area's quality workforce as a factor. The company plans to fill more than 1,200 positions at the $28 million

facility.63

The area is also capturing a slice of the growing wind energy industry. In 2008, windmill blade

manufacturers, LM Glasfiber and Polymarin Composites, announced the expansion of their manufacturing

facilities to Little Rock, where together they plan to hire more than 1,500 people and invest millions of

dollars.64

As a result of these economic developments, the Little Rock economy has performed relatively well throughout

the national economic malaise of the last few years. Little Rock’s recession-related decline in employment,

which was centered near January 2009, was milder than the nation’s decline, and recovery started earlier, where

the first increase in employment occurred in December 2009. The recovery has not been steady, but seems to

have taken hold in 2012 with strong 4th

quarter growth in several sectors, including trade, transportation, and

utilities.65

58

REIS data 59



City of Little Rock. (accessed on October 23, 2013); available from

http://www.littlerock.org/citymanager/divisions/economicdevelopment/. 62

Arkansas Economic Development Commission. (accessed on October 23, 2013); available from http://arkansasedc.com/news-and-

media-resources/news/2009/jan/caterpillar-to-locate-north-american-motor-grader-production-facility-in-north-little-rock.aspx. 63

Metro Little Rock Alliance. (accessed on October 23, 2013); available from http://customer-service.metrolittlerockalliance.com/. 64

USA Today. “Arkansas and Elsewhere, Economy Stable.” (accessed on February 5, 2013); available from

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-02-25-ark-economy_N.htm 65

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. “Current Economic Conditions in the Eighth Federal Reserve District.” (accessed February 5,

2013); available from http://research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/burgundybooks/13/03/BB0313LR.pdf




62

While unemployment remains an issue inside the assessment area, it does so to a lesser degree than the state of

Arkansas and nationwide. The table below shows that the unemployment rate declined in both Pulaski and

Saline counties between 2011 and 2012. The unemployment rate in the Little Rock MSA in 2012 was 6.5

percent, compared to statewide unemployment rate of 7.3 percent.66

Competition

Little Rock is an active banking market where Bank of America and Regions Bank hold the largest share of

deposits with 20.3 percent and 15.5 percent, respectively. According to the June 30, 2012 FDIC Summary of

Deposits Report, there were 31 financial institutions operating 244 branch locations with a total of $11.3 billion

in deposits. IBERIABANK Bank ranked 9th

with a deposit market share of 3.7 percent ($420 million).

HMDA and CRA lending are competitive in Little Rock market. In 2011, IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked 6th

and IBERIABANK ranked 33rd

, and combined, reported approximately 5.2 percent of total HMDA lending. In

2012, IBERIABANK Mortgage again ranked 6th

and IBERIABNK ranked 31st in total HMDA lending and

altogether accounted for 5.2 percent of all HMDA lending. For CRA lending, the bank ranked 15th

in 2011 with

2.2 percent of total CRA loans, and moved up to 14th

in 2012 with 2.4 percent of all CRA loans.



A community contact specializing in affordable housing confirmed that housing affordability remains an issue

for LMI individuals and that there is an acute need for affordable rental housing. Low Income Housing Tax

Credits are an important financing tool for increasing affordable rental housing, and present a good opportunity

for local bank investment. Arkansas receives an allocation of approximately $6.5 million in federal low-income

housing tax credits annually.67

The state also provides resources such as a housing trust fund and below market

financing to incentivize the development of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and

families.

The housing market in Arkansas was less volatile than other markets, so the foreclosure crisis was less severe.

Nonetheless, the state of Arkansas received a significant allocation of funds under the federal government’s

Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). The funds are available to help stabilize communities hard hit by

the foreclosure crisis. Arkansas received $19.6 million under the NSP1 allocation process and $5 million under

66

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (accessed on January 15, 2013); available from http://www.bls.gov/. 67

State of Arkansas. “Multi-Family Housing. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program.” (accessed January 3, 2013); available from

http://www.state.ar.us/adfa/programs/lihtcp.html.

2011 2012

Pulaski Co. 7.1 6.6

Saline Co. 6.5 6.0

Little Rock MSA 7.0 6.5

Arkansas 7.9 7.3



Unemployment Rates






63

NSP3. The city of Little Rock received NSP2 funding in the amount of $8.6 million and the city of North Little

Rock received $6.4 million in NSP2 funding. The purpose of these funds is to save neighborhoods where

foreclosed and abandoned buildings are considerably impacting community viability and to increase home

ownership.68

Bank management states that poor credit history is one of the primary barriers to homeownership for low- and

moderate-income individuals. There are a number of organizations in the area that provide credit counseling

and homebuyer education, but there is a need for more education, particularly before credit issues arise.


Several community contacts that specialize in economic development and small business assistance noted that

the Little Rock region had remained relatively stable during the economic downturn and confirmed that a slow

but steady recovery was underway. All of the contacts indicated that there is a need for more commercial credit

from financial institutions to help businesses start-up or expand. Greater access to working capital loans for

local small businesses would also have a trickle-down effect that would positively impact the community. To

help meet the financing needs of local small businesses there are several sources of alternative financing,

including a statewide CDFI that provides small business financing and a micro-lender. The contacts also noted

that some area banks partnered with small business organizations to do workshops and related training, but

there was a need for more bank participation in providing technical assistance, as well as more bank referrals of

unbankable customers that might benefit from one of the alternative financing providers.


Poverty is a growing concern in the assessment area. The percentage of people living below the federal poverty

level in Pulaski County increased by 32.6 percent between 2000 and 2011 and by almost 60 percent in Saline

County. In Pulaski County, 16.7 percent of the population was estimated to live below the federal poverty level

between 2007 and 2011. In addition, 15.9 percent of the population in Pulaski County and 10.0 percent of the

population in Saline County was receiving food stamps.69

In light of increased poverty and lower household income as a result of the recent recession, there is an


One opportunity is expanding access to mainstream financial services. According to the FDIC’s 2011 National



are considered underbanked, meaning they have a deposit account but they also regularly use alternative

financial services like check-cashing services, payday lenders, or pawn shops.70

Financial counseling is also

needed to help improve financial stability and one community contact noted that there are numerous

opportunities for banks to partner with organizations that offer financial education classes. In addition, there are

several other asset building programs, including homeownership counseling, Volunteer Income Tax Assistance

sites, and an IDA program operated by the Central Arkansas Development Council, which provides matching

funds for savings used to acquire an asset.

68

U.S. Department of Housing and Development. “Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP Grantees” (accessed on August 29,

2012); available from http://hudnsphelp.info/index.cfm?do=viewGranteeAreaResults. 69

U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on October 18, 2013); available from http://www.policymap.com 70

2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. (accessed October 18, 2013); available at:

http://economicinclusion.gov/






64


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the Little Rock assessment area is good. The geographic distribution

of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment area and the distribution of borrowers reflects

adequate penetration among individuals of different income levels and businesses of different revenue sizes. In

addition, the bank is a leader in making community development loans.


business loans in the Little Rock assessment area. HMDA lending represented 84.0 percent of total lending and


more heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The Little Rock

assessment area contains 9.2 percent of the bank’s total HMDA lending and 5.7 percent of its total small

business lending by number of loans. In comparison, 4.5 percent of the bank’s total deposits are in this

assessment area.


found in Appendices G-H.




aggregate lending data were also taken into consideration. Considering all of these factors, IBERIABANK’s

geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment area.

Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending in low-income tracts is adequate. The percentage of home purchase

lending was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in low-income tracts throughout the review

period. The bank increased home purchase lending between 2011 and 2012 and performance was greater than

the aggregate in 2012. In 2012, 2.9 percent of bank loans were originated in low-income tracts compared to 1.7


Home purchase lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The percentage of home purchase loans in

moderate-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts in both 2011 and

2012. The bank’s lending was less than aggregate in 2011 but similar to aggregate in 2012. Most recently, in

2012, 10.2 percent of the bank’s loans were originated in moderate-income tracts compared with 11.6 percent of

aggregate loans.


units in these tracts throughout the review period, while lending in upper-income tracts exceeded the percentage

of owner-occupied units in both years.




65


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending in low-income census tracts is poor. The bank’s refinance lending in

low-income tracts was significantly less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in low-income tracts and

less than aggregate throughout the review period. There was no increase in loan volume during the review

period. In 2012, the bank made 0.3 percent of home refinance loans in low-income tracts compared to 1.0


The bank’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is poor. In both 2011 and 2012, the percentage

of loans originated in moderate-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied housing units in

these tracts. The percentage of bank loans in moderate income tracts trailed the percentage of aggregate loans

in 2011 and 2012; in 2012, 4.6 percent of the bank’s refinance loans were made in moderate-income tracts






IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. In both years, the bank’s

lending activity in low-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts. The

percentage of the bank’s loans in low-income tracts was similar to aggregate during the review period; however,

the bank’s loan volume in this product category was very low in low-income tracts in this assessment area.

The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income census tracts is good. The bank significantly

increased the number of home improvement loans in moderate-income census tracts over the review period.

The percentage of the bank’s loans in moderate-income tracts was significantly less than the percent of units in

these tracts and less than aggregate in 2011. However, in 2012, 32.4 percent of the bank’s loans were made in

moderate-income tracts, exceeding the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts (24.4 percent), and

aggregate lending (21.6 percent).

The bank’s home improvement lending in middle-income census tracts exceeded the percentage of owner-

occupied units in middle-income census tracts throughout the review period, while lending activity in upper

income tracts was greater than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts in 2011 but declined in

2012.


IBERIABANK’s small business lending in low-income census tracts is good. The bank’s small business

lending in low-income tracts declined slightly during the review period but was greater than the percentage of

both small businesses and aggregate lending in low-income tracts in 2011 and 2012.

The bank’s small business lending in moderate-income tracts is good. The bank’s small business lending

increased during the review period. In moderate-income tracts, the bank’s lending activity was slightly less

than the percentage of small businesses in those tracts throughout the review period. The bank’s performance

was similar to aggregate in 2011 and exceeded aggregate in 2012. In 2012, 28.7 percent of the bank’s small

business loans were originated in moderate-income tracts compared to 26.9 percent of aggregate loans.




66

The bank’s small business lending in middle-income census tracts was slightly below the percentage of small

businesses located in middle-income tracts in 2011 and slightly greater than the demographic in 2012. In upper-

income tracts, the bank’s lending to small businesses was greater than the percentage of small businesses in

2011 but less than the percentage of small businesses in upper-income tracts in in 2012.






Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The percentage of the bank’s

loans to low-income borrowers increased over the review period but was less than the percentage of low-income

families in the assessment area for both years. The bank’s lending to low-income borrowers was similar to or

greater than aggregate over the review period. In 2012, 11.5 percent of the bank’s loans were made to low-

income borrowers compared to 8.0 percent of the aggregate loans.

The bank’s home purchase lending to moderate-income borrowers is excellent. The percentage of home

purchase loans to moderate-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of moderate-income families

living in the assessment area and exceeded the aggregate throughout the review period. In 2012, the bank

originated 23.6 percent of home purchase loans to moderate-income borrowers while 17.8 percent of families

were classified as moderate-income in the assessment area.

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to middle- and upper-income borrowers exceeded the percentage of

middle- and upper-income income families in the assessment area throughout the review period.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The percentage of refinance

loans to low-income borrowers was substantially less than the percentage of low-income families in the

assessment area for both years. In 2012, the bank originated 4.6 percent of its home refinance loans to low-

income borrowers, compared to 23.0 percent of families classified as low-income in the assessment area.

However, the bank’s performance was comparable to aggregate throughout the review period; in 2012, 4.1

percent of aggregate home refinance loans were made to low-income borrowers.



assessment area over the review period. However, the bank’s performance improved relative to aggregate over

the review period. In 2012, 11.2 percent of the bank’s loans were made to moderate-income borrowers


The bank’s home refinance lending to middle-income borrowers was equal to and greater than the percentage of

middle-income families in the assessment area, while lending to upper-income borrowers was greater than the

percentage of upper-income families throughout the review period.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The bank increased the

number of home improvement loan to low-income borrowers between 2011 and 2012, though the percentage of




67

the bank’s home improvement loans to low-income borrowers was significantly less than the percentage of low-

income families in the assessment area for both years. The bank performed well below aggregate in 2011;

however, the bank’s performance improved in 2012, originating 6.7 percent of home improvement loans to low-

income borrowers compared to 7.4 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers is good. The percentage of the bank’s

home improvement loans to moderate-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of moderate-income

families in the assessment area in 2011 and 2012. The bank’s performance was similar to or exceeded the

aggregate throughout the review period. In 2012, the bank originated 21.9 percent of home improvement loans

to moderate-income borrowers, outperforming the aggregate at 18.6 percent.

The bank’s home purchase lending to middle- and upper-income families was greater than the percentage of

middle- and upper-income families in the assessment area in both years.




the percentage of small businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. Most recently, in 2012,

the bank originated 42.0 percent of its loans to small businesses, although 88.6 percent of total businesses in the

assessment area are classified as small businesses. The bank’s lending to small businesses was less than

aggregate in 2011 but similar to aggregate in 2012.


IBERIABANK is a leader in making community development loans in the Little Rock assessment area. The

bank originated five community development loans totaling $22.3 million during the review period. Three of

the community development loans funded the renovation of a historic building in a moderate income census

tract in downtown Little Rock. The project was funded through traditional bank financing from IBERIABANK

as well as New Market, Historic, and State Tax Credits. The other community development loans supported a

senior nursing home and economic development. Notably, the bank provided a $5 million line of credit to a

statewide SBA preferred lender and CDFI; a portion of the total line of credit represents a pro-rata allocation to

the Little Rock assessment area. The mission of the supported organization is to provide financing to small

businesses and economic development projects in the Arkansas region through long-term financing options,

including financing guaranteed through the SBA and USDA loan programs. The bank’s community

development lending portfolio is responsive to a number of identified community development needs and

indicates that the bank is an active participant in the revitalization and stabilization of low- and moderate-

income communities and small businesses.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the Little Rock assessment area is good.

The bank had 7 investments totaling $6.4 million; $6.1 million were current period investments. The prior

period investments included investments in the CRA Qualified Investment Fund supporting affordable housing.

The current period investments are all government-guaranteed mortgage backed securities with the exception of

a significant equity investment in a New Market Tax Credit project previously discussed.




68


services to low- and moderate-income individuals and affordable housing. Of particular note, the bank

provided 47 grants totaling almost $165,700 to assist qualified low- and moderate-income homebuyers with

down payment and closing costs to purchase a home. The mortgage grant was administered in partnership with

a local nonprofit organization.


development of affordable housing, revitalization and stabilization of distressed areas, small business assistance

and the financial stability of low- and moderate-income individuals. A summary of the bank’s investments and

contributions can be found in Appendix K.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the Little Rock assessment area is good. Its retail and


Retail Services

IBERIABANK’s delivery systems in the assessment area are accessible to the bank’s geographies and



assessment area. The bank has four branches located in moderate-income tracts, representing 36.4 percent of

total branches compared to 27.5 percent of households and 31.5 percent of businesses located in moderate-

income communities. During the review period, the bank opened and closed one branch, both located in a

moderate-income census tract.




moderate-income individuals. IBERIABANK offers extended hours at most of its branch locations in the Little

Rock assessment area, and provides weekend hours at many of its branch offices, including those located in

moderate-income tracts. Bank products, services, and standard business hours are consistent throughout the

assessment area.




69






engaged in providing financial education, homeownership counseling as well as working with a variety of

organizations that provided community services in low- and moderate-income geographies and for low- and

moderate-income individuals.


# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 4 36.4% 1 0 3 3 2 Total 4 28.6% 4 33.3% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle 3 27.3% 0 0 3 3 2 Total 5 35.7% 3 25.0% 0 0 2 100.0% 0 0

SA 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

Upper 4 36.4% 0 0 4 4 3 Total 6 35.7% 6 41.7% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 11 100.0% 1 0 10 10 7 Total 15 100.0% 13 100.0% 1 0 2 100.0% 0 0

SA 3 1 0 0 2 0 0


LPOS are not included in this table

1 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

80 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

23 28.8% 27.9% 25.4%

22 27.5% 36.4% 36.6%

9 11.3% 8.3% 6.4%

25 31.3% 27.5% 31.5%

# % # % # %


Tracts

House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours



Fayetteville, Arkansas

70

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUION’S OPERATIONS IN THE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS,

ASSESSMENT AREA

Overview

The Fayetteville assessment area is comprised of Benton and Washington counties and is part of the

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers MSA (Fayetteville MSA). Two other counties, Madison County, Arkansas, and

McDonald County, Missouri are also part of the Fayetteville MSA but are not included in the assessment area.

The county seats are Bentonville and Fayetteville for Benton and Washington County, respectively.

IBERIABANK operates seven branches in the assessment area, including two in moderate-income tracts; three

branches are in Benton County and four are in Washington County.



percent increase since 2000. This market was the 12th

fastest growing MSA nationally, increasing by an

average of 11,600 people, or 2.9 percent, annually. The population growth can be attributed to in-migration due

to an expanding economy from 2000-2007, retiree attraction and relocation to the area, and enrollment increases

at the University of Arkansas.71



estimated median family income for the years 2011 through 2012 for the Fayetteville MSA. As shown, the

median family income increased slightly from $57,500 to $58,200 between 2011 and 2012.






71


0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $57,500 0 - $28,749 $28,750 - $45,999 $46,000 - $68,999 $69,000 - & above

2012 $58,200 0 - $29,099 $29,100 - $46,559 $46,560 - $69,839 $69,840 - & above


Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO MSA


Family Income





71

As shown in the tables below, the Fayetteville assessment area added 21 tracts between 2000 and 2010,

including 1 low-income tract and 6 moderate-income tracts. The percentage of low-income census tracts

increased from 3.3 percent in 2000 to 3.7 percent of total tracts in 2010, while the percentage of moderate-

income census tracts increased from 8.3 percent to 13.6 percent of total tracts. The number of total housing

units in low-income tracts increased from 3,739 in 2000 to 8,662 in 2010, an increase of 132 percent, while the

number of housing units in moderate-income tracts nearly tripled from 7,684 in 2000 to 22,440 in 2010, or a

192 percent increase. The number of housing units in middle-income tracts declined slightly while the number

of housing units in upper-income census tracts increased by approximately 124 percent. The share of vacant

housing units increased across all income categories; the total number of vacant units accounted for 8.0 percent

of all housing units in 2000 and increased to 11.5 percent by 2010.




72


Assessment Area: AR Fayetteville

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2

3.3

944

1.1

250

26.5

14,366

17.2

Moderate-income

5

8.3

3,812

4.6

746

19.6

15,057

18.0

Middle-income

44

73.3

64,130

76.9

5,244

8.2

20,101

24.1

Upper-income

9

15.0

14,553

17.4

721

5.0

33,915

40.6

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


60

100.0

83,439

100.0

6,961

8.3

83,439

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3,739

200

0.3

5.3

3,327

89.0

212

5.7

Moderate-income

7,684

2,707

3.5

35.2

4,417

57.5

560

7.3

Middle-income

95,710

60,627

78.0

63.3

26,714

27.9

8,369

8.7

Upper-income

21,478

14,242

18.3

66.3

6,129

28.5

1,107

5.2

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


128,611

77,776

100.0

60.5

40,587

31.6

10,248

8.0

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

187

0.8

164

0.8

17

1.5

6

0.6

Moderate-income

2,161

9.3

1,902

8.9

151

13.7

108

11.2

Middle-income

16,360

70.1

15,013

70.6

704

63.9

643

66.8

Upper-income

4,620

19.8

4,186

19.7

229

20.8

205

21.3

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


23,328

100.0

21,265

100.0

1,101

100.0

962

100.0


91.2

4.7

4.1

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

20

2.3

20

2.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

733

85.5

721

85.3

8

100.0

4

100.0

Upper-income

104

12.1

104

12.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


857

100.0

845

100.0

8

100.0

4

100.0


98.6

.9

.5





73



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3

3.7

3,082

2.9

1,045

33.9

20,777

19.6

Moderate-income

11

13.6

12,710

12.0

2,282

18.0

19,113

18.0

Middle-income

44

54.3

59,840

56.3

5,977

10.0

21,786

20.5

Upper-income

23

28.4

30,594

28.8

1,626

5.3

44,550

41.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


81

100.0

106,226

100.0

10,930

10.3

106,226

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

8,662

1,671

1.7

19.3

5,535

63.9

1,456

16.8

Moderate-income

22,440

8,499

8.7

37.9

10,976

48.9

2,965

13.2

Middle-income

95,537

55,978

57.2

58.6

29,444

30.8

10,115

10.6

Upper-income

48,045

31,707

32.4

66.0

10,701

22.3

5,637

11.7

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


174,684

97,855

100.0

56.0

56,656

32.4

20,173

11.5

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

735

3.3

642

3.2

61

5.7

32

3.4

Moderate-income

3,782

17.2

3,345

16.8

277

26.0

160

16.9

Middle-income

11,058

50.4

10,094

50.6

486

45.5

478

50.5

Upper-income

6,379

29.1

5,860

29.4

243

22.8

276

29.2

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


21,954

100.0

19,941

100.0

1,067

100.0

946

100.0


90.8

4.9

4.3

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6

0.8

6

0.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

24

3.1

24

3.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

553

71.5

542

71.1

9

100.0

2

100.0

Upper-income

190

24.6

190

24.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


773

100.0

762

100.0

9

100.0

2

100.0


98.6

1.2

.3





74



which 56 percent were owner-occupied, 32.4 percent were rental units, and 11.5 percent were vacant. Rental



census tracts compared to the assessment area overall.

The housing market in the assessment area softened during the economic downturn but has recently shown

signs of improvement. The average number of homes sold in 2006-2007, pre-recession years, was

approximately 10,100 with an average median sales price of $144,000. Home sales in the assessment area

declined from 2008 to 2011, reaching the lowest point in 2011 of approximately 8,000 homes sold. During this

time, the median sales price decreased by 21 percent. In 2012, the real estate market began to rebound both in

sales and home prices.72

Although homebuilding activity remains lower than pre-recessionary levels, the

number of single-family homes permitted is on the rise. Between 2007 and 2011, the average number of

permits issued was 1,350; however this figure was up more than 30 percent in 2012 from the prior 5-year

average.73

Mortgage delinquencies rose during the economic downturn and have fluctuated over the past two years. The

percent of mortgages considered seriously delinquent (defined as more than 90 days past due or in foreclosure)

increased from 6.4 percent in January 2011 to a high of 7.0 percent in June 2012. Since mid-2012, the rate has

been steadily declining, falling to 6.7 percent at the end of 2012, which was slightly higher than the state rate of

6.4 percent.74


The Fayetteville assessment area had approximately 204,500 people employed as in 2012.75

The significant

employment sectors in the MSA as a percent of total employment include: professional and business services

(17.4 percent), wholesale and retail trade (14.6 percent), government (14.1 percent) and manufacturing (13.9

percent). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is the largest employer in Benton County, employing approximately 28,000.

Following as the next largest employers are Tyson Foods, Inc., employing about 12,000 and the University of

Arkansas (UA), with 4,000 employees. Other major employers in the assessment area include Simmons Foods

(manufacturing), J.B. Hunt Transport, and Washington Regional (education & health services).

Economic conditions across the Fayetteville MSA declined during the recession, but the region began

recovering in 2011 with increasing jobs and falling unemployment over the review period. After tremendous

job growth in the early 2000s, approximately 30 percent growth from 2000-2007, the assessment area began

recording job losses in 2008. During 2008 and 2009, the number of nonfarm jobs declined by 5,800, or 2.9

percent. The Fayetteville assessment area added 10,700 jobs (5.6 percent growth) for 2010 through 2012.

Although the recession affected nearly every job sector, the manufacturing and mining, logging, and

construction sectors lost the most jobs.

72


http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/ushmc/reg/FayettevilleLA_HMP_1Jul13.pdf 73










75

The 2007 pre-recession unemployment rate was 3.8 percent and increased to 6.7 percent in the second quarter

of 2011. Then, the unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent between 2011 and 2012, and is well below the

unemployment rate for the state at 7.3 percent.76

Small businesses play an important role in the Fayetteville economy as well, though it should be noted that the

number of small businesses in the assessment area declined over the review period. According to 2012 D&B

information, there were 21,954 businesses within the Fayetteville assessment area of which 90 percent had total

annual revenues less than or equal to $1 million, and were therefore considered to be small businesses.77

Small

business lending to this segment peaked in 2007 with 7,420 small business loans made and a four-year average

of 6,780 loans made. The number of loans fell drastically in 2009 and reached a low of 995 loans made.

Fortunately, small business lending to firms with revenues less than $1.0 million began to recover and ended

2011 with 3,868 loans or a 288 percent increase from the trough.78

Competition

The Fayetteville assessment area banking market is dominated by community banks. According to the June 30,

2012, FDIC Summary of Deposit Report, 31 financial institutions operated 191 offices in the assessment area.


with a deposit market share of 1.3 percent ($112.2 million) and eight offices. The

top three financial institutions are Arvest Bank, First Security Bank, and the Bank of Fayetteville with deposit

market shares of 52.3 percent, 7.3 percent, and 3.6 percent, respectively.

HMDA and CRA lending is also competitive in the assessment area. In 2011, IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked

5th

out of 275 lenders with 5.5 percent of total HMDA loans, and IBERIABANK ranked 44th

. HMDA lending

increased in 2012 and IBERIABANK Mortgage maintained its ranking of 5th

out of 321 lenders again with 5.5

percent of total HMDA lending, while IBERIABANK improved to 36th

. Arvest Mortgage, Wells Fargo and

Arvest Bank held the top three slots for largest HMDA lenders. For CRA lending, IBERIABANK ranked 4th

in

2011 and 16th

in 2012 with an average of less than one percent of CRA loans in each year. CRA lending is

dominated by Arvest Bank followed by the national credit card issuers, American Express and Capital One.

76

Bureau of Labor Statistics 77



2011 2012

Benton Co. 6.2 5.7

Washington Co. 6.0 5.4

Fayetteville MSA 6.2 5.6

Arkansas 7.9 7.3



Unemployment Rates







76



According to a report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the fair market rent for a 2-bedroom

apartment in the MSA is $655, which would be affordable for a worker earning a wage of $12.60 per hour.

Mean wages for renters is $15.40 and $12.32 in Benton and Washington Counties, respectively.79

This data

indicates that the Fayetteville market is relatively affordable. However, census data reveals that an estimated 41

percent of all renters and 22 percent of all homeowners were cost burdened from 2007-2011 in the entire

assessment area.80

Cost burdened households are defined by HUD as households that are paying more than 30

percent of their income towards housing costs. It should be noted that of the 23,200 students currently enrolled

at the University of Arkansas, an estimated 16,000 students, or nearly 70 percent, rent in the MSA, thereby

impacting affordability, the type of multifamily construction activity, rental rates, and vacancy levels. Access

to quality, affordable housing is an ongoing need in the Fayetteville MSA. Annual action plans from

Bentonville, Springdale, and Fayetteville cited affordable housing and housing rehabilitation as a continued

need and the primary use for limited federal dollars.

The state of Arkansas received a significant allocation of funds under the federal government’s Neighborhood

Stabilization Program (NSP). The funds are available to help stabilize communities hard hit by the foreclosure

crisis. Arkansas received $19.6 million under the NSP1 allocation process and $5 million under NSP3; funds

were administered by the Arkansas Development Finance Authority.81

Two projects were allocated funds

within the assessment area; a senior housing rehab project in Rogers, Arkansas ($5.8 million) and an acquisition

and rehab of an apartment complex near the University of Arkansas ($7.7 million). Other community

development opportunities include participation in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.

Arkansas receives an allocation of approximately $6.5 million in federal low-income housing tax credits

annually.82

The state also provides resources such as a housing trust fund and below market financing to

incentivize the development of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.


There are numerous federal and state financing mechanisms that can be useful to financial institutions in

partnering or financing small business enterprises and community economic development projects. In

particular, the Arkansas State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) provides opportunities for banks to

partner on small business financing. Arkansas received $13.2 million under the SSBCI which is expected to

generate $130 million in new private lending. Funds will be used by The Arkansas Development Finance

Authority (ADFA) to support and provide additional funding for its existing Arkansas Capital Access Program,

Bond Guaranty/Loan Participation Program, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Fund, as well as other

programs.

There are seven Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) in the state of Arkansas, including one

based inside the assessment area that assists low-income individuals with home improvement loans and new

construction as well as community infrastructure projects. In addition, Arkansas Capital Corporation, a

statewide CDFI, provides small business financing assistance statewide primarily through SBA and USDA loan

programs. Arkansas Capital Corporation has also been awarded $130 million in tax credit authority under the

79

National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2013, accessed on November 19, 2013; available at:



U.S. Department of Housing and Development. “Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP Grantees” (accessed on November 29,

2013); available from http://hudnsphelp.info/index.cfm?do=viewGranteeAreaResults. 82

State of Arkansas. “Multi-Family Housing. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program.” (accessed on December 2, 2013); available

from http://www.state.ar.us/adfa/programs/lihtcp.html.






77

New Markets Tax Credits Program (NMTC Program) since 2009. Finally, there is also one certified micro-

lender located in Huntsville, Arkansas, that provides services to Benton County.


Poverty and financial instability are also concerns throughout the assessment area. The percentage of people

living in poverty is high in both counties in the assessment area, but particularly so in Washington County; 11.7

percent and 19 percent of individuals lived below the poverty level as of 2007-2011 in Benton and Washington

counties, respectively. Food stamp usage, another indicator of financial distress, has also been rising in the

assessment area for the past decade. In 2000, 4.1 percent of the population in the assessment area received food

stamps. In 2010, food stamp usage spiked to 11.2 percent in the assessment area, while the state rate was 16.5

percent.83

In light of increasing poverty and economic challenges for low- and moderate-income individuals, there is an


One opportunity is expanding access to mainstream financial services. According to the FDIC’s National



are considered underbanked, meaning they have a deposit account but they also rely on alternative financial


83


2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. (accessed November 1, 2013); available at:

http://webtools.joinbankon.org/community/profile?state=LA&county=Fayetteville percent20Parish85

FRB Atlanta Calculations of data

provided by 2010 American Community Survey.


http://webtools.joinbankon.org/community/profile?state=LA&county=Lafayette%20Parish




78


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the Fayetteville assessment area is adequate. The geographic

distribution of loans reflects poor penetration throughout the assessment area, although the distribution of


revenue sizes. In addition, the bank made a low level of community development loans in the assessment area.


business loans in the Fayetteville assessment area. HMDA lending represented 95.5 percent of total lending and


more heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The Fayetteville

assessment area contains 14 percent of the bank’s total HMDA lending and 2.1 percent of its total small

business lending by number of loans. In comparison, 1.2 percent of the bank’s total deposits are in this

assessment area.







geographic distribution of loans reflects poor penetration throughout the assessment area.

Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK did not originate any home purchase loans in low-income tracts in the assessment area in 2011.

The bank did originate home purchase loans in 2012 with the percentage of loans in low-income tracts being

slightly less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts. The bank’s performance was

comparable to aggregate. However, it should be noted there were low levels of owner-occupied units, as well

as limited aggregate activity in the assessment area during both years of the review period. There were 0.3

percent and 1.7 percent of owner-occupied units in low-income tracts in 2011 and 2012, respectively, while

aggregate lending activity was 0.1 percent in 2011 and 1.2 percent in 2012. Therefore, IBERIABANK’s home

purchase lending in low-income tracts is adequate.

While the bank’s home purchase lending increased between 2011 and 2012, home purchase lending in

moderate-income tracts is poor. In both years, the percentage of loans was less than the percentage of owner-

occupied units in moderate-income tracts and less than aggregate. Most recently, in 2012, 4.8 percent of

IERIABANK’s mortgages were originated in moderate-income tracts, compared to 8.7 percent of owner-

occupied housing units and 8.4 percent of aggregate loans.


units in these tracts while lending in upper-income tracts exceeded the percentage of units throughout the

review period.




79


Home refinance lending in low-income tracts is poor. The bank did not originate any home refinance loans in

in 2011 where just 0.3 percent of the owner-occupied housing units are located. Aggregate lending was also

very limited in 2011. In 2012, 0.7 percent of the bank’s home refinance loans were originated in low-income

tracts, which was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in the these tracts, and also less than

aggregate lending at 1.1 percent.

IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. While the percentage of loans

in both years was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units and aggregate lending, the bank’s

performance improved between 2011 and 2012. In 2012, 5.8 percent of the bank’s home refinance loans were

originated in moderate-income tracts, compared to 7.3 percent of aggregate loans.





IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. While the bank did not

originate any home improvement loans in low-income tracts in 2011, lending in low-income tracts improved

over the review period. In 2012, 6.7 percent of the bank’s home improvement loans were originated in low-

income tracts, compared to 1.4 percent of aggregate loans and 1.7 percent of owner-occupied units.

The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income census tracts is poor. IBERIABANK did not

originate any home improvement loans in moderate income tracts in 2011; 4.0 percent of aggregate home

improvement loans were originated in moderate-income tracts. The bank’s performance improved over the

review period. In 2012, 11.1 percent of the bank’s home improvement loans were originated in a moderate-

income tract, compared to 8.2 percent of aggregate loans and 8.7 percent of owner-occupied units.

The percent of the bank’s home improvement lending in middle-income census tracts was less than the

percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts throughout the review period. The bank’s lending in upper-

income tracts exceeded the owner-occupied units in these tracts in 2011 but declined as a percent of total loans

in 2012.


IBERIABANK’s small business lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank originated no small

business loans in low-income tracts in 2011 where 0.8 percent of the small businesses are located; however,

aggregate lending in 2011 was also very limited. The bank’s small business lending activity in low-income

tracts increased during the review period. In 2012, 5.9 percent of the bank’s small business loans were

originated in low-income tracts where 3.2 percent of small businesses are located. Additionally, 3.3 percent of

aggregate loans were originated in low-income tracts.


moderate-income tracts was less than the percentage of small businesses in those tracts and less than aggregate

in 2011. However, in 2012, the bank’s small business lending performance improved significantly. The bank

originated 38.2 percent of total small business loans in moderate-income tracts in 2012; this compares very

favorably with 16.8 percent of small businesses and 16.0 percent of aggregate lending in these tracts.




80

The bank’s small business lending in middle-income census tracts declined from 85 percent of total small

business loans in 2011 to 41.2 percent of loans in 2012. The bank’s lending in middle-income tracts was less

than the percentage of small businesses in these tracts. Additionally, lending in upper-income tracts was less

than the percentage of small businesses in upper-income tracts in the assessment area over the review period.






Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The bank’s home purchase

lending to low-income borrowers in 2011 and 2012 was 8.9 percent and 8.2 percent, respectively. In both

years, the percentage of loans to low-income borrowers was below the percentage of low-income families in the

assessment area and slightly below the aggregate lending to low-income borrowers.

The bank’s home purchase lending to moderate-income borrowers is adequate. The percentage of home

purchase loans to moderate-income borrowers was greater than the aggregate throughout the review period. In

addition, the bank’s lending to moderate-income borrowers exceeded the percentage of moderate-income

families living in the assessment area in 2011 although was slightly below the demographic in the following

year. In 2012, the bank originated 16.6 percent of home purchase loans to moderate-income borrowers while

18.0 percent of families were classified as moderate-income in the assessment area.

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to middle- and upper-income borrowers was similar to or greater than

the percentage of middle- and upper-income families in the assessment area during the review period.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The percentage of home

refinance loans to low-income borrowers was substantially less than the percentage of low-income families in

the assessment area for both years. The bank’s performance was below aggregate in 2011 but improved relative

to aggregate in 2012. In 2012, the bank originated 5.6 percent of its home refinance loans to low-income

borrowers, compared to 19.6 percent of families classified as low-income in the assessment area; 6.3 percent of

aggregate loans were made to low-income borrowers in 2012.



assessment area but similar to aggregate over the review period. In 2012, 11.7 percent of the bank’s loans were

made to moderate-income borrowers compared to 12.3 percent of aggregate loans.





IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The percentage of loans

was slightly greater than the percentage of families classified as low-income in 2011 and exceeded aggregate.




81

The bank's performance declined in 2012 relative to the percentage of low-income borrowers in the assessment

but remained similar to aggregate; 8.9 percent of home improvement loans were originated to low-income


The bank’s home improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers is good. The bank increased home

improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers over the review period. The percentage of loans to

moderate- income borrower was greater than the percentage of moderate-income families and also exceeded

aggregate lending in both years. In 2012, the bank originated 22.0 percent of home improvement loans to

moderate-income borrowers compared to 15.0 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home improvement lending to middle- and upper-income borrowers was slightly less than the

percentage of middle- and upper-income families in 2011. However, in 2012, the bank’s lending to middle-

income borrowers dropped to 6.7 percent, substantially below the demographic, while loans to upper-income

borrowers grew significantly, and exceeded the percentage of upper-income families.




the percentage of small businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. The bank’s lending

was less than aggregate lending to small businesses in 2011; however, the bank outperformed the aggregate in

2012. Although 90.8 percent of total businesses in the assessment area are classified as small businesses, the

bank originated 63.2 percent of its loans to small businesses, compared to 49.8 percent of aggregate loans in

2012.


IBERIABANK made a low level of community development loans in the Fayetteville assessment area. The

bank originated one community development loan totaling $494,000 during the review period. The loan

amount was a pro-rata allocation to the Fayetteville assessment area of a $5 million line of credit provided to a

statewide SBA preferred lender and CDFI. The mission of the supported organization is to provide financing to

small businesses located in the Arkansas region through long-term financing options and risk mitigation tools,

including financing guaranteed through the SBA and USDA loan programs.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the Fayetteville assessment area is good.

The bank had five investments totaling $994,600; $791,900 was current period investments. The prior period

investments were investments in the CRA Qualified Investment Fund. All of the current period investments are

mortgage backed securities. The securities are pools of 30-year and 15-year residential mortgages originated in

2012 to low- and moderate-income borrowers in the Fayetteville assessment area and issued by Fannie Mae,

Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae.

The bank made five contributions totaling $21,700. The largest contribution was in-kind, providing subsidized

rent for office space in a bank facility to a local nonprofit that provides community services to low- and

moderate-income families. A summary of the bank’s investments and contributions can be found in Appendix

K.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the Fayetteville assessment area is good. Its retail and





82

Retail Services

IBERIABANK’s delivery systems in the assessment area are readily accessible to the bank’s geographies and

individuals of different income levels. The distribution of seven branch offices and seven ATMs as of


within the assessment area. The bank has two branches located in moderate-income tracts, representing 28.6

percent of total branches compared to 12.6 percent of households and 17.2 percent of businesses located in

moderate-income communities. During the review period, the bank closed one branch, located in an upper

income census tract.




moderate-income individuals. IBERIABANK offers extended hours at all of its branch locations in the

Fayetteville assessment area, and provides weekend hours at most of its branch offices, including those located

in moderate-income tracts. Bank products, services, and standard business hours are consistent throughout the

assessment area.


IBERIABANK provides a relatively high level of community development services in the assessment area.

IBERIABANK employees provided 455.5 service hours by participating in 4 different services during the

review period. Board service represented approximately 87 percent of the total community development

service hours. Bank employees engaged in providing financial education as well as working with several

organizations that provided community services in low- and moderate-income geographies and for low- and

moderate-income individuals. However, bank staff did not engage in other types of community development

activities such as affordable housing, poverty alleviation, and small business assistance.


# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 2 28.6% 0 0 2 2 1 Total 2 28.6% 2 28.6% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle 4 57.1% 0 0 4 4 4 Total 4 57.1% 4 57.1% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 1 14.3% 0 1 1 1 0 Total 1 14.3% 1 14.3% 0 1 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 7 100.0% 0 1 7 7 5 Total 7 100.0% 7 100.0% 0 1 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours

%


Tracts

# % # % #

3 3.7% 4.7% 3.3%

11 13.6% 12.6% 17.2%

44 54.3% 55.3% 50.4%

23 28.4% 27.4% 29.1%

0.0%

81 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


0 0.0% 0.0%




83


DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE ARKANSAS METROPOLITAN

ASSESSMENT AREAS

Jonesboro Assessment Area (Craighead and Poinsett Counties)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated six branches in the assessment area, representing

18 percent of its branches in Arkansas.



Arkansas.







Assessment

Areas

Lending Test Investment Test Service Test

Jonesboro Below Below Above

For the lending test, IBERIABANK received a High Satisfactory rating for the state of Arkansas. The

geographic and borrower distribution of loans in the Jonesboro assessment area were stronger than the state but

lower levels of community development lending led to weaker performance in the limited-scope metropolitan

assessment area.

For the investment test, IBERIABANK received a High Satisfactory rating for the state of Arkansas.

Performance in the Jonesboro assessment area was weaker than the bank’s performance in the state due to lower

levels of qualified investments relative to the bank’s operations in the assessment area; however, it was still

considered satisfactory.

For the service test, IBERIABANK received a High Satisfactory rating for the state. Performance in the

Jonesboro assessment area was stronger than the bank’s performance in the state due to accessibility of delivery

systems and greater level of community development services completed by the bank.





84


DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE ARKANSAS NON-METROPOLITAN

ASSESSMENT AREAS

Northeast Arkansas Assessment Area (Clay, Greene, Jackson, Lawrence, Randolph, and Sharp Counties) o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated 10 branches in the assessment area, representing

29 percent of its branches in Arkansas.



Arkansas.








Northeast Arkansas Below Below Below

For the lending test, performance was weaker in the Northeast Arkansas assessment area than in the state.

Although borrower distribution of loans was stronger than the bank’s performance in the state in the assessment

area, its performance in community development lending was weak.

For the investment test, the performance in Northeast Arkansas was weaker than the bank’s performance in the

state due to lower levels of qualified investments relative to the bank’s operations in the assessment area.

For the service test, the performance in Northeast Arkansas was weaker to the bank’s performance in the state

due to fewer community development services and limited accessibility of delivery systems.




Florida

85

CRA RATING FOR FLORIDA: Satisfactory

The Lending Test is rated: Low Satisfactory

The Investment Test is rated: Low Satisfactory



The geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment areas. In



The bank makes an adequate level of community development loans within the assessment areas.

The bank provides an adequate level of qualified community development investments and grants that



assessment areas.




Florida

86


A full scope review was conducted for two assessment area in the State of Florida:

Naples

Sarasota

Limited scope reviews were conducted for the remaining nine assessment areas:

Ft Meyers

Keys

Palm Beach/Broward County



DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN FLORIDA

Lending activity in Florida accounted for 9.0 percent of the bank’s total lending activity. HMDA-reportable

lending in Florida represented 9.8 percent of the bank’s total HMDA-reportable lending, while small business

and small farm lending represented 6.5 percent of the bank’s total small business and small farm lending. As of

June 30, 2012, the bank had $2.2 billion in deposits in Florida accounting for 23.3 percent of IBERIABANK’s

total deposits. IBERIABANK ranks 26th

out of 292 insured institutions in the state with 0.53 percent of total

deposits. As of December 31, 2012, IBERIABANK operated 43 branch offices in Florida representing 23.5

percent of the bank’s total branches.


Lending Test

The lending test rating in the state of Florida is Low Satisfactory. IBERIABANK is both a HMDA and small

business lender; HMDA lending was given greater consideration in determining the lending test rating for

Florida because the bank originated more HMDA loans by number than small business loans. Additionally, the

Sarasota assessment area received slightly greater consideration when determining the state rating because it

holds a greater percentage of the bank’s deposits, loans, and branches in the state of Florida than the Naples

assessment area. The full-scope areas selected together represent 61.4 percent of the deposits in the assessment

areas in Florida as well as 41.9 percent of the branches. The full-scope assessment areas represent 37.4 percent

of the HMDA loans and 50.7 percent of the small business loans in the state. Lastly, only 9.0 percent of

community development loans occurred in the two full scope assessment areas. Thus, the two full-scope

assessment areas represent a majority of the branches, deposits and lending in the state of Florida yet only a

small amount of the community development lending in the state. IBERIABANK did not originate any small

farm loans in Florida during the review period; therefore, there is no discussion of these loans in this section of

the report.




Florida

87






distribution of loans is adequate in Naples and poor in Sarasota. Additionally, the distribution of loans by

borrower income and business revenue size is adequate. The borrower distribution is considered adequate in

both full scope assessment areas. A detailed discussion of the geographic and borrower distribution of lending

for the full scope assessment areas is included in the next section of this report.


IBERIABANK made an adequate level of community development loans in Florida. The bank made 18

community development loans totaling $39.2 million across the state during the review period. The majority of

loans funded affordable housing and community services. Notably, the bank provided over $16 million in

community development loans for workforce housing in the Keys (a limited scope assessment area), where

affordable housing is critical for the significant number of workers that support tourism and related service

industries. The bank’s community development lending in Florida also included a loan to a statewide

Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) that serves all of the assessment areas in the state.

Investment Test

The investment test rating for Florida is Low Satisfactory. The bank made adequate use of qualified


The bank exhibited adequate responsiveness to the credit and community development needs through its

investment activities in both the Naples and Sarasota assessment areas; investments in the two full scope

assessment areas accounted for 29 percent of the bank’s total investments in the state. The bank’s largest

investment was in the Keys, which was a limited scope assessment area. During the review period, the bank

made an $8.8 million Low Income Housing Tax Credit investment to support 36 units of workforce housing in a

hard to develop area. The majority of the bank’s other investments are mortgage backed securities, and all of

the investments were made during the review period.

Loan Type # % $ (000s) %


HMDA Refinance 417 21.4% $106,831 30.4%



Total HMDA 1,611 82.8% $294,369 83.9%


Total Farm 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

TOTAL LOANS 1,946 100.0% $351,064 100.0%


Florida




Florida

88

The bank primarily provided support to community services and affordable housing through its contributions.

In addition to the contributions that were unique to the assessment areas, the bank had two statewide donations

totaling $10,000 that provided support to small business and financial stability conferences that benefitted the

entire state.




Service Test

The service test rating for Florida is High Satisfactory.

Retail Services




geographies or low- and moderate-income individuals. The bank’s record of opening and closing branch offices

has not affected the accessibility of its delivery systems, including to low- and moderate-income geographies

and/or low- and moderate-income individuals.



in Florida. The bank’s community development services were excellent in the Sarasota assessment area while

services in Naples were good. Additional details regarding specific community development services can be

found in the full-scope assessment area sections.

In addition to the community development services, IBERIABANK staff dedicated a significant number of

hours to helping low- and moderate-income homebuyers through the bank’s loss mitigation program. After

acquiring four failed banks in Alabama and Florida utilizing FDIC loss sharing agreements, IBERIABANK

created a dedicated team of six associates to assist homeowners who were having difficulty making mortgage

payments. This team works with borrowers at all income levels to determine if they qualify for the bank’s

standard modification program and if not, the team takes a “second look” in an effort to find a loan payment

that the homeowner can afford. The bank estimates that the loss mitigation team provided over 950 hours of

assistance over the review period specifically to low- and moderate-income homebuyers in Florida, and

Alabama, though the majority of the these borrowers were in the Florida assessment areas.



Sarasota, Florida

89

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUION’S OPERATIONS IN THE SARASOTA, FLORIDA, ASSESSMENT

AREA

Overview

The assessment area is comprised of the North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, Florida MSA (Sarasota MSA), which

consist of Manatee and Sarasota counties. Within the assessment area there are 4 low-income and 42 moderate-

income census tracts. Iberia had 10 branches in the assessment area as of December 31, 2012. Of the 10

branches, 4 are located in moderate income census tracts and 6 are located in middle income census tracts; six

branches are in Sarasota County while four are in Manatee County.


According to 2010 census data, the population in the assessment area was 702,281, with 379,448 residing in

Sarasota County and 322,833 in Manatee County. Between 2000 and 2010, Manatee and Sarasota counties

grew by 22 and 16 percent, respectively, which was on par with the population growth rate for Florida of 17.6

percent.85



estimated median family income for the years 2011 through 2012 for the Sarasota MSA. The chart provides a

range of the estimated annual family income for each income category (low, moderate, middle and upper). As

shown, the median family income increased slightly over the review period from $59,100 in 2011 to $59,900 in

2012.






As shown in the tables below, the assessment area changed significantly between 2000 and 2010, with the total

number of census tracts increasing by 20 percent. The number of low-income census tracts increased from one

(0.7 percent of the total) to four (2.3 percent of the total) between 2000 and 2010. The percentage of moderate-

85


0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $59,100 0 - $29,549 $29,550 - $47,279 $47,280 - $70,919 $70,920 - & above

2012 $59,900 0 - $29,949 $29,950 - $47,919 $47,920 - $71,879 $71,880 - & above


North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL MSA


Family Income




Sarasota, Florida

90

income census tracts increased from 21.7 percent to 24.4 percent over the time period. The number of total

housing units in low-income tracts increased from 1,621 in 2000 to 7,714 in 2010, an increase of 367 percent,

while the number of housing units in moderate- tracts increased by 16 percent. The number of housing units in

middle-income census tracts increased by 10 percent while the number of housing units in upper-income tracts

increased by 52 percent. Housing vacancy increased significantly in census tracts across all income categories;

the total number of vacant units accounted for 18.2 percent of all housing units in 2000 and increased to 24.3

percent by 2010.



Sarasota, Florida

91


Assessment Area: FL Sarasota

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

0.7

897

0.5

291

32.4

29,853

17.6

Moderate-income

31

21.7

37,541

22.2

4,826

12.9

33,150

19.6

Middle-income

77

53.8

89,610

52.9

3,830

4.3

39,877

23.6

Upper-income

34

23.8

41,200

24.3

1,130

2.7

66,368

39.2

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


143

100.0

169,248

100.0

10,077

6.0

169,248

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,621

601

0.3

37.1

853

52.6

167

10.3

Moderate-income

77,332

41,213

20.5

53.3

22,650

29.3

13,469

17.4

Middle-income

164,234

110,169

54.7

67.1

28,128

17.1

25,937

15.8

Upper-income

77,408

49,491

24.6

63.9

9,292

12.0

18,625

24.1

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


320,595

201,474

100.0

62.8

60,923

19.0

58,198

18.2

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

248

0.4

226

0.4

16

0.6

6

0.3

Moderate-income

10,719

17.4

9,834

17.2

487

19.2

398

20.3

Middle-income

32,462

52.7

30,105

52.8

1,334

52.6

1,023

52.3

Upper-income

18,126

29.4

16,899

29.6

697

27.5

530

27.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


61,555

100.0

57,064

100.0

2,534

100.0

1,957

100.0


92.7

4.1

3.2

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

49

8.9

47

9.1

2

5.9

0

0.0

Middle-income

306

55.3

281

54.4

24

70.6

1

50.0

Upper-income

198

35.8

189

36.6

8

23.5

1

50.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


553

100.0

517

100.0

34

100.0

2

100.0


93.5

6.1

.4




Sarasota, Florida

92



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4

2.3

4,053

2.2

1,275

31.5

36,809

19.6

Moderate-income

42

24.4

38,939

20.7

5,818

14.9

35,850

19.0

Middle-income

78

45.3

90,137

47.9

5,461

6.1

39,390

20.9

Upper-income

48

27.9

55,100

29.3

1,927

3.5

76,180

40.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


172

100.0

188,229

100.0

14,481

7.7

188,229

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

7,714

2,871

1.3

37.2

3,716

48.2

1,127

14.6

Moderate-income

90,078

45,769

20.1

50.8

22,421

24.9

21,888

24.3

Middle-income

181,215

111,729

49.0

61.7

31,818

17.6

37,668

20.8

Upper-income

117,625

67,681

29.7

57.5

14,204

12.1

35,740

30.4

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


396,632

228,050

100.0

57.5

72,159

18.2

96,423

24.3

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,040

1.7

936

1.6

64

2.7

40

2.2

Moderate-income

12,568

20.3

11,457

19.9

680

28.5

431

24.1

Middle-income

27,237

44.0

25,669

44.5

823

34.5

745

41.6

Upper-income

21,027

34.0

19,635

34.0

816

34.2

576

32.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


61,872

100.0

57,697

100.0

2,383

100.0

1,792

100.0


93.3

3.9

2.9

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

0.2

1

0.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

69

12.1

64

11.9

5

14.7

0

0.0

Middle-income

246

43.1

229

42.6

17

50.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

255

44.7

243

45.3

12

35.3

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


571

100.0

537

100.0

34

100.0

0

.0


94.0

6.0

.0




Sarasota, Florida

93


The housing market in the Sarasota MSA has declined due to the national recession and housing market

collapse. The 2010 census data shows that there are 396,632 housing units in the assessment area, of which

228,050 (57.5 percent) are owner-occupied, 72,159 (18.2 percent) are rental units, and 96,423 (24.3 percent) are

vacant. Housing vacancy is a major concern in the assessment area and the number of vacant units increased by

65 percent over the ten-year period. While a majority of units are owner-occupied throughout the assessment

area, rental units are more heavily concentrated in low- and moderate-income tracts. In low-income tracts,

rental units represented more than 48 percent of total housing units, indicating there may be reduced

opportunities for mortgage origination in these communities. However, there exists tremendous first-time home

ownership opportunities in moderate income tracts given the 21,888 vacant units.

Home refinancing and home-improvement loans may be limited in the market due to the number of underwater

homeowners. According to CoreLogic, 31.5 percent of mortgage homeowners in Florida owe more on their

mortgage than the home is worth, ranking Florida 2nd

in the nation.86

As would be expected, the housing bust

eliminated all of the equity gained during the housing boom.

According to the Florida Realtors Association, the median housing value in the Sarasota assessment area is

$203,000, which is a 12 percent higher than June 2012.87

Prices in Sarasota rose 178.2 percent from January

2000 to its market peak in 2006, then plummeted 55 percent between 2006 and 2011.88

Low inventories, pent-

up demand and cash-rich investors are factors contributing to an upward trajectory in home prices.

In addition to lower home values and negative equity, Sarasota, like many other Florida cities is characterized

by high foreclosure rates. The area continues to have one of the worst foreclosure rates in the nation. North

Port-Bradenton-Sarasota posted the 14th

highest foreclosure rate out of 384 metropolitan areas nationwide in

June 2013, according to CoreLogic. From its peak of 12.2 percent in June 2011, the rate of foreclosures among

outstanding mortgages in the Sarasota-Manatee region dropped to 7.3 percent in July 2013. The mortgage

delinquency rate, which measures mortgage loans that are 90 days or more past due, is moving downward as

well. In Sarasota-Manatee, 11.0 percent of mortgage loans were 90 days late, down from 15.4 percent for the

year and lower than statewide figures of 12.7.89


Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that employment in the Sarasota assessment area is

primarily dependent on healthcare, retail, real estate, and administration and waste management services.

Government and accommodations and food services are significant industries contributing to employment in the

area as well. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce 2011 employment data, the combined total

employment for the two counties comprising the bank’s assessment area was 370,527, a 1.2 percent increase

from 2010. In 2011, employment was split almost evenly between Sarasota and Manatee counties with 58.0

percent and 42.0 percent of employment, respectively.

86

Florida Realtors “CoreLogic: 2.5M more U.S. homeowners not underwater.” September 2013. (accessed on October 1, 2013):

available from http://www.floridarealtors.org/NewsAndEvents/article.cfm?id=296781 87

Florida Realtors, Florida Residential Market Sales Activity – 2012, (accessed on October 1, 2013): available from

http://media.floridarealtors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2012-Florida-MSA-summary.pdf 88

American Action Forum. “Boom, Bust, and Beyond: A Look at Housing Market Data in Florida.” November 2012. (accessed on

October 1, 2013); available from http://americanactionforum.org/research/boom-bust-and-beyond-a-look-at-housing-market-data-in-

florida, 89

Herald-Tribune, August 29, 2013, “Foreclosure rates still among highest.” (accessed on September 30, 2013); available from:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130829/ARTICLE/308299992

http://www.floridarealtors.org/NewsAndEvents/article.cfm?id=296781

http://media.floridarealtors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2012-Florida-MSA-summary.pdf

http://americanactionforum.org/research/boom-bust-and-beyond-a-look-at-housing-market-data-in-florida

http://americanactionforum.org/research/boom-bust-and-beyond-a-look-at-housing-market-data-in-florida

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130829/ARTICLE/308299992



Sarasota, Florida

94

In the Sarasota metropolitan area, payroll jobs plunged 16 percent from peak-to-trough compared with a

national peak-to-trough decline of 6.5 percent and state decline of 11 percent. Much of the job loss came from

the sectors impacted most by the collapsing housing market, including the construction industry, where

employment fell by more than 50 percent. This region is heavily populated with retirees, as such health care,

personal services and tourism-related activities have become major forces in the economy.90

Also noteworthy,

Manatee County is headquarters to several global companies and is home to the expanding Port Manatee.

Located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico at the entrance to Tampa Bay, Port Manatee is one of Florida’s largest

ports and it is the closest U.S. deepwater seaport to the Panama Canal.

From 2007 until 2010, the unemployment rate increased dramatically from 4.2 percent to 12.0 percent.91

It is

important to note that higher unemployment percentages were reported by low-and-moderate income

individuals and in 2010, 16.3 percent of low-income individuals and 11.1 percent of moderate-income

individuals were unemployed.92

As noted in the table below, the unemployment rate for the Sarasota assessment area declined from 10.6 percent

in 2011 to 8.6 percent in 2012. The state, however, still has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation

at 8.6 percent in 2012.93

The Sarasota assessment lost approximately 33,170 jobs during the recession with the

construction sector comprising the greatest loss.94

According to the 2010 American Community Survey 3-year estimates, the poverty rate for all individuals in

Manatee County in 2010 was 13.6 percent as compared to 15.0 percent for Florida. The most alarming statistic

is the high rate of poverty among families headed by women with children living in the home (32.2 percent).95

According to 2012 D&B information, there were 61,872 businesses within the Sarasota assessment area of

which 93.3 percent had total annual revenues less than or equal to $1 million, and are therefore considered to be

small businesses.96

Small business lending peaked in 2007 prior to the beginning of the recession with 17,144

90

IHS Global Insight; U.S. Markets Metro Economies, Sarasota, FL. 91

FRB Atlanta Calculations of data provided by 2010 American Community Survey. 92


Metrostudy, July 23, 2013. “The Sarasota housing market gains strength in the second quarter of 2013.” (accessed on October 1 ,

2013); available from http://www.metrostudyreport.com/sarasota-bradenton-market/the-sarasota-housing-market-gains-strength-in-

the-second-quarter-of-2013 94

PolicyMap (accessed on October 1, 2013); available from http://policymap.com. 95

PolicyMap (accessed on October 1, 2013); available from http://policymap.com. 96

FRB Atlanta Calculations of Dun & Bradstreet, 2010 American Community Survey data.

2011 2012

Sarasota MSA 10.6 8.6

Florida 10.3 8.6



Unemployment Rates



http://www.metrostudyreport.com/sarasota-bradenton-market/the-sarasota-housing-market-gains-strength-in-the-second-quarter-of-2013

http://www.metrostudyreport.com/sarasota-bradenton-market/the-sarasota-housing-market-gains-strength-in-the-second-quarter-of-2013

http://policymap.com/

http://policymap.com/



Sarasota, Florida

95

or 39.6 percent of businesses receiving small business loans. In 2011, the assessment area began to see an

uptick in small business lending opportunities with 5,574 or 46.1 percent of businesses receiving loans.97

Loan

origination data suggests that there is strong small business loan demand and that local financial institutions are

lending in this market.

Competition

The banking market in the assessment area consists of community banks and large national institutions.

According to the June 30, 2012 FDIC Summary of Deposits Report, Bank of America holds the highest deposit

market share with 17.2 percent of the deposits. IBERIABANK had the 6th

highest deposit market share with 3.8

percent of total deposits and 13 branches in the market area.

In 2011, IBERIABANK ranked 78th

out of 503 HMDA reporters with an insignificant portion of HMDA loans.

IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked 19th

with 0.9 percent of total loans. IBERIABANK ranked 78th

out of 592

HMDA reporters in 2012 with an insignificant portion of HMDA loans, while IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked

20th

with 0.8 percent of total loans. Bank of America, Quicken Loans, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase were

the top HMDA lenders in the market.

IBERIABANK ranked 31st out of 99 CRA reporters in 2011 with 0.1 percent of the CRA loans and 29

th out of

96 CRA reporters with 0.2 percent of the CRA loans in 2012. American Express Bank was the top CRA lender

in the market for both years.


The recent economic crisis has exacerbated issues experienced by low- and moderate-income individuals. It has

also underscored the need to build capacity of local organizations serving LMI communities and the importance

of creating public-private partnerships such that a wide range of community development activities occur in

severely impacted communities, including neighborhood revitalization projects, affordable housing

development, small business lending and financial education initiatives.


A report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition indicates housing affordability is a problem in the

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota MSA. According to the study, a worker earning a mean wage of $12.82 would

have to work 1.5 full-time jobs (assuming 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year) in order to afford the $1,027

per month in fair market rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in the market.98

Although the median rent is lower in

the low-and-moderate income tracts in the assessment area ($804 in low-income tracts and $902 in moderate-

income tracts),99

it would still require hours in excess of 40 hours per week for a resident earning the mean

wage.

In Sarasota County, over a quarter of the households have a problem affording their housing. More specifically,

15.7 percent of homeowners and renters are considered cost-burdened, meaning that homeownership or rental

costs account for more than 30 percent of household income. Approximately 10.6 percent of owners and

renters are considered severely cost burdened in the county, meaning housing costs account for more than 50

percent of household income. By 2015, there will be a projected 33,399 cost-burdened homeowners in Sarasota

County making less than 120 percent of the Area Median Income and 14,853 rent-burdened families out of a

rental population of 38,777. According to the Manatee County consolidated plan, the county does not anticipate

97


National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2013. (accessed on October 1, 2013); available at: http://nlihc.org/oor/2013 99





Sarasota, Florida

96

a shortage of affordable housing in its immediate future given market forces and the inventory of vacant units.

However, they are projected to have 21,736 cost-burdened homeowners making less than 120 percent of the

Area Median Income and a projected 13,530 rent-burdened families. This data suggests that the creation of

affordable units will remain a priority for the MSA.100

The North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, MSA received a sizable allocation in Neighborhood Stabilization Program

(NSP) funds. The funds were made available to help stabilize communities hard hit by the foreclosure crisis.

The City of Sarasota, and Manatee and Sarasota counties were awarded $43.7 million through three NSP

funding rounds. The funds have been used primarily for the acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed

properties and the development of affordable rental units in formerly blighted locations.101

One example of

NSP funds at work is in the Newtown community in Sarasota, where there is a high concentration of poverty.

Sarasota committed $23 million dollars of the funds to redevelop public housing units, renovate exteriors of

local businesses, construct a new community center and K-12 schools, and other improvements to help stabilize

and redevelop the Newtown area.

Throughout the MSA, public, private, and nonprofit groups are working to meet the current and future needs for

affordable housing, especially at a time when NSP dollars are winding down and there are continual decreases

in federal and state grant funding. Municipalities and housing developers will, therefore, turn to financial

institutions, thus creating various community development financing opportunities. One contact suggested that

financial institutions create flexible financing vehicles for the purchase and/or rehabilitation of affordable rental

housing; donate bank-owned properties to qualifying non-profit developers; and invest in the local community

housing trust. Another contact indicated the need for a flexible mortgage product that allows for mortgage

qualification through the use of HUD rental vouchers; this is currently not offered by any financial institutions

in the Sarasota assessment area but has been done in other markets.


With respect to small business needs, there are still gaps in access to capital. Microloans, loan requests greater

than $100,000 and working capital lines of any size are in the greatest demand and traditional banks are not

lending in this space according to a local contact. According to the SBA’s list of intermediaries, as of July

2013, there is one Florida based micro-lender serving the market, the Center for Enterprise Opportunity; Accion

also provides funding to the market but they do not have a local presence. SunCoast Community Capital is a

microenterprise development organization serving the assessment area with business development coaching

services, along with financial education, free tax preparation and credit-building services. They do not provide

loans, but instead provide referrals to a local community development financial institution (CDFI) serving the

area.

Another local contact indicated there is an initiative across the five-county area from Manatee County south to

Collier County to develop a regional loan fund. The City of North Port, in Sarasota County, has created a

revolving loan guarantee fund and business training program to assist existing small businesses expand and aid

business operators that are interested in relocating to its city. They also have a business incubator planned.

In addition, the Florida State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) provides opportunities for banks to

partner on community economic development lending. By reducing risks, this Initiative allows lenders to

approve business loans they otherwise could not. The initiative is made possible by $97 million in federal

100

Schimberg Center for Affordable Housing, University of Florida. (accessed October 4, 2013); available at:

http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu. 101

U.S. Department of Housing and Development, Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP Grantees. (accessed on October 1,

2013); available: http://hudnsphelp.info/index.cfm?do=viewGranteeAreaResults, accessed October 1, 2013.

http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu/




Sarasota, Florida

97

funding under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and administered by Enterprise Florida, Inc. Other ways

local financial institutions can partner with organizations serving small businesses include, but are not limited

to: providing long-term investments into these organizations, providing ongoing sponsorships of small business

workshops, and creating a robust referral program for business owners that do not qualify for traditional loan

products.

Sarasota and Manatee counties are served by two CDFIs which provide opportunities for financial institutions

to invest in initiatives such as affordable housing, small businesses and community facilities lending.102

They

are also served by local redevelopment agencies.

In the City of Bradenton, the Central Community Redevelopment Agency is spearheading two noteworthy

projects. The first project is a 16,000 square foot grocery store and 9,600 square foot retail plaza in an

underserved community. The other project named the Enterprise Center is a centralized facility that will

address personal development and job training needs for the redevelopment area and the greater surrounding

areas.


With respect to financial stability, FDIC’s National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households reports

that an average of 3.0 percent of households in North Port-Bradenton – Sarasota Metro are unbanked, meaning

they have no type of deposit account with a mainstream financial institution.103

This percentage is significantly

lower than the state and national percentages, with both being approximately 7 percent; the city of Sarasota is

closer to the state average at 6.8 percent. Meanwhile, 15.9 percent of households are considered underbanked,

meaning they have a deposit account but they also rely on alternative financial services providers on a regular

basis; this percentage is on par with state and national percentages. In light of these figures, there is an


One opportunity is to expand access to low-cost banking services and access to financial education for low-

income un- and underbanked populations.

Since employment is essential to financial stability, the CareerEdge Funders Collaborative in Bradenton started

the Bridges to Careers Program initiative in April 2011. The program’s objective is to enhance skills and

earning capabilities of jobseekers by providing them with the necessary training and credentials to enter the

workforce. Locally, CareerEdge is a collaborative effort among funders, employers and workers that support

industry-led partnerships that prepare low-wage workers for high-demand, mid-skilled positions in the

healthcare, manufacturing, transportation and technology sectors. Community-based programming such as

CareerEdge creates opportunities for financial institutions to engage in and create financial stability initiatives

with local organizations.

102

CDFI Fund. Certified CDFIs and Native CDFIs – Sortable List. (accessed on October 1, 2013); available at:

http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_id.asp?programID=9. 103

2009 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households data through Research Your Community: Sarasota.

(accessed on October 1, 2013); available: http://webtools.joinbankon.org/community/search.

http://www.careeredgefunders.org/

http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_id.asp?programID=9

http://webtools.joinbankon.org/community/search



Sarasota, Florida

98


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the Sarasota assessment area is adequate. The geographic distribution

of loans reflects poor penetration throughout the assessment area and the distribution of borrowers reflects


addition, the bank made an adequate level of community development loans in the Sarasota assessment area.

During the review period, the bank reported 430 HMDA loans, excluding multifamily loans and 60 small

business loans in the Sarasota assessment area. HMDA lending represented 87.6 percent of total lending and


more heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The Sarasota assessment








aggregate lending data were also taken into consideration. It should be noted that in 2011, based on the 2000

U.S. Census, there was just one low-income tract in the assessment area, though the number increased to four in

2012 based on the 2010 U.S. Census. Considering these factors, IBERIABANK’s geographic distribution of

loans reflects poor penetration throughout the Sarasota assessment area.

Home Purchase Loans

The bank originated no home purchase loans in low-income tracts in 2011 and just one loan in a low-income

tract in 2012 where 1.3 percent of owner-occupied units are located. Aggregate lending was also very limited in

2011 and 2012, which may suggest limited lending opportunities in the low-income tracts in this assessment

area. Due to the bank’s low volume of home purchase lending, limited aggregate activity, and other

performance context factors, the bank’s performance is adequate, with minimal weighting given to home

purchase lending in low-income tracts.

Home purchase lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The bank increased its home purchase lending

in moderate-income tracts between 2011 and 2012, but the percentage of home purchase loans originated in

moderate-income tracts in both years was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units located in these

tracts. The bank’s performance was slightly below aggregate in 2011 but improved relative to aggregate in

2012. In 2012, the bank originated 15.8 percent of its home purchase loans in moderate-income tracts


The bank’s home purchase lending in middle- and upper-income tracts exceeded the percentage of owner-

occupied units in these tracts.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank did not make any

refinance loans in low-income tracts in 2011 but in 2012, the bank originated 3.7 percent of home refinance



Sarasota, Florida

99

loans in low-income tracts where 1.3 percent of the units are owner-occupied. The bank outperformed the

aggregate in 2012. However, the bank’s performance is due to limited loan volume in this product category in

low-income tracts.

The bank’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The bank increased the number of

refinance loans in moderate-income tracts throughout the review period, and in 2012, 11.1 percent of the bank’s

loans were originated in moderate-income census tracts, where 20.1 percent of the units are owner-occupied.

The bank’s performance relative to aggregate improved over the review period, and the bank exceeded

aggregate lending in moderate-income tracts in 2012.

The bank’s refinance lending in middle-income tracts was similar to or exceeded the percentage of owner-

occupied units in these tracts throughout the review period, while lending in upper-income tracts was greater

than the percentage of owner-occupied units.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in low-income census tracts was very poor. The bank did not

originate any home improvement loans in the low-income tracts over the review period. Aggregate lending was

limited in 2011. However, in 2012, aggregate lending increased and 1.5 percent of home improvement loans

were originated in low-income tracts where 1.3 percent of the owner-occupied units are located.

The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income census tracts is poor. The bank did not originate

any home improvement loans in moderate-income tracts in 2011 and just one loan in 2012, representing 11.1

percent of the bank’s lending. Aggregate lending was much stronger with 17.5 percent of loans in moderate-

income tracts in 2011, increasing to 19.4 percent in 2012.

The bank’s home improvement loan volume was very low across all census tracts during the review period.

The percentage of loans in middle-income census tracts was greater than the percentage of owner-occupied

housing units, while the percentage loans in upper-income census tracts was less than the percentage of owner-



IBERIABANK’s small business lending in low-income census tracts is very poor. The bank originated just one

small business loan in a low-income census tract during the review period. Aggregate lending was very limited

in 2011 but increased in 2012 and 1.7 percent of aggregate small business lending occurred in low-income

tracts, where 1.6 percent of small businesses are located.

The bank’s small business lending in moderate-income tracts is good. The bank’s lending in moderate-income

tracts was less than the percentage of small businesses in those tracts and less than aggregate in 2011.

However, in 2012, the bank’s small business lending performance improved. The bank originated 38.5 percent

of total small business loans in moderate-income tracts where 19.9 percent of small businesses are located; 18.8

percent of aggregate lending occurred in moderate-income tracts in 2012.






Sarasota, Florida

100






Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. Over the review period, the

share of the bank’s loans to low-income borrowers was less than the percentage of families in the assessment

area classified as low-income. The bank’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers declined between

2011 and 2012. However, in both years the bank’s lending was similar to or exceeded aggregate lending to

low-income borrowers. Most recently in 2012, 5.9 percent of the banks loans were made to low-income


The bank’s home purchase lending to moderate-income borrowers is excellent. The percentage of home

purchase loans to moderate-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of moderate-income families

living in the assessment area for both years; in 2012, the bank originated 25.0 percent of home purchase loans to

moderate-income borrowers, while 19.0 percent of families were classified as moderate-income in the

assessment area. The bank’s lending to moderate-income borrowers was substantially greater than aggregate

lending throughout the review period.

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to middle-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of

middle-income families in the assessment area, while lending to upper-income borrowers was less than the

percentage of upper-income families in 2011, though it increased in 2012.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending to low-income borrowers is poor. The bank did not originate any

home refinance loans to low-income borrowers in 2011; in 2012, 4.9 percent of bank loans were made to low-

income borrowers compared to 19.6 percent of families in the assessment areas classified as low-income.

Aggregate lending to low-income borrowers increased over the review period, representing 6.1 percent of total

home refinance loans in 2012. The significant number of homeowners still underwater on their mortgages may

be a factor limiting home refinance lending for low-income borrowers throughout the assessment area.

The bank’s home refinance lending to moderate-income borrowers is good. The share of home refinance loans

to moderate-income borrowers slipped over the review period; in 2012, 13.6 percent of the bank’s loans were

made to moderate-income borrowers while 19.0 percent of families were considered moderate-income.

Throughout the review period, the bank’s home refinance lending exceeded aggregate lending to moderate-

income borrowers.


families in the assessment area, while lending to upper-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of

upper-income families in the assessment area.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The share of loans to low-

income borrowers was greater than the percentage of low-income families in 2011, but less than the percentage



Sarasota, Florida

101

of low-income families in 2012. Throughout the review period, the bank’s performance exceeded aggregate

lending; however, the bank’s performance was based on a limited level of lending of this product category in

the assessment area.

The bank’s home improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers is adequate. Throughout the review

period, the percentage of loans to moderate-income borrowers exceeded the percentage of moderate-income

families in the assessment area. The bank’s lending exceeded aggregate lending to moderate-income borrowers

in 2011, but fell slightly below in 2012; however, the bank’s performance was based on a limited level of

lending of this product category in the assessment area.

The bank’s home improvement lending to middle- and upper-income borrowers was less than the percentage of

middle-and upper-income families in the assessment area throughout the review period.



small business loans to businesses with revenues of $1 million or less was slightly less than the percentage of

small businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. However, the bank significantly

outperformed the aggregate for both years. Most recently, in 2012, the bank originated 76.9 percent of its loans

to small businesses compared to 42.0 percent of aggregate loans.


IBERIABANK made an adequate level of community development loans in the Sarasota assessment area. The

bank originated five community development loans totaling $3.4 million during the review period. All of the

loans provided support for affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals. Of particular note are

two loans to a nonprofit organization for the acquisition of bank-owned rental properties that will be renovated

and used for low-income and Section 8 housing.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the Sarasota assessment area is adequate.

The bank had 21 investments totaling $2.9 million; all investments were current period investments. All of the

bank’s investments were government-guaranteed mortgage backed securities.

The bank made 19 contributions totaling $42,000. Contributions provided support for nonprofits engaged in

affordable housing, including housing development and financial education. The bank also provided support to

a range of community services that included youth programs, emergency assistance, homeless services, health

care and education. One contribution to note is the bank’s financial support for a childcare program at the local

housing authority. This contribution allows the housing authority to help residents who previously were unable

to participate in job training and other needed programs due to the lack of childcare.


affordable housing and the financial stability of low- and moderate-income individuals. A summary of the

bank’s investments can be found in Appendix K.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the Sarasota assessment area is good. Its retail and




Sarasota, Florida

102

Retail Services

IBERIABANK’s delivery systems in the assessment area are readily accessible to the bank’s geographies and



assessment area. The bank has four branches located in moderate-income tracts, representing 40 percent of total

branches compared to 22.7 percent of households and 20.3 percent of businesses located in moderate-income

communities. During the review period, the bank closed three branches, all located in middle-income tracts.




moderate-income individuals. IBERIABANK does not offer weekend hours at any of its branch offices in the

assessment area, however all of its branches operate extended hours. Bank products, services, and standard

business hours are consistent throughout the assessment area.






engaged in providing financial education, homeownership counseling and small business assistance as well as

working with a variety of organizations that provided community services in low- and moderate-income

geographies and for low- and moderate-income individuals.


# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 4 40.0% 0 0 4 4 0 Total 4 40.0% 4 40.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle 6 60.0% 0 3 6 6 0 Total 6 60.0% 6 60.0% 0 1 0 0.0% 0 2

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 10 100.0% 0 3 10 10 0 Total 10 100.0% 10 100.0% 0 1 0 0.0% 0 2

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours

%


Tracts

# % # % #

4 2.3% 2.2% 1.7%

42 24.4% 22.7% 20.3%

78 45.3% 47.8% 44.0%

48 27.9% 27.3% 34.0%

0.0%

172 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


0 0.0% 0.0%



Naples, Florida

103

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUION’S OPERATIONS IN THE NAPLES, FLORIDA, ASSESSMENT

AREA

Overview

The Naples assessment area includes Collier County, which is the only county in the Naples-Marco Island

Metropolitan Statistical Area (Naples MSA). Naples and Marco Island are the principal cities in the MSA. The

assessment area consists of 73 census tracts; 6 census tracts, or 8.2 percent are low income, and 15 tracts or 20.5

percent are moderate-income. IBERIABANK had eight branches in the assessment area as of December 31,

2012. Of the eight branches, one is located in a moderate income census tract, two in middle income and five in

upper income tracts.


According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the population in the assessment area was 321,520, which represents an

increase of 28 percent since 2000. This growth rate was considerably greater than the growth rate for Florida of

17.6 percent. It is also important to note that during the winter months the county’s population spikes, given the

significant percentage of snowbirds or people from colder climates who travel south to their winter homes.104



estimated median family income for the years 2011 through 2012 for the Naples MSA. The chart provides a

range of the estimated annual family income for each income category (low, moderate, middle and upper). As

shown, the median family income increased slightly over the review period from $71,800 in 2011 to $72,800 in

2012.


The following tables based on the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census and 2012 Dun & Bradstreet data present key




As shown in the tables below, the assessment area changed significantly between 2000 and 2010, with the total

number of census tracts increasing by 40 percent. Many of the new census tracts are low- or moderate-income.

The number of low-income census tracts increased from 4 to 6 (7.7 percent to 8.2 percent of the total) and the

number of moderate-income census tracts increased from 9 to 15 (17.3 percent to 20.5 percent of the total) 104


0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $71,800 0 - $35,899 $35,900 - $57,439 $57,440 - $86,159 $86,160 - & above

2012 $72,800 0 - $36,399 $36,400 - $58,239 $58,240 - $87,359 $87,360 - & above


Naples-Marco Island, FL MSA


Family Income




Naples, Florida

104

between 2000 and 2010. The number of total housing units in low-income tracts increased from 5,201 in 2000

to 8,154 in 2010, an increase of 57 percent, while the number of housing units in moderate-income tracts

increased by 55 percent. The number of housing units in middle-income census tracts increased by 37 percent

while the number of housing units in upper-income tracts increased by 22 percent. Housing vacancy increased

significantly across all income categories between 2000 and 2010; the total number of vacant units accounted

for 28.8 percent of all housing units in 2000 and increased to 38.6 percent by 2010.



Naples, Florida

105


Assessment Area: FL Naples

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4

7.7

3,774

5.3

1,317

34.9

13,582

18.9

Moderate-income

9

17.3

11,451

15.9

1,207

10.5

13,791

19.2

Middle-income

23

44.2

32,998

45.9

1,556

4.7

14,850

20.7

Upper-income

16

30.8

23,600

32.9

692

2.9

29,600

41.2

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


52

100.0

71,823

100.0

4,772

6.6

71,823

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

5,201

1,788

2.3

34.4

2,940

56.5

473

9.1

Moderate-income

21,361

10,177

13.1

47.6

6,230

29.2

4,954

23.2

Middle-income

61,381

37,340

48.0

60.8

10,260

16.7

13,781

22.5

Upper-income

56,593

28,524

36.6

50.4

5,714

10.1

22,355

39.5

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


144,536

77,829

100.0

53.8

25,144

17.4

41,563

28.8

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

551

1.7

490

1.7

29

2.2

32

3.0

Moderate-income

3,467

11.0

3,223

11.0

100

7.7

144

13.6

Middle-income

14,379

45.5

13,364

45.7

567

43.5

448

42.3

Upper-income

13,207

41.8

12,165

41.6

607

46.6

435

41.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


31,604

100.0

29,242

100.0

1,303

100.0

1,059

100.0


92.5

4.1

3.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

28

11.6

20

9.0

8

44.4

0

0.0

Moderate-income

52

21.5

45

20.3

6

33.3

1

50.0

Middle-income

103

42.6

101

45.5

2

11.1

0

0.0

Upper-income

59

24.4

56

25.2

2

11.1

1

50.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


242

100.0

222

100.0

18

100.0

2

100.0


91.7

7.4

.8




Naples, Florida

106



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6

8.2

4,181

5.2

1,603

38.3

17,150

21.1

Moderate-income

15

20.5

15,305

18.9

1,780

11.6

14,862

18.3

Middle-income

28

38.4

35,999

44.4

1,934

5.4

15,449

19.0

Upper-income

24

32.9

25,650

31.6

1,070

4.2

33,674

41.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


73

100.0

81,135

100.0

6,387

7.9

81,135

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

8,154

2,191

2.4

26.9

3,532

43.3

2,431

29.8

Moderate-income

33,145

15,007

16.4

45.3

7,875

23.8

10,263

31.0

Middle-income

84,139

42,071

46.0

50.0

10,889

12.9

31,179

37.1

Upper-income

69,091

32,128

35.2

46.5

5,824

8.4

31,139

45.1

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


194,529

91,397

100.0

47.0

28,120

14.5

75,012

38.6

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

853

2.7

771

2.6

32

2.5

50

4.8

Moderate-income

4,231

13.4

3,966

13.6

114

9.0

151

14.4

Middle-income

13,664

43.4

12,689

43.5

508

40.1

467

44.5

Upper-income

12,730

40.4

11,736

40.2

612

48.3

382

36.4

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


31,478

100.0

29,162

100.0

1,266

100.0

1,050

100.0


92.6

4.0

3.3

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

29

11.5

22

9.4

7

38.9

0

0.0

Moderate-income

44

17.5

37

15.9

6

33.3

1

100.0

Middle-income

117

46.4

114

48.9

3

16.7

0

0.0

Upper-income

62

24.6

60

25.8

2

11.1

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


252

100.0

233

100.0

18

100.0

1

100.0


92.5

7.1

.4




Naples, Florida

107


The housing market in the Naples MSA has declined due to the national recession and housing market collapse.

The 2010 census data shows that there were 194,529 housing units in the assessment area, of which 91,397

(46.9 percent) were owner-occupied, 28,120 (14.5 percent) were rental units, and 75,012 (38.6 percent) were

vacant.105

Housing vacancy is a concern in the assessment area and the number of vacant housing units

increased by 80 percent over the ten-year period. The median age of the housing stock was 19 years, while

homes in low and moderate communities were 24 and 28 years old, respectively. While a majority of units

were owner-occupied throughout the assessment area, 67 percent of rental units were concentrated in low- and

moderate-income tracts, indicating there may be reduced opportunities for mortgage origination in these

communities.

The median home value in Naples MSA rose to $357,357, or 140 percent from 2000 to 2010, according to

census data. During the recent recession, property values in Naples and Collier County declined for consecutive

years from 2008-2011. Naples’ property values declined on average 4.4 percent, while Collier County property

values declined an average of 8.3 percent. However, the real estate market in the Naples MSA appears to be

recovering. As of September 2013, the MSA median single-family home price was $312,450, which is a 27.5

percent increase year-over-year for the area.106

Low inventories and cash-rich investors are factors contributing

to an upward trajectory in home prices and a declining negative equity position in the Naples MSA.

While Florida ranks 2nd

in the nation with 31 percent of mortgage homeowners owing more on their mortgage

than the home is worth, the number of underwater mortgages in the Naples market has been steadily dropping;

the number is down to 27 percent of mortgage homeowners in the first quarter of 2013 from 37 percent at the

peak in the third quarter of 2009.107

Another encouraging sign for the Naples MSA is a downward trending

foreclosure rate. While the state of Florida continues to have one of the worst foreclosure rates in the nation,

Naples-Marco Island has a foreclosure rate of 5.4 percent as of July 2013, which is a decline of 3.4 percent from

a year earlier according to CoreLogic. Statewide, the foreclosure rate was 8.2 percent.108

The mortgage

delinquency rate, which measures mortgage loans that are 90 days or more past due, is moving downward as

well. In Naples-Marco Island, 8.7 percent of mortgage loans were at least 90 days late, down from 12.9 percent

for the year. Meanwhile, the U.S. rate is 5.4 percent, which is at its lowest level since December 2008.109


Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that employment in the Naples assessment area was

primarily concentrated in retail trade, leisure and hospitality, healthcare and social services, and government.

Professional and business services were significant industries contributing to employment in the area as well.

According to 2011 REIS data, the employment for Collier County was 177,410, a 3.0 percent increase from

2010. Naples Community Hospital is the largest employer in Collier County, employing approximately 4,000.

105


Naples Daily News, “Southwest Florida home prices near top of state list,” accessed on October 23, 2013; available from

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/oct/22/southwest-florida-home-prices-near-top-of-state/ 107

Naples News, “Florida tops the U.S. in May Foreclosures,” available from http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jun/14/florida-

tops-the-us-in-may-foreclosures/; accessed October 9, 2013. 108

Naples News, September 25, 2013, “Foreclosures continue drop in Southwest Florida,” accessed on October 18, 2013, available

from: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/sep/25/foreclosures-continue-drop-in-southwest-florida/. 109

Naples News, September 25, 2013, “Foreclosures continue drop in Southwest Florida,” accessed on October 18, 2013, available

from: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/sep/25/foreclosures-continue-drop-in-southwest-florida/.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/oct/22/southwest-florida-home-prices-near-top-of-state/

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jun/14/florida-tops-the-us-in-may-foreclosures/

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jun/14/florida-tops-the-us-in-may-foreclosures/

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/sep/25/foreclosures-continue-drop-in-southwest-florida/

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/sep/25/foreclosures-continue-drop-in-southwest-florida/



Naples, Florida

108

Some of the other major employers include the Collier County School District; the Collier County Government

and Sheriff’s Department; Home Depot; and the Ritz-Carlton.110

This region is heavily populated with retirees, and as such, health care and personal services have become major

factors in the economy. Tourism-related activities are also crucial to the local economy, creating about 30,600

jobs in 2011. The sector showing the strongest growth over the next few years will be construction, which is

projected to grow at an average rate of 9.1 percent each year. The professional and business services sector and

education and health services sector follow with average projected growth rates of 3.8 percent and 2.3 percent,

respectively.

In the Naples metropolitan area, payroll jobs plunged 17.2 percent from peak-to-trough compared with a

national peak-to-trough decline of 6.5 percent and state decline of 11 percent.111

Much of the job loss came

from sectors impacted most by the housing market collapse, including construction which has lost about 50

percent of total jobs. From 2007 until 2010, the unemployment rate increased dramatically from 4.2 percent to

11.6 percent.112

It is important to note that at the height of the recession in 2010, higher unemployment rates

were reported by low-to-moderate individuals of 10.4 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively.113

The

unemployment rate has been falling during the review period, from 10.2 percent in 2011 to 8.5 percent in 2012.

The unemployment rate in Naples is comparable to the unemployment rate statewide of 8.6 percent.

According to 2012 D&B information, there were 31,478 businesses within the Naples assessment area of which

92.6 percent had total annual revenues less than or equal to $1 million, and were therefore considered to be

small businesses.114

Small business lending peaked in 2007 prior to the beginning of the recession with 7,916

loans made, or 34.3 percent of small business loans originated to businesses with revenue under $1 million. In

2011, the assessment area began to see an uptick in small business lending opportunities with 2,937 loans made

and 8.4 percent increase in the number of loans to small businesses under $1 million.115

Loan origination data

suggests that there is strong small business loan demand and that local financial institutions are lending in this

market.

110

Collier County Government. Retrieved October 21, 2013 from

http://www.colliergov.net/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=43859 111

UCF, Institute for Economic Competitiveness; Florida & Metro Forecast, July 2013. Accessed on October 22, 2013, available

from: http://iec.ucf.edu/post/2013/07/22/Florida-Metro-Forecast-July-2013.aspx 112




Policy Map, CRA Reported Small Business Loans for Borrowers under $1 million; accessed October 23, 2013.

2011 2012

Naples MSA 10.2 8.5

Florida 10.3 8.6



Unemployment Rates



http://www.colliergov.net/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=43859

http://iec.ucf.edu/post/2013/07/22/Florida-Metro-Forecast-July-2013.aspx



Naples, Florida

109

Competition

The assessment area is a somewhat active banking market led by regional and national financial institutions.

According to the June 30, 2012 FDIC Summary of Deposits report, there are 39 institutions active in the

assessment area operating 153 branches and $10.8 billion in deposits. Fifth Third Bank holds the highest

deposit market share with 17.9 percent of the deposits and 20 branches in the market area. IBERIABANK has

the 5th

highest deposit market share with 6.7 percent of total deposits and seven branches in the market area.

IBERIABANK is not a significant HMDA lender in the Naples market. In 2011, IBERIABANK Mortgage

ranked 39th

with 0.3 percent of total HMDA loans, while IBERIABANK ranked 58th

out of 446 HMDA

reporters with an insignificant portion of HMDA loans. In 2012, IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked 26th

with 0.6

percent of total HMDA loans, and IBERIABANK ranked 39th

out of 549 HMDA with 0.2 percent of total loans.

Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase were the top HMDA lenders in the market.


out of 90 CRA reporters with 0.5 percent of the CRA loans in 2011 and 15th

out of

94 CRA reporters in 2012 with 0.7 percent of the CRA loans. American Express Bank was the top CRA lender

in the market for both years.


The economic crisis beginning in 2008 generated significant changes in Collier County and in its housing

market according to the data and contacts with local stakeholders. Some of these changes included: the

reduction in mortgages being offered to potential homeowners; loss of employment throughout the area;

foreclosures of housing units; and the collapse of the construction industry. The recent economic crisis has

exacerbated issues experienced by low- and moderate-income individuals. It also has underscored the need to

build capacity of local organizations serving LMI communities and the importance of creating public-private

partnerships to pursue community development activities in impacted communities including neighborhood

revitalization, affordable housing, and small business lending and financial education.


A report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition indicates that housing affordability is a problem in the

Naples-Marco Island MSA. According to the study, a worker earning a mean wage of $12.66 would have to

work 1.6 full-time jobs (assuming 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year) in order to afford the $1,038 per month

in fair market rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in the market.116

Although the median rent is lower in the low-to-

moderate income tracts in the assessment area ($813 in low-income tracts and $988 in moderate-income

tracts)117

, it would still require hours in excess of 40 hours per week for a resident earning the mean wage.

Moreover, nearly one quarter of the households in Collier County have a problem affording their housing.

Specifically, 14.8 percent of homeowners and renters are considered cost-burdened, meaning that

homeownership or rental costs account for more than 30 percent of household income. Approximately 12

percent of owners and renters are considered severely cost burdened in the county, meaning housing costs

account for more than 50 percent of household income. These figures are slightly below statewide figures with

16.3 percent of Florida residents cost burdened and 12.5 percent severely cost burdened.

Collier County received an $11.2 million allocation in Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds

through two funding rounds. The funds were made available to help stabilize communities hard hit by the

foreclosure crisis. The funds have been used primarily for the acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed

116

National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2013, accessed on October 1, 2013; available at: http://nlihc.org/oor/2013 117





Naples, Florida

110

properties and the development of affordable rental units in formerly blighted locations.118

However, an audit

released in September 2011 found that Collier County’s Housing, Human and Veteran Services Department

mismanaged the funds. Consequently, the County negotiated with Habitat for Humanity to transfer ownership

of the NSP purchased properties and $3.8 million in NSP money; Habitat will rehabilitate the properties and

buy other homes in foreclosure. Habitat appears to have been an ideal choice for the County, given its

production track record; it recently celebrated its 1500th

home in Collier County and has completed over 100

homes a year for the past 10 years, more than any other affiliate in the country. From a local contact, the county

does not appear to have the requisite skill set, capacity, or appetite for further affordable housing development

or facilitation.

In its 2011-2016 consolidated plan, Collier County cited a number of challenges in the affordable housing

delivery system including: lack of housing affordability due to low wages and high unemployment; lack of

mortgage loan opportunities; declining levels of federal and state financial support for housing programs; and

no public housing for very low to low-income households, only farmworker housing projects. Another contact

indicated that there is a lack of housing near jobs for low- and -moderate income residents. The county did not

outline any significant housing and community development initiatives in its 5-year plan or its latest 2012-2013

annual report, which confirms the county’s reluctance to engage in housing development. Of its annual

allocation of $2.6 million for 2012-2013, the more noteworthy projects included support to an emergency youth

shelter and a local housing counselor.

Although research of local housing conditions and discussions with community contacts do not reveal concerted

efforts by public, private and nonprofit groups to engage in affordable housing and community economic

development, there may still be limited opportunities for financial institution participation. In particular, local

financial institutions can seek out opportunities with the county’s Affordable Housing Advisory Board and local

redevelopment agencies; accept Section 8 vouchers for mortgage qualification; support Habitat through

foreclosed home donations, or buy and/or originate mortgages to provide immediate funds for building

materials and land; and participate with the Collier County Loan Consortium. The Collier County Loan

Consortium is comprised of a group of local banking partners offering a 30-year fixed rate loan product with a 3

percent down payment and no private mortgage insurance. The program is designed to assist low-income

households obtain financing for a primary residence if their household income is less than $57,850.


There are numerous ways that local financial institutions can partner with organizations serving small

businesses. They include, but are not limited to: providing long-term investments in these organizations,

providing ongoing sponsorships of small business workshops, and creating a robust referral program for

business owners that do not qualify for traditional loan products.

According to SBA’s list of intermediaries, as of July 2013 the area is served by one local and one national

micro lender. A local contact indicated there is an initiative across the five-county area from Manatee County

south to Collier County to develop a regional loan fund. Additionally, in the City of Immokalee, there is the

Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) which is a designated redevelopment area and rural

enterprise zone. Businesses located within the Immokalee Enterprise Zone may qualify for a variety of

financial incentives. Immokalee CRA launched the Immokalee Business Development Center (IBDC) to assist

entrepreneurs to build their own businesses; the center is situated in a low- income tract with an estimated

median tract income of $23,000 (est. 2013 MSA median of $65,700) and it presumably serves individuals from

the surrounding low- and moderate-income tracts. To assist new businesses, the IBDC created the IBDC

118

U.S. Department of Housing and Development, Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP Grantees. Available:

http://hudnsphelp.info/index.cfm?do=viewGranteeAreaResults, accessed October 1, 2013.




Naples, Florida

111

MicroEnterprise Loan Fund in partnership with Florida Community Bank and One by One Leadership. It is

presently a small loan fund, but this is an opportunity for other local financial institutions to lend their expertise

and invest in a loan fund.

Collier County is served by four community development financial institutions (CDFIs), which provide

opportunities for financial institutions to invest in initiatives such as affordable housing, small businesses and

community facilities lending; however, these CDFIs are located outside of Collier County and provide

statewide programs.119

Similarly, the Florida State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) provides

opportunities for banks to partner on community economic development lending. By reducing risks, the

initiative allows lenders to approve business loans they otherwise could not. The initiative is made possible by

$97 million in federal funding under the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and administered by Enterprise

Florida, Inc. Lastly, in May 2013, two Florida organizations were awarded $100 million tax credit authority

under the New Markets Tax Credits Program (NMTC Program).


With respect to financial stability, FDIC’s National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households reports

that an average of 3.1 percent of households in the Naples Metro are unbanked, meaning they have no type of

deposit account with a mainstream financial institution.120

This percentage is significantly lower than the state

and national percentages, with both being approximately 7 percent. Meanwhile, 14.3 percent of households are

considered underbanked, meaning they have a deposit account but they also rely on alternative financial

services providers on a regular basis; this percentage is slightly on par with state and national percentages.

Figures might be quite higher in the Immokalee community of Collier County. Opportunities for banks include

assessing the needs of low-income un- and underbanked populations, which includes the farm worker

community; developing creative low-cost financial products and services; and expanding access to education on

the interconnection of banking and financial stability.

Another opportunity for engagement by local financial institutions is providing community development

services and investments to the local or regional workforce development board. The Southwest Florida

Workforce Development Board services Collier, Charlotte, Lee, Henry and Glades counties. The agency works

to match employers with job seekers. More importantly, through its Career Centers, assessments, workshops

and occupational training are provided to a variety of individuals that may qualify as LMI, such as unemployed

and underemployed individuals, veterans, youth, welfare recipients, and displaced workers. One particular

initiative offered by the Board is Destination Graduation. Destination Graduation provides mentoring and

intervention services to students with a minimum of two risk factors such as financial, foster care, teen parent,

gang participation, or criminal problems.

119

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Directory of Southeastern Community Development Financial Institutions, October 2013.

Available at: http://www.richmondfed.org/community_development/resource_centers/cdfi/. Accessed: November 15, 2013. 120

Bank On. 2009 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households data through Research Your Community:

Collier County. Available: http://webtools.joinbankon.org/community/search. Accessed: November 1, 2013.

http://www.richmondfed.org/community_development/resource_centers/cdfi/

http://webtools.joinbankon.org/community/search



Naples, Florida

112


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the Naples assessment area is adequate. The geographic distribution

of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment area and the distribution of borrowers reflects

adequate penetration among individuals of different income levels and businesses of different revenue sizes.

The bank made a poor level of community development loans in the Naples assessment area.


business loans in the Naples assessment area. HMDA lending represented 61.5 percent of total lending and


more heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The Naples assessment









Bank’s geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the Naples assessment area.

Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The percentage of loans

originated in low-income census tracts was greater than the percentage of owner-occupied units located in these

census tracts throughout the review period. In addition, the bank’s performance significantly exceeded the

aggregate in both 2011 and 2012. However, the bank’s performance was based on a very limited level of

lending in this product category in the assessment area.

Home purchase lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The percentage of home purchase loans

originated in a moderate-income census tracts exceeded the percentage of owner-occupied units located in these

tracts and was greater than aggregate lending in 2011. The percentage of the bank’s loans in moderate-income

tracts declined during the review period. In 2012, 10.8 percent of the bank’s lending occurred in moderate-

income tracts where 16.4 percent of owner-occupied units are located. The bank’s lending lagged aggregate

lending at 13.8 percent.

The percentage of the bank’s home purchase lending in middle-income census tracts was similar to the

percentage of owner-occupied units in middle-income tracts, while the percentage of loans in upper-income

tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts.



Naples, Florida

113


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank did not make any

refinance loans in low-income tracts in 2011 and aggregate lending was very limited. In 2012, the bank

originated 1.9 percent of home refinance loans in low-income tracts; however aggregate lending was again

limited. Due to limited loan volume and aggregate lending, the bank’s performance is adequate, but minimal

weighting is given to home refinance lending in low-income tracts.

The bank’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The percentage of the bank’s loans

that were made in moderate-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts

and less than aggregate in 2011. The bank’s lending increased slightly in 2012 and 15.1 percent of the bank’s

loans were originated in moderate-income census tracts where 16.4 percent of owner-occupied units are located.

Additionally, the bank’s performance exceeded the aggregate in 2012.

The percentage of the bank’s home purchase lending in middle-income census tracts was similar to the

percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts while the percentage of loans in upper-income tracts was

greater than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank did not

originate any home improvement loans in low-income tracts in 2011 and aggregate lending was limited. In

2012, 14.3 percent of the bank’s home improvement loans were made in low-income census tracts, which was

significantly greater than both the share of owner-occupied housing units in low-income census tracts and

aggregate lending. However, the bank’s performance was based on a very limited level of lending in this

product category in the assessment area.

The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income census tracts is poor. The bank did not originate

any home improvement loans in moderate-income tracts in 2011 while 13.5 percent of aggregate loans were

made in moderate-income tracts. The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income tracts increased

in 2012 and the bank’s performance exceeded both the percentage of owner-occupied housing units in

moderate-income tracts and aggregate lending. However, the bank’s performance was based on a very limited

level of lending in this product category in the assessment area.

The bank’s home improvement loan volume was very low across the assessment area during the review period.

The percentage of loans in middle-income census tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in

these tracts during the review period; the percentage of loans in upper-income census tracts was less than the

percentage of owner-occupied units in 2011 but increased relative to owner-occupied housing units in 2012.


IBERIABANK’s small business lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank’s small business

lending in low-income tracts was greater than the percentage of small businesses in these tracts throughout the

review period. Additionally, aggregate lending was limited but the bank outperformed the aggregate in both

2011 and 2012. The bank’s performance was impacted by the limited volume of small business lending in the

assessment area.

The bank’s small business lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The bank originated just one small

business loan in a moderate-income census tract in 2011 while 11 percent of small businesses were located in

moderate-income census tracts, and 8.0 percent of aggregate lending was in moderate-income tracts. The



Naples, Florida

114

bank’s small business lending increased in 2012. The bank originated 9.1 percent of small business loans in

moderate-income tracts, which was less than the percentage of small businesses but similar to aggregate lending

in moderate-income tracts.









Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is good. In 2011, the percentage of loans to

low-income borrowers was considerably greater than the percentage of low-income families in the assessment

area; in 2012 the bank originated 16.9 percent of loans to low-income borrower’s compared to 21.1 percent of

families classified as low-income in the assessment area. The bank substantially outperformed the aggregate



loans to moderate-income borrowers was less than the percentage of moderate-income families and less than

aggregate lending in 2011. The bank’s lending to moderate-income borrowers increased in 2012 and the bank

originated 24.6 percent of home purchase loans to moderate-income borrowers while 18.3 percent of families

were considered moderate-income in the assessment area. The bank’s performance compared favorably to

aggregate in 2012; 13.3 percent of aggregate loans were made to moderate-income borrowers.

IBERIABANK has very little home purchase lending to middle- or upper-income borrowers in 2011. In 2012,

lending to middle- and upper-income borrowers was similar to the percentage of families classified as middle-

or upper-income in the assessment area.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The bank had very few

refinance loans to low-income borrowers in in 2011; refinance loans to low-income borrowers represented 5.6

percent of total loans, which exceeded the aggregate of 4.6 percent. However, this performance was driven by

very limited loan volume. In 2012, the bank originated 9.4 percent of home refinance loans to low-income

borrowers, which was less than the percentage of families classified as low-income in the assessment area, but

considerably more than the 6.4 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home refinance lending to moderate-income borrowers is good. The bank’s performance in 2011

compared favorably to aggregate. In 2012, the bank originated 24.5 percent of home refinance loans to

moderate-income borrowers compared to 18.3 percent of families classified as moderate-income in the

assessment area. The bank’s lending was also greater than aggregate at 12.0 percent of total loans to moderate-

income borrowers.

The bank’s home refinance lending to middle- and upper-income borrowers was comparable to the percentage

of middle- and upper-income families in the assessment area throughout the review period.



Naples, Florida

115


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low-income borrowers is poor. The bank did not originate any

home improvement loans to low-income borrowers in 2011. In 2012, 21.4 percent of the bank’s loans were

made to low-income borrowers; the bank’s lending was comparable to the percentage of low-income families in

the assessment area and exceeded aggregate lending. However, the bank’s performance was based on a limited

level of lending of this product category in the assessment area.

The bank’s home improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers is poor. The bank did not originate any

home improvement loans to moderate-income borrowers in 2011, while 17.7 percent of aggregate loans were

made to moderate-income borrowers. In 2012, the bank originated 14.3 percent of home improvement loans to

moderate-income borrowers, which was less than the percentage of moderate-income families in the assessment

area and less than aggregate lending of 18.9 percent.

The bank made no home improvement loans to middle-income borrowers in 2011; in 2012, the percentage of

loans to middle-income borrowers was less than percentage of middle-income families. Lending to upper-

income families was greater than the percentage upper-income families in the assessment area throughout the

review period.



small business loans to businesses with revenues of $1 million or less was less than the percentage of small

businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. However, the bank’s lending was comparable

to aggregate in 2011 and significantly greater than aggregate in 2012.


IBERIABANK made a poor level of community development loans in the Naples assessment area. The bank

did not have any community development loans originated in the Naples assessment area. However, the bank

had a loan to a statewide CDFI that benefits a regional area that includes the assessment area but has a diffused

benefit to the assessment area.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the Naples assessment area is adequate.

The bank had 14 investments totaling $2.2 million; all investments were current period investments. All of the

bank’s investments were government-guaranteed mortgage backed securities.

The bank made 38 contributions totaling $125,490. Notably, the bank provided $32,000 in mortgage grants to

assist qualified LMI homebuyers with down payment assistance and closing costs. Other significant

contributions provided support for financial education, youth and family services, behavioral health, emergency

assistance and other community services that assist low- and moderate-income individuals and communities.


affordable housing and the financial stability of low- and moderate-income individuals. A summary of the

bank’s investments can be found in Appendix K.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the Naples assessment area is adequate. Its retail and

community development services reflect adequate responsiveness to the needs of the assessment area.



Naples, Florida

116

Retail Services

IBERIABANK’s delivery systems in the assessment area are marginally accessible to portions of the bank’s

geographies and individuals of different income levels. The distribution of eight branch offices and eight

ATMs as of December 31, 2012, was compared to the distribution of households and businesses among the tract

categories within the assessment area. The bank has one branch located in a moderate-income tract,

representing 12.5 percent of total branches compared to 19.1 percent of households and 13.4 percent of

businesses located in moderate-income communities. While the percentage of households and businesses in

low-income tracts are 4.8 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively, the bank has no branches in low-income tracts.

During the review period, the bank opened one branch, located in a moderate-income census tract.




moderate-income individuals. IBERIABANK does not offer weekend and extended hours at any of its branch

offices in the Naples assessment area. Bank products, services, and standard business hours are consistent

throughout the assessment area.



During the review period, IBERIABANK employees provided 675 service hours in various capacities for

community development organizations, by participating in 19 different community development services.

Board service represented approximately 53 percent of the total community development service hours. Bank

employees engaged in providing financial education, homeownership counseling and small business assistance,

as well as working with a variety of organizations that provided community services in low- and moderate-

income geographies and for low- and moderate-income individuals.


# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 1 12.5% 1 0 1 0 0 Total 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle 2 25.0% 0 0 2 0 0 Total 2 25.0% 2 25.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 5 62.5% 0 0 5 0 0 Total 5 62.5% 5 62.5% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 100.0% 1 0 8 0 0 Total 8 100.0% 8 100.0% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

73 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

28 38.4% 44.3% 43.4%

24 32.9% 31.8% 40.4%

6 8.2% 4.8% 2.7%

15 20.5% 19.1% 13.4%

# % # % # %


Tracts

House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours




117


DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE FLORIDA METROPOLITAN

ASSESSMENT AREAS

Ft. Myers Assessment Area (Lee County)


26 percent of its branches in Florida.



Florida.

Palm Beach-Broward Assessment Area (Palm Beach and Broward Counties)





Florida.







Assessment

Areas


Ft. Myers Consistent Above Consistent

Palm Beach-

Broward Consistent Consistent Above

For the lending test, IBERIABANK received a Low Satisfactory rating for the state of Florida. Performance in

all limited-scope metropolitan assessment areas was consistent with the bank’s performance in the state;

however, community development lending in the Ft. Myers assessment areas was stronger than the bank’s

performance in the state as a result of the bank’s lending for a number of affordable housing and community

services projects.

For the investment test, IBERIABANK received a Low Satisfactory rating for the state of Florida. Performance

in the Ft. Myers assessment area was stronger than the bank’s performance in the state, while the performance

in Palm Beach-Broward metropolitan assessment area was consistent with the bank’s performance in the state.

For the service test, IBERIABANK received a High Satisfactory rating for the state. The performance in Ft.

Myers was consistent with the bank’s performance in the state, while the performance in the Palm Beach-

Broward assessment area was stronger than the bank’s performance in the state due to greater accessibility of

delivery systems.





118


DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE FLORIDA NON-METROPOLITAN

ASSESSMENT AREAS

Keys Assessment Area (Monroe County)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated four branches in the assessment area, representing




Florida.








Keys Consistent Above Consistent

For the lending test, performance in Keys assessment area was consistent with the bank’s performance in the

state. Community development lending was stronger than the bank’s performance in the state, while the

geographic and borrower distribution of loans was weaker. The bank provided equity and financing for the

development of a 36-unit Low Income Housing Tax Credit project in Monroe County, which will provide

workforce housing options for employees serving the tourism industry.

For the investment test, performance in the Keys assessment area was stronger than the bank’s performance in

the state due to significantly higher levels of qualified investments relative to the bank’s operations in the

assessment area. Specifically, as noted above, the bank invested in a LIHTC project located in the assessment

area.

For the service test, the performance in the Keys assessment area was consistent with the bank’s performance in

the state as a result of the bank’s high level of community development services.




Alabama

119

CRA RATING FOR ALABAMA: Satisfactory



The Service Test is rated: Low Satisfactory


The geographic distribution of loans reflects good penetration throughout the assessment areas. In



Lending activity reflects adequate responsiveness to assessment area credit needs.

The bank is a leader in making community development loans within the assessment areas.



Retail services are reasonably accessible to the bank’s geographies and individuals of different income

levels in the assessment areas.

The bank provides a relatively high level of community development services throughout the assessment

areas.



Alabama

120


A full scope review was conducted for one assessment area in the State of Alabama:

Birmingham

Limited scope reviews were conducted for the remaining four assessment areas:

Baldwin

Huntsville

Mobile

Montgomery



DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN ALABAMA

Lending activity in Alabama accounted for 11 percent of the bank’s total lending activity. HMDA-reportable

lending in Alabama represented 10 percent of the bank’s total HMDA-reportable lending, while small business

and small farm lending represented 12 percent of the bank’s total small business and small farm lending. As of

June 30, 2012, the bank had $608.5 million in deposits in Alabama accounting for 6 percent of IBERIABANK’s

total deposits. IBERIABANK ranks 17th

out of 172 insured institutions in the state with less than 1 percent of

total deposits. As of December 31, 2012, IBERIABANK operated 16 branch offices in Alabama representing 9

percent of the bank’s total branches.


Lending Test

The lending test rating in the State of Alabama is High Satisfactory.

IBERIABANK is both a HMDA and small business lender; HMDA lending was given greater consideration in

determining the lending test rating for Alabama because the bank originated more HMDA loans by number than

small business loans. Birmingham is only full scope assessment area in the state, so the rating for Alabama is

based solely on the ratings for the Birmingham assessment area. Birmingham accounts for 50 percent of the

branches in the state; 46 percent of deposits; 30 percent of HMDA lending; and 40 percent of small business

lending in the state. In addition, 53 percent of community development lending occurred in the Birmingham

assessment area. IBERIABANK originated just one small farm loan in Alabama during the review period;

therefore, no detailed discussion of these loans is included in this section of the report.




Alabama

121





The geographic distribution of IBERIABANK’s HMDA and small business loans is good and the distribution

of loans by borrower’s income and revenue size of business is adequate in Alabama. As noted above, the state

of Alabama’s rating is derived solely from the Birmingham assessment area. A detailed discussion of the

geographic and borrower distribution of lending for the Birmingham assessment area is included in the next

section of this report.


IBERIABANK is a leader in making community development loans in Alabama. The bank originated 7

community development loans totaling $17.7 million across the state, including 3 loans in the Birmingham

assessment area for $9.5 million. Total community development lending includes a $3.5 million community

development loan originated outside a designated assessment area that benefited a broader statewide or regional

area. More information on community development lending can be found in the full-scope assessment area

section.

Investment Test

The investment test rating for Alabama is High Satisfactory. The bank made significant use of qualified

investments and contributions with total investments of $9.2 million and contributions of $316,251 in the

Alabama assessment areas. The bank exhibited good responsiveness to credit and community development

needs through its investment activities in the Birmingham assessment area.




Loan Type # % $ (000s) %

HMDA Home Purchase 880 38.1% $158,805 31.6%

HMDA Refinance 732 31.7% $179,361 35.7%

HMDA Home Improvement 54 2.3% $790 0.2%


Total HMDA 1,671 72.3% $342,242 68.2%


Total Farm 3 0.1% $400 0.1%

TOTAL LOANS 2,310 100.0% $502,095 100.0%


Alabama




Alabama

122

Service Test

The service test rating for Alabama is Low Satisfactory.

Retail Services

Delivery systems, including ATMs and branch office locations, are reasonably accessible to the bank’s

geographies and individuals of different income levels in the assessment areas. Overall, banking services and

hours of operation do not vary in a way that inconveniences the assessment areas, including low- and moderate-

income geographies or low- and moderate-income individuals. The bank’s record of opening and closing of

offices has not affected the accessibility of its delivery systems, including to low- and moderate-income

geographies and/or low- and moderate-income individuals.


The bank provides a relatively high level of community development services that benefit residents and small

businesses in the bank’s assessment areas. Notably IBERIABANK reported a significant number of community

development board service hours in all assessment areas.



Birmingham, Alabama

123

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUION’S OPERATIONS IN THE BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

ASSESSMENT AREA

Overview

The Birmingham assessment includes six of the seven counties in the Birmingham MSA: Bibb, Blount,

Jefferson, St. Claire, Walker, and Shelby counties. Birmingham, located in Jefferson County, is the principal

city in the region. IBERIABANK operates eight branches in the assessment area, with one in a moderate

income tract. Seven branches are located in Jefferson County and one in Shelby County.


The population in the assessment area was 1.1 million in 2010, representing a 7 percent increase since 2000.

The region grew faster than elsewhere in the state, but the growth was uneven. New suburban jurisdictions that

did not even exist several decades ago grew the fastest, while the city of Birmingham experienced a population

loss of approximately 12.7 percent between 2000 and 2010.121



estimated median family income for the Birmingham-Hoover MSA and shows that the median family income

increased slightly from $62,000 to $62,800 between 2011 and 2012.






As shown, the percentage of low-income census tracts increased from 7.4 percent in 2000 to 9.8 percent in

2010, while the percentage of moderate-income census tracts declined from 29 percent to 25.1 percent. The

number of total housing units in low-income tracts increased from 25,276 in 2000 to 39,955 in 2010, an

increase of 58.1 percent, while the number of housing units in moderate- tracts fell by 3.9 percent. During the

same time period, the number of housing units in middle- and upper-income census tracts increased by

approximately 20 percent. The share of vacant housing units increased across all income categories; the total

number of vacant units accounted for 9.1 percent of all housing units in 2000, and increased to 12.1 percent by

2010.

121

U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on October 23, 2012); available from http://www.policymap.com

0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $62,000 0 - $30,999 $31,000 - $49,599 $49,600 - $74,399 $74,400 - & above

2012 $62,800 0 - $31,399 $31,400 - $50,239 $50,240 - $75,359 $75,360 - & above


Birmingham-Hoover, AL MSA


Family Income





Birmingham, Alabama

124


Assessment Area: AL Birmingham

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

16

7.4

12,468

4.5

5,203

41.7

59,700

21.5

Moderate-income

63

29.0

67,276

24.2

12,791

19.0

47,928

17.3

Middle-income

78

35.9

109,121

39.3

8,854

8.1

56,126

20.2

Upper-income

60

27.6

88,631

31.9

2,281

2.6

113,742

41.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


217

100.0

277,496

100.0

29,129

10.5

277,496

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

25,276

6,654

2.3

26.3

14,136

55.9

4,486

17.7

Moderate-income

113,035

64,738

22.8

57.3

35,379

31.3

12,918

11.4

Middle-income

169,311

116,336

40.9

68.7

37,710

22.3

15,265

9.0

Upper-income

129,065

96,408

33.9

74.7

25,728

19.9

6,929

5.4

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


436,687

284,136

100.0

65.1

112,953

25.9

39,598

9.1

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

5,583

8.2

4,709

7.7

666

16.3

208

8.6

Moderate-income

10,501

15.5

9,487

15.4

600

14.7

414

17.0

Middle-income

24,550

36.1

22,421

36.5

1,211

29.6

918

37.8

Upper-income

27,324

40.2

24,824

40.4

1,611

39.4

889

36.6

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


67,958

100.0

61,441

100.0

4,088

100.0

2,429

100.0


90.4

6.0

3.6

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4

0.6

4

0.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

136

19.5

127

18.9

6

28.6

3

75.0

Middle-income

400

57.5

391

58.3

8

38.1

1

25.0

Upper-income

156

22.4

149

22.2

7

33.3

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


696

100.0

671

100.0

21

100.0

4

100.0


96.4

3.0

.6




Birmingham, Alabama

125



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

25

9.8

17,911

6.4

5,928

33.1

61,534

21.9

Moderate-income

64

25.1

56,980

20.2

9,816

17.2

47,976

17.0

Middle-income

94

36.9

113,829

40.4

10,156

8.9

55,164

19.6

Upper-income

71

27.8

92,690

32.9

2,648

2.9

116,736

41.5

Unknown-income

1

0.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


255

100.0

281,410

100.0

28,548

10.1

281,410

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

39,955

13,121

4.4

32.8

17,881

44.8

8,953

22.4

Moderate-income

108,573

54,821

18.3

50.5

34,363

31.6

19,389

17.9

Middle-income

188,277

125,776

42.0

66.8

39,784

21.1

22,717

12.1

Upper-income

140,230

105,486

35.3

75.2

24,388

17.4

10,356

7.4

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


477,035

299,204

100.0

62.7

116,416

24.4

61,415

12.9

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4,955

7.8

4,231

7.4

510

12.8

214

9.1

Moderate-income

11,710

18.5

10,375

18.3

877

22.0

458

19.5

Middle-income

22,627

35.8

20,604

36.3

1,142

28.7

881

37.5

Upper-income

23,853

37.8

21,610

38.0

1,450

36.4

793

33.8

Unknown-income

10

0.0

9

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.0


63,155

100.0

56,829

100.0

3,979

100.0

2,347

100.0


90.0

6.3

3.7

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6

0.8

6

0.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

207

29.2

203

29.4

3

17.6

1

100.0

Middle-income

327

46.2

316

45.8

11

64.7

0

0.0

Upper-income

168

23.7

165

23.9

3

17.6

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


708

100.0

690

100.0

17

100.0

1

100.0


97.5

2.4

.1




Birmingham, Alabama

126



percent were owner-occupied, 24.4 percent were rental units, and 12.9 percent were vacant. Rental units are

more concentrated in low- and moderate-income tracts. The median age of the housing stock was 34 years,

though housing was much older in the low- and moderate-income census tracts compared to the assessment area

overall. These factors indicate that lending opportunities in the low- and moderate-income tracts may be more

limited.

The Birmingham housing market weakened during the economic downturn but has been steadily improving

since 2010. Home sales have increased by 33 percent since September 2010 according to the Alabama Center

for Real Estate at the University of Alabama; median home prices are up by 8.6 percent. The median home

price in the Birmingham MSA was $165,000 in September 2013. New home construction is also on the rise

again and much of the new growth is occurring outside Birmingham, particularly in Hoover and other suburban

jurisdictions.122

Housing costs are a challenge for homeowners and renters across the assessment area, particularly in

Birmingham where more than 50 percent of renters and 35 percent of homeowners are cost-burdened. A

household is considered cost-burdened if homeownership or rental costs account for more than 30 percent of

household income.123

The 2013 Out of Reach study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition confirms

housing affordability is a problem, finding a minimum wage worker would have to work 2.1 jobs (assuming 40

hours a week for 52 weeks a year) in order to afford the fair market rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in the

Birmingham MSA.124

Mortgage delinquencies rose during the economic downturn, and remain a concern in the assessment area. The

percent of mortgages considered seriously delinquent (defined as more than 90 days past due or in foreclosure)

declined from 6.3 percent in January 2011 to 5.4 percent in June 2013. Jefferson County consistently has one of

the highest foreclosure rates in the state.125

Vacant and abandoned housing units due to decades of population loss and the foreclosure crisis are also

impacting the market in the city of Birmingham and neighborhood stabilization generally. Birmingham city

officials have tagged almost 2,000 units for demolition and have identified another 7,000 vacant properties.126

These properties are more concentrated in the city’s low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and have a

destabilizing effect on the surrounding communities.


The Birmingham economy was historically based on manufacturing, and specifically the steel industry. The

economy has diversified in recent years and the manufacturing sector now accounts for just 7.4 percent of total

employment. The service sector has become the dominant source of jobs. Government agencies also account

for a significant share of employment in the region, and despite changes in the financial services landscape,

122

Alabama Center for Real Estate, University of Alabama. September 2013. (accessed October 14, 2013); available at:

http://acre.cba.ua.edu/store/store_files/Birmingham_Report-2838.pdf 123





AL.com and The Birmingham News editorial board. “OUR VIEW: Birmingham Mayor William Bell and City Council right to

move quickly on abandoned buildings.” June 2, 2012. (accessed on November); available at: http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-

commentary/2012/06/our_view_birmingham_mayor_will_24.html




Birmingham, Alabama

127

Birmingham is still one of the financial centers in the Southeast.127

The University of Alabama at Birmingham

is the largest employer in the region with almost 19,000 employees. Other employers include Regions Bank,

AT&T, St. Vincent’s Health System, Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, Baptist Health System, Inc., the city of

Birmingham, and the Birmingham and Jefferson County Boards of Education.128

Small businesses are important to the Birmingham economy though the number of small businesses in the

assessment area declined by about 8 percent over the review period. According to 2012 D&B information,

there were 67,958 businesses within the Birmingham assessment area, of which 90 percent had total annual

revenues less than or equal to $1 million, and were therefore considered to be small businesses.129

Small

business lending to firms with revenues $1.0 million or less fell by 72 percent between 2005 and 2009. Lending

started to increase in 2010 and the number of small business loans increased by 50 percent between 2010 and

2011. While small business lending has increased, well under 50 percent of all small business loans are made to

firms with revenues under $1.0 million, indicating that smaller firms may still be struggling to access credit.130

Economic conditions across the Birmingham-Hoover MSA declined during the recession, but the region has

started to recover, with increasing jobs and falling unemployment over the review period. The services sector

contributed the largest number of new jobs, with much of the growth in food services and retail, which are

typically lower wage jobs. The region also saw growth in manufacturing jobs while job losses occurred in the

government and construction sectors. As shown in the table below, the unemployment rate fell from 7.9 percent

to 6.4 percent between 2011 and 2012, and is well below the unemployment rate for the state at 7.3 percent.131

127

Center for Business and Economic Research, Culverhouse College of Commerce, the University of Alabama. Alabama Economic

Outlook, Birmingham-Hoover 2013; (accessed October 18, 2013); available at:

http://cber.cba.ua.edu/pdf/EconomicOutlook_Metro2013/Birmingham-Hoover.pdf 128

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. “Comprehensive Housing

Market Analysis, Birmingham-Hoover, Alabama, April 2011” (accessed October 29, 2012); available at

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/PDF/BirminghamAL_Comp.pdf. 129



Bureau of Labor Statistics

2011 2012

Bibb Co. 9.5 7.6

Blount Co. 8.0 6.2

Jefferson Co. 8.4 6.8

St. Clair Co. 7.9 6.4

Shelby Co. 6.1 5.0

Walker Co. 9.1 7.5

Birmingham MSA 7.9 6.4

Alabama 8.7 7.3



Unemployment Rates



http://cber.cba.ua.edu/pdf/EconomicOutlook_Metro2013/Birmingham-Hoover.pdf

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/PDF/BirminghamAL_Comp.pdf



Birmingham, Alabama

128

The Birmingham MSA has had a challenging few years. Jefferson County filed for bankruptcy protection in

November 2011 with the goal of restructuring more than $4.3 billion in county debt. At the time, this was the

largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.132

As a result of the bankruptcy, the county has had to make

budget cuts in excess of $30 million and has had to lay off about 800 employees.133

The region has also been

impacted by natural disasters. In April 2011, deadly tornados hit the Birmingham area, claiming the lives of at

least 46 people and destroying or damaging thousands of homes, primarily in Jefferson, St. Clair, and Walker

counties.134

While the past few years have been difficult, there are a number of new projects underway across the MSA. In

late 2012, Norfolk Southern completed the $97.5 million Birmingham Regional Intermodal Facility, which will

ultimately create more than 200 new jobs, and has given a boost to the region as a center for logistics. The

entrepreneurial community is also growing. Innovation Depot, which was recognized as the nation’s top

technology incubator in 2011 is expanding to serve about 90 companies. There are also a number of projects

underway to help revitalize downtown Birmingham, including Railroad Park, a new minor league stadium and a

number of other civic, residential, office and retail-oriented projects.135

Competition

The Birmingham assessment area is a competitive banking market dominated by several national and super

regional banks. According to the June 30, 2012, FDIC Summary of Deposit Report, 46 financial institutions

operated 345 offices in the assessment area. IBERIABANK ranked 11th

with a deposit market share of 1.0

percent ($278.6 million) and 7 of the 345 offices.136

Regions Bank, Compass Bank, and Wells Fargo Bank

were the top three financial institutions with deposit market share at 34.6 percent, 17.9 percent and 11.9 percent,

respectively.

HMDA and CRA lending are also dominated by national and larger regional banks. In 2011, IBERIABANK

Mortgage ranked 60th

out of 385 lenders with less than 1 percent of total HMDA loans, and IBERIABANK

ranked 85th

. HMDA lending increased in 2012 and IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked 32nd

out of 418 lenders yet

still had less than 1 percent of total HMDA lending. Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase and Regions were the

largest HMDA lenders in the assessment area. For CRA lending, IBERIABANK ranked 18th

in 2011 and 20th

in 2012 with less than 1 percent of CRA loans in each year. CRA lending is dominated by the national credit

card issuers (American Express and Capital One), followed by Regions Bank.



Access to quality, affordable housing is an ongoing concern in Birmingham. One community contact noted that

there is a particular need for affordable rental housing. Low-income individuals, including those who lost their

132

The official website of Jefferson County, Alabama. JeffCOnline Article. Jefferson County Commission Press Release, November

9, 2011 Jefferson County Files for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy. (accessed on October 18, 2013); available at:

http://jeffconline.jccal.org/home/DocumentManager/general/bankruptcydocuments/1262937844 133










IBERIABANK opened an additional branch in late 2012 and had 8 total branches in the assessment area as of 12/31/12.

http://cber.cba.ua.edu/pdf/EconomicOutlook_Metro2012/Birmingham-Hoover.pdf



Birmingham, Alabama

129

homes through foreclosure, are not able to afford current market rents. Two contacts who specialize in

affordable housing said that the banks are not meeting the needs of LMI communities and there are numerous

opportunities for them to be more engaged by providing mortgage financing, home improvement loans and

quality housing for the elderly and veterans. The city of Birmingham does offer some down payment

assistance, but a community contact familiar with the program indicated that it was hard for many homeowners

to use the funds since they are unable to qualify for first mortgages. The city is currently exploring

opportunities to create alternative sources of mortgage financing for LMI homeowners.

Neighborhood stabilization in the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis is another concern. In 2009, the city of

Birmingham received about $2.9 million from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as part

of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). These funds are available to support several neighborhood

stabilization activities, and Birmingham has chosen to focus on the acquisition and rehabilitation of foreclosed

properties in communities particularly hard hit by foreclosure. In addition to the NSP program, the city of

Birmingham has targeted other federal funds to address the high concentration of bighted and vacant housing in

LMI communities and to increase the supply of quality affordable housing units in these areas.137

Disaster Recovery

The tornados that hit Birmingham in April 2011 were particularly devastating for low- and moderate-income

areas and created opportunities for financial institutions to engage in disaster recovery efforts. Government,

business, and nonprofit leaders came together immediately to provide assistance to the impacted communities

and individuals. In September 2012, HUD approved $14 million in tornado recovery plans for Jefferson County

and Birmingham. These funds will support long-term disaster recovery efforts and can be used to confront

unmet housing, business and infrastructure needs.138

One community contact indicated that there was a great

opportunity for local banks to help develop a program that would assist people displaced by the tornados and

other natural disasters in the future.


Small business credit declined during the recession, and while the region is now recovering, community

contacts specializing in small business felt credit access was still limited. Specifically, small dollar loans are

very challenging to obtain, and there is a perception in the community that the large banks have very little

appetite for this type of lending.

One community contact indicated that there were opportunities for banks to increase support for small

businesses through investments in organizations that provide financing assistance, or have the ability to develop

financing programs. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) are an important partner for small

business financing, but the capacity of the CDFIs serving Birmingham is limited. Community contacts also

indicated that small business owners need more technical assistance to help position them for traditional bank

financing and that banks should be investing more time in building relationships with traditionally

disadvantaged businesses.

137

City of Birmingham, Consolidated Plan 2010-2015.(accessed on October 18, 2013); available at:

http://www.informationbirmingham.com/pdf/community/B'hamConPlan(Final)5%2013%2010.pdf 138

Birmingham Business Journal “HUD approves $55M in Alabama tornado recovery plans” September 11, 2012. (accessed October

25, 2012); available at: http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2012/09/11/hud-approves-55m-in-alabama-tornado.html.

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2012/09/11/hud-approves-55m-in-alabama-tornado.html



Birmingham, Alabama

130


Poverty has been on the rise across the assessment area and particularly in Birmingham where the 27.3 percent

of the population lived in poverty in 2010. Food stamp usage, another indicator of financial distress, has also

been rising. With the exception of Shelby County, between 15 and 18 percent of the population in all counties

in the assessment area were receiving food stamps in 2010.139

In light of increasing poverty and economic challenges, there are a number of efforts focused on improving

financial capability and household financial stability. One opportunity for banks is to expand access to

mainstream financial services through programs like BankOn Birmingham and BankOn Alabama. According

to the FDIC’s 2011 National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, 12.1 percent of households

are unbanked, meaning they have no type of deposit account with a mainstream financial institution. In

addition, 33 percent of households are considered underbanked, meaning they have a deposit account but they

regularly use alternative financial services providers.140

According to one community contact, Birmingham has

a large presence of payday lenders, which are creating a cycle of poverty in the city. Banks have a big

opportunity to create more flexible, non-predatory products to reach this potential customer base, and keep

people from payday lenders. In addition to the banking initiatives, the Alabama Asset Building coalition has

been working to increase access to Individual Development Account (IDAs), financial education and free tax

assistance programs and to address policy issues related to predatory lending.

139








Birmingham, Alabama

131


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the Birmingham assessment area is good. The geographic distribution

of loans reflects good penetration throughout the assessment area and the distribution of borrowers reflects




business loans in the Birmingham assessment area. HMDA lending represented 62.0 percent of total lending

and small business lending accounted for 38.0 percent. Therefore, the performance of HMDA lending is

weighted more heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The

Birmingham assessment area contains 2.9 percent of the bank’s total HMDA lending and 5.6 percent of its total

small business lending by number of loans. In comparison, 3.0 percent of the bank’s total deposits are in this

assessment area.







Bank’s geographic distribution of loans reflects good penetration throughout the assessment area.

Home Purchase Loans

The bank originated only one home purchase loan in a low-income tract in 2012 where 4.4 percent of owner-

occupied units are located. It should be noted that the aggregate also had very low lending levels in both 2011

and 2012, which may suggest a limited lending opportunities in the low-income tracts in this assessment area.

Due to the bank’s low volume of home purchase lending, limited aggregate activity and other performance

context factors, the bank’s performance is adequate, with minimal weighting given to home purchase lending in

low-income tracts.

Home purchase lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The bank increased its home purchase lending

in moderate-income tracts between 2011 and 2012, but the percentage of home purchase loans originated in

moderate-income tracts in both years was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units located in these

tracts. The bank’s performance was comparable to aggregate in 2011 and slightly below aggregate performance

in 2012. In 2012, the bank originated 7.3 percent of its home purchase loans in moderate-income tracts


The bank’s home purchase lending in middle- and upper-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-




low-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in low-income tracts throughout the



Birmingham, Alabama

132

review period. The aggregate also had limited refinance activity in low-income tracts, yet the aggregate

performance exceeded the bank’s performance in 2012.

The bank’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is poor. All of the bank’s refinance loans in

moderate-income tracts were originated in 2012; the bank originated 8.6 percent of its home refinance loans in

moderate-income tracts, where 18.3 percent of owner-occupied units are located. With no refinance lending in

moderate-income tracts in 2011, the bank performed poorly compared to aggregate, but in 2012, the bank

outperformed the aggregate.





IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in low-income census tracts is adequate. The bank did not

originate any home improvement loans in 2011, but in 2012 but the bank originated 10.3 percent of its home

improvement loans in low-income tracts, where 4.4 percent of owner-occupied units are located. Moreover, the

bank significantly exceeded aggregate performance in 2012; however, the bank’s performance was based on a

limited volume of lending of this product category in the assessment area.

The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income census tracts is good. Throughout the review

period, the bank’s percentage of loans in moderate-income tracts was greater than the percentage of owner-

occupied units located in these tracts. The bank also performed favorably to the aggregate, originating 51.7

percent of its home improvement loans in moderate-income tracts in 2012 compared to 18.0 percent of

aggregate loans.

The bank’s total home improvement lending in the assessment area increased significantly during the review

period. However, in 2012, the percent of home improvement loans in both middle- and upper-income tracts

was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units.


IBERIABANK’s small business lending in low-income census tracts is excellent. The bank’s small business

lending in low-income tracts was greater than the percentage of small businesses in those tracts and exceeded

aggregate lending throughout the review period.


moderate-income tracts was less than the percentage of small businesses in those tracts throughout the review

period. The bank’s performance was slightly less than aggregate in 2011 but in 2012, the bank made 16.1

percent of its small business loans in moderate-income tracts, compared to 14.6 percent of aggregate loans.



percentage of small businesses in upper-income tracts in the assessment area.



distribution of small business lending across business revenue sizes and HMDA lending across borrower



Birmingham, Alabama

133

income levels was compared to available demographic information. Performance context issues were also


Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The bank significantly

increased home purchase lending to low-income borrowers between 2011 and 2012 yet lending was less than

the percentage of low-income families living in the assessment area for both years. The bank performed well

compared to aggregate in 2012, with 15.2 percent of its home purchase loans to low-income borrowers versus

the aggregate at 10.3 percent.


loans to moderate-income borrowers was similar to or greater than the percentage of moderate-income families

located in the assessment area throughout the review period. The bank underperformed relative to the aggregate

in 2011 but exceeded aggregate in 2012, originating 29.3 percent of home purchase loans to moderate-income

borrowers compared to 23.3 percent for the aggregate.



percentage of upper-income families.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The number of home refinance

loans to low-income borrowers increased between 2011 and 2012 but the percentage of home refinance loans

made to low-income borrowers was well below the percentage of low-income families in the assessment area

for both years. In 2012, the bank originated 7.4 percent of its home refinance loans to low-income borrowers,

compared to 21.9 percent of families classified as low-income in the assessment area. The bank’s performance

was less than aggregate performance in 2011 but greater than aggregate in 2012.


loans to moderate-income borrowers was well below the percentage of moderate-income families in the

assessment area and below aggregate in 2011. The bank’s performance improved in 2012 with 15.3 percent of

loans to moderate-income borrowers compared to 17.0 percent of families classified as moderate-income.

Additionally, the bank outperformed the aggregate.





IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low-income borrowers is poor. The bank originated just one

home improvement loan to a low-income borrower in 2011. In 2012, the bank’s percentage of home

improvement loans to low-income borrowers was significantly less than the percentage of low-income families

in the assessment area. In addition, the bank performed well below the aggregate, originating 6.9 percent of

total home improvement loans to low-income borrowers compared to 13.2 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank’s home improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers is adequate. The bank originated no

home improvement loans to moderate-income borrowers in 2011 while loans to moderate-income borrowers

accounted for 23.6 percent of aggregate lending. In 2012, the bank’s percentage of home improvement loans to



Birmingham, Alabama

134

moderate-income borrowers was significantly more than the percentage of moderate-income families in the

assessment area. Additionally, the bank’s performance in home improvement lending to moderate-income

borrowers (27.6 percent of total loans) was significantly higher than the aggregate (21.6 percent).

The bank’s volume of home improvement loans to middle and upper-income borrowers was limited in 2011. In

2012, home improvement lending to middle income borrowers exceeded the percentage of middle-income

families in the assessment area, while lending to upper-income borrowers was less than the percentage of upper-

income families.



percentage of small business loans to businesses with revenues of $1 million or less was significantly below the

percentage of small businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. Most recently, in 2012, the

bank originated 36.8 percent of its loans to small businesses, although 90.0 percent of total businesses in the

assessment area are classified as small businesses. The bank performed similarly to aggregate throughout the

review period.


IBERIABANK is a leader in making community development loans in the Birmingham assessment area. The

bank originated 3 community development loans totaling $9.5 million during the review period. Loans

supported affordable housing and community services. Affordable rental housing is needed in Birmingham and

the bank exhibited responsiveness to this need through a $5.6 million loan to finance the acquisition,

development, and construction of a 56-unit affordable, elderly multi-family rental property with Low Income

Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). The bank also intends to provide the permanent financing upon completion of

construction and the project achieving stabilization.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the Birmingham assessment area is good.

The bank had 8 investments totaling $7.0 million; all investments were made during the current review period.

The investments provided support for affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals, including a

$6.2 million investment in an LIHTC project. The remaining investments were government-guaranteed

mortgage backed securities.


services to low- and moderate-income individuals and affordable housing. Most notably, the bank provided

nearly $138,000 in mortgage grants to help qualified low- and moderate-income homebuyers with the down

payment needed to purchase a home. The mortgage grant was administered in partnership with a local

nonprofit organization.


development of affordable housing and financial assistance to low- and moderate-income homebuyers. A

summary of the bank’s investments can be found in Appendix K.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the Birmingham assessment area is adequate. Its retail

and community development services reflect adequate responsiveness to the needs of the assessment area.



Birmingham, Alabama

135

Retail Services


and individuals of different income levels. The distribution of eight branch offices and nine ATMs as of


within the assessment area. The bank has one branch is located in a moderate-income tract, representing 12.5


moderate-income communities. During the review period, the bank opened five branches, including the one

branch in a moderate-income census tract.





offices in the Birmingham assessment area. Bank products, services, and standard business hours are consistent






Notably, multiple bank employees served on boards for qualified nonprofit organizations and 69 percent of the

qualified hours were board service. Bank employees primarily engaged with organizations that provided

community services including access to basic needs and emergency assistance, transitional housing, financial

education, education, youth-services, and various other community services that aided low- and moderate-

income geographies and low- and moderate-income individuals.


# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 1 12.5% 1 0 0 0 0 Total 1 11.1% 1 11.1% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle 2 25.0% 0 0 2 0 0 Total 2 22.2% 2 22.2% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 5 62.5% 1 0 5 0 0 Total 6 66.7% 6 66.7% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 100.0% 2 0 7 0 0 Total 9 100.0% 9 100.0% 2 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

LPOS are not included in this table


1 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

255 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

94 36.9% 39.8% 35.8%

71 27.8% 31.2% 37.8%

25 9.8% 7.5% 7.8%

64 25.1% 21.5% 18.5%

# % # % # %


Tracts

House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours




136


DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE ALABAMA METROPOLITAN

ASSESSMENT AREAS

Huntsville Assessment Area (Madison County)

o As of June 30, 2012, IBERIABANK operated three branches in the assessment area, representing

19 percent of its branches in Alabama.


a market share of 0.78 percent and 8 percent of IBERIABANK’s total deposits in Alabama.

Mobile Assessment Area (Mobile County)





Alabama.

Montgomery Assessment Area (Autauga, Elmore, Lowndes, and Montgomery Counties)





Alabama.







Assessment

Areas


Huntsville Below Above Consistent

Mobile Below Below Consistent

Montgomery Below Below Consistent

For the lending test, IBERIABANK received a High Satisfactory rating for the state of Alabama. Weaker

performance in the limited-scope assessment areas as compared to the bank’s performance in the state was

attributable to a lower level of community development lending and poorer geographic distribution of loans.

Distribution of loans by borrower income also led to weaker performance in the metropolitan assessment areas.

However, community development lending in the Montgomery assessment area was stronger than

IBERIABANK’s performance in the state.

For the investment test, IBERIABANK received a High Satisfactory rating for the state. Performance in the

Mobile and Montgomery assessment areas was weaker than the bank’s performance in the state due to lower

levels of qualified investments relative to the bank’s operations in the assessment areas; however, both




137

assessment areas were still considered satisfactory. The performance in the Huntsville assessment area was

stronger than the bank’s performance in the state.

IBERIABANK received a Low Satisfactory rating for the service test in the state of Alabama, and performance

in the limited-scope metropolitan assessment areas was consistent with the bank’s statewide performance.

More specifically, the performance of community development services in the limited scope assessment areas

was consistent with the bank’s community development services performance in the state; however, the

accessibility of delivery systems was weaker in the limited scope assessment areas.





138


DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE ALABAMA NON-METROPOLITAN

ASSESSMENT AREAS

Baldwin Assessment Area (Baldwin County)


percent of its branches in Alabama.


a market share of 0.50 percent and 3 percent of IBERIABANK’s total deposits in Alabama.








Baldwin Below Consistent Above

For the lending test, performance in the limited-scope nonmetropolitan assessment area was weaker than the

bank’s performance in the state. This performance was attributable to lower levels of community development

lending and poorer geographic and borrower income distribution of loans.

For the investment test, the performance in the Baldwin assessment area was consistent with the bank’s

performance in the state due its level of qualified investments relative to the bank’s operations in the assessment

area.

For the service test, performance was stronger in the Baldwin assessment area due to a higher level of

community development services, and the accessibility of delivery systems was consistent with the bank’s

performance in the state.




Texas

139

CRA RATING FOR TEXAS: Satisfactory



The Service Test is rated: Low Satisfactory


The geographic distribution of loans reflects good penetration throughout the assessment area. In



The bank is a leader in making community development loans within the assessment area.


are responsive to several identified community development needs of the assessment area.


levels in the assessment area.

The bank provides a relatively high level of community development services throughout the assessment

area.



Texas

140


A full scope review was conducted for the only assessment area in the State of Texas:

Houston



DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN TEXAS

Lending activity in Texas accounted for 1.8 percent of the bank’s total lending activity. HMDA-reportable

lending in Texas represented 1.5 percent of the bank’s total HMDA-reportable lending, while small business

lending represented 2.9 percent of the bank’s total small business and small farm lending. As of June 30, 2012,

the bank had $321.2 million in deposits in Texas accounting for 3.4 percent of IBERIABANK’s total deposits.

Texas is a competitive banking market with 648 active financial institutions; IBERIABANK holds .05 percent

of total statewide deposits. As of December 31, 2012, IBERIABANK operated six branch offices in Texas

representing 3.3 percent of the bank’s total branches.


Lending Test

The lending test rating in the state of Texas is High Satisfactory. IBERIABANK is both a HMDA and small

business lender; HMDA lending was given greater consideration in determining the lending test rating for

Texas because the bank originated more HMDA loans by number than small business loans. Since the Houston

assessment area is the only assessment area in the state, the rating for Texas is based solely on the bank’s

performance in Houston. In 2012, 91.5 percent of the bank’s HMDA lending and 100 percent of small business

lending in Texas occurred in the Houston market; 91 percent of community development lending was also in

Houston. The bank did not originate any small farm loans in Texas.


Loan Type # % $ (000s) %


HMDA Refinance 88 22.3% $23,671 16.9%



Total HMDA 245 62.0% $91,507 65.5%


Total Farm 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

TOTAL LOANS 395 100.0% $139,688 100.0%


Texas




Texas

141


scope assessment area can be found in Appendices F-H.


The geographic distribution of IBERIABANK’s HMDA and small business loans is good and the distribution

of loans by borrower’s income and revenue size of business is adequate. As noted above, the rating for the state

of Texas is derived solely from the Houston assessment area. A detailed discussion of the borrower and

geographic distribution of lending for the Houston assessment area is included in the next section of this report.


IBERIABANK is a leader in making community development loans in Texas. The bank originated 9

community development loans totaling $41.9 million in the state. The bank had 6 loans totaling $29.8 million

in the Houston assessment area and an additional $12.5 million in community development loans that benefitted

the entire state. The statewide loans included two loans for $11.5 million to a small business financing

intermediary serving Texas. More information on community development lending can be found in the full-

scope assessment area section.

Investment Test

The investment test rating for Texas is High Satisfactory. The bank made significant use of qualified


The bank exhibited good responsiveness to credit and community development needs through its investment

activities in the Houston assessment area.




Service Test

The service test rating for Texas is Low Satisfactory.

Retail Services




income geographies or low- and moderate-income individuals. The bank opened three branches in the Houston

assessment area during the review period, including one branch in a moderate-income tract. The bank’s record

of opening and closing of offices has not affected the accessibility of its delivery systems, including to low- and

moderate-income geographies and/or low- and moderate-income individuals.


The bank provides a relatively high level of community development services that benefit residents and small

businesses of the assessment areas.



Houston, Texas

142

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUION’S OPERATIONS IN THE HOUSTON, TEXAS ASSESSMENT

AREA

Overview

The Houston assessment area includes Harris and Fort Bend counties and is part of the Houston-Sugar Land-

Baytown MSA. The 10-county MSA is the 5th

most populous MSA in the United States and the city of Houston

is the 4th

largest city in the country. IBERIABANK operates six branches in the assessment area, with one in a

moderate-income tract; five branches are located in Harris County and one in Fort Bend County.


Houston was the fastest growing U.S. city in the 20th

century and has become a major center for business and

commerce.141

According to the 2010 census, the Houston assessment area had a total population of 4.7 million,

which represents an increase of 24.6 percent since 2000. The majority of the population resides in Harris

County (4.1 million residents), yet Fort Bend County was one of the fastest growing counties in the country

with population growth exceeding 65 percent between 2000 and 2010.142



estimated median family income for 2011 and 2012 for the Houston MSA and also provides a breakdown of the

estimated annual family income for each income category (low, moderate, middle, and upper). The table

indicates that the HUD estimated median family income for the Houston area increased from $66,000 in 2011 to

$66,900 in 2012.






141

Greater Houston Partnership. “Houston Area Profile.” Available at: http://www.houston.org/pdf/research/02CW001.pdf.

Accessed November 8, 2012. 142

U.S. Census. Accessed through PolicyMap. Available at: www.policymap.com. Accessed on November 8, 2012.

0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $66,000 0 - $32,999 $33,000 - $52,799 $52,800 - $79,199 $79,200 - & above

2012 $66,900 0 - $33,449 $33,450 - $53,519 $53,520 - $80,279 $80,280 - & above


Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA


Family Income


http://www.houston.org/pdf/research/02CW001.pdf




Houston, Texas

143

As shown, the percentage of low-income census tracts in the assessment area increased from 9.1 percent in

2000 to 14.5 percent in 2010, while the percentage of moderate-income census tracts declined from 32.1 percent

to 29.9 percent. The number of total housing units in low-income tracts increased from 101,950 in 2000 to

222,457 in 2010, an increase of 118 percent, while the number of housing units in moderate-income tracts

increased by 14 percent, and the number of units in middle- and upper-income tracts increased by 16 percent.

The share of vacant housing units increased across all income categories; the total number of vacant housing

units accounted for 11 percent of all housing units in 2010.



Houston, Texas

144


Assessment Area: TX Houston

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

64

9.1

64,589

6.9

22,141

34.3

214,963

23.0

Moderate-income

227

32.1

276,181

29.6

52,590

19.0

162,271

17.4

Middle-income

199

28.1

274,639

29.4

22,685

8.3

174,019

18.6

Upper-income

210

29.7

319,029

34.1

9,416

3.0

383,185

41.0

Unknown-income

7

1.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


707

100.0

934,438

100.0

106,832

11.4

934,438

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

101,950

26,732

3.5

26.2

65,183

63.9

10,035

9.8

Moderate-income

420,715

177,543

23.5

42.2

209,326

49.8

33,846

8.0

Middle-income

430,078

229,692

30.4

53.4

172,843

40.2

27,543

6.4

Upper-income

461,359

322,780

42.7

70.0

112,314

24.3

26,265

5.7

Unknown-income

19

10

0.0

52.6

8

42.1

1

5.3


1,414,121

756,757

100.0

53.5

559,674

39.6

97,690

6.9

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

14,448

4.6

12,849

4.5

997

5.7

602

5.5

Moderate-income

69,828

22.4

61,918

21.9

5,266

30.2

2,644

24.0

Middle-income

86,627

27.8

79,181

28.0

4,273

24.5

3,173

28.8

Upper-income

139,998

45.0

128,653

45.5

6,765

38.9

4,580

41.5

Unknown-income

551

0.2

403

0.1

112

0.6

36

0.3


311,452

100.0

283,004

100.0

17,413

100.0

11,035

100.0


90.9

5.6

3.5

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

32

1.6

30

1.5

1

3.1

1

7.1

Moderate-income

225

11.1

214

10.8

9

28.1

2

14.3

Middle-income

646

31.9

634

32.1

9

28.1

3

21.4

Upper-income

1,117

55.2

1,096

55.4

13

40.6

8

57.1

Unknown-income

3

0.1

3

0.2

0

0.0

0

0.0


2,023

100.0

1,977

100.0

32

100.0

14

100.0


97.7

1.6

.7




Houston, Texas

145



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

125

14.5

114,948

10.6

39,481

34.3

272,158

25.1

Moderate-income

258

29.9

292,612

27.0

56,791

19.4

182,978

16.9

Middle-income

210

24.4

293,157

27.1

27,679

9.4

187,728

17.3

Upper-income

265

30.7

382,180

35.3

13,319

3.5

440,033

40.6

Unknown-income

4

0.5

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


862

100.0

1,082,897

100.0

137,270

12.7

1,082,897

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

222,457

47,189

5.1

21.2

132,113

59.4

43,155

19.4

Moderate-income

480,669

211,720

22.8

44.0

204,938

42.6

64,011

13.3

Middle-income

454,791

268,104

28.9

59.0

142,907

31.4

43,780

9.6

Upper-income

577,004

401,796

43.3

69.6

130,966

22.7

44,242

7.7

Unknown-income

79

0

0.0

0.0

50

63.3

29

36.7


1,735,000

928,809

100.0

53.5

610,974

35.2

195,217

11.3

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

29,108

9.7

25,312

9.3

2,388

13.8

1,408

12.0

Moderate-income

66,637

22.1

59,647

21.9

4,230

24.5

2,760

23.6

Middle-income

74,882

24.9

67,845

25.0

4,021

23.3

3,016

25.7

Upper-income

130,120

43.2

118,965

43.8

6,629

38.4

4,526

38.6

Unknown-income

113

0.0

92

0.0

14

0.1

7

0.1


300,860

100.0

271,861

100.0

17,282

100.0

11,717

100.0


90.4

5.7

3.9

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

73

3.6

71

3.5

2

7.7

0

0.0

Moderate-income

233

11.4

228

11.3

4

15.4

1

12.5

Middle-income

653

31.8

640

31.7

12

46.2

1

12.5

Upper-income

1,092

53.2

1,078

53.4

8

30.8

6

75.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


2,051

100.0

2,017

100.0

26

100.0

8

100.0


98.3

1.3

.4




Houston, Texas

146


U.S. Census data indicates that there were 1.7 million housing units in the assessment area in 2010, of which

53.5 percent were owner-occupied, 35.2 percent were rental units, and 11.3 percent were vacant. Rental and

vacant units are more highly concentrated in low- and moderate-income tracts. The median age of the housing

stock across the assessment area was 30 years, though housing was much older in the low- and moderate-

income census tracts compared to the assessment area overall. These factors indicate that lending opportunities

in the low- and moderate-income tracts may be limited.143

Across the state of Texas, housing prices remained relatively stable throughout the recession. The housing

market did not experience major price escalation prior to the housing crisis and therefore did not fall drastically

during the downturn.144

According to data from the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, the median

housing price increased during and after the recession, with a large jump in prices occurring between 2011 and

2012 when the median sales price increased from $153,700 to $163,400. Preliminary data for 2013 indicates

that prices are continuing to rise. Home sales, however, declined during the recession, though started to

stabilize in 2010, and then increased by 16.6 percent between 2011 and 2012. New residential construction in

the region slowed considerably between 2006 and 2010, but in 2011, the number of new single family permits

started increasing again. This combination of factors, combined with the region’s population and job growth,

indicates that a strong recovery is underway in Houston housing market.145

Housing costs are a significant challenge in the assessment area, particularly for lower income renters. In

Harris County, almost 50 percent of renters and 66 percent of renters earning less than $50,000 a year are

considered cost-burdened, meaning that rental costs account for more than 30 percent of household income.146

The 2013 Out of Reach by the National Low Income Housing Coalition confirms housing affordability is a

problem, finding a minimum wage worker would have to work 2.5 jobs (assuming 40 hours a week for 52

weeks a year) in order to afford the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in either Harris or Fort Bend

Counties.147

Houston fared better than many other metro areas during the housing crisis, but mortgage delinquencies did

increase during the recession. However, the delinquency rate has been steadily falling for the past two years.

Between January 2011 and December 2012, the percentage of seriously delinquent mortgages, which includes

loans more than 90 days past due, fell from 5.0 percent to 3.9 percent. Delinquencies are continuing to decline

in 2013, though the overall delinquency rate in the Houston assessment area is slightly higher than the rate

statewide. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for the assessment area show that demand for home

purchase loans of owner-occupied, one-to-four family dwellings is weak. Home purchase loans have been in

general state of decline since 2006, with the number of loans originated annually inside the assessment area

declining by 61 percent from 2006 to 2011. Refinance activity exhibited more strength during this time period,

increasing by more than 100 percent between 2008 and 2011.148

143


Peterson, D’Ann and Laila Assanie. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “Texas Dodges Worst of Foreclosure Woes.” 4th

Quarter

2009. (accessed on October 24, 2013); available at: http://www.dallasfed.org/research/economy/constr.cfm. 145

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. “Housing Activity and Affordability for Texas Areas.” (accessed on October 24,

2013); available at: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/ 146

U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on October 29, 2013); available at: http://www.policymap.com 147



HMDA data calculations provided by PolicyMap. (accessed on October 22, 2013); available at: http://www.policymap.com

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/economy/constr.cfm

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/





Houston, Texas

147


Houston is the U.S. energy headquarters and a world center for virtually every segment of the oil and gas

industry including exploration, production, transmission, marketing, supply, and technology. There are more

than 3,700 energy-related establishments located within the Houston MSA, and in 2012, 27.3 percent of the

nation’s jobs in oil and gas extraction and 10.8 percent of jobs in support activities for mining were based in the

region.149

The Houston MSA ranks third in the country for Fortune 500 companies, with 25 Fortune 500

companies based in the region, including ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil, Sysco, Enterprise Products Partners,

Plains All American Pipeline, Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Waste Management, National Oilwell Varco,

Apache, Anadarko Petroleum, and KBR.150

While energy is central to Houston’s economy, the economic base in the region has become much more diverse.

There are significant worker concentrations in numerous industries including mining; manufacturing; retail;

health care; accommodation and food services; federal, state and local government; construction; finance;

transportation and warehousing; and a range of other services.151

Major employers include the Exxon Mobile

Corporation; Memorial Hermann Healthcare System; and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center;

United Airlines; Schlumberger Limited; Shell Oil Company; The Methodist Hospital System; and Kroger

Company.152

In addition, there are many employers in the region employing over 1,000 employees.

Small businesses play an important role in the Houston economy. According to 2012 D&B information, there

were 300,860 businesses within the Houston assessment area of which 90.4 percent had total annual revenues

less than or equal to $1 million, and were therefore considered to be small businesses.153

Access to credit for

small businesses declined during the recession though conditions appear to be improving modestly. In the

assessment area, small business lending to firms with revenues $1.0 million or less fell by 72 percent between

2007 and 2010 before beginning to stabilize in 2011. Small business lending is less than 50 percent of peak

lending levels, and only about 40 percent of all small business loans in 2011 were made to firms with revenues

under $1.0 million, indicating that may still be struggling to access credit.154

The impact of the national economic downturn in the Houston MSA was less severe than many other parts of

the country.155

The unemployment rate for the Houston MSA increased from pre-recession levels of 4.3 percent

in 2007 to 8.5 percent in 2010 but began improving in 2011, dropping from 8.1 percent in 2011 to 6.8 percent in

2012. The unemployment rate in Harris County is comparable to the MSA overall, but in Fort Bend County,

the unemployment rate dropped to 6.1 percent in 2012.

149

Greater Houston Partnership. (accessed on October 25, 2013); available at: http://www.houstonedguide.com/ 150


2011 Regional Economic Information Systems. 152




Levy, Francesca. Forbes, “Cities Where the Recession is Easing.” March 8, 2010. Available at:

http://www.governorperry.com/blog/forbes-if-one-state-poster-child-economic-recovery-its-texas/. Accessed November 8, 2012.

http://www.houstonedguide.com/



http://www.governorperry.com/blog/forbes-if-one-state-poster-child-economic-recovery-its-texas/



Houston, Texas

148

From the start of the recession in September 2008 to the bottom in January 2010, Houston lost 135,400 jobs or

one in every 19 in the region. However, the region recouped all lost jobs faster than any other metro in the

country and employment growth continues at a strong pace. Four sectors account for the bulk of recent job

creation, including leisure and hospitality, education and health care, construction and trade, and transportation

and utilities.156

While job growth is strong, many of the new jobs are in traditionally low wage occupations.

Competition

The Houston assessment area is a highly competitive market dominated by national and super regional banks.

According to the June 30, 2012 FDIC Summary of Deposits Report, IBERIABANK ranks 36th

out of 91

financial institutions operating in the assessment area with 0.2 percent of the deposit market share. As of June

2012, IBERIABANK operated 5 branch offices in the assessment area; in total, 1,182 branch offices were

located in the area. The top financial institution by deposit market share is JP Morgan Chase Bank with 33.9

percent, followed by Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Compass Bank.

HMDA lending was similarly competitive with 704 total HMDA reporters operating in the Houston assessment

area in 2011. IBERIABANK Mortgage ranked 167th

and IBERIABANK ranked 178th

with a combined total of

less than 0.05 percent of all HMDA loans in 2011. In 2012, IBERIABANK ranked 114th

and IBERIABANK

Mortgage ranked 176th

out of 775 reporters with 0.1 percent combined of total HMDA loans. HMDA lending

was dominated by large national lenders including Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase.

CRA lending is also highly competitive and led by American Express, Wells Fargo, Chase Bank and Capitol

One. IBERIABANK ranked 38th

out of 161 CRA lenders in 2011 and 34th

of 164 reporters in 2012 with less

than 0.1 percent of the total CRA loans in both years.


The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas conducts a quarterly Community Outlook Survey that helps assess

community and economic development in the 11th

District (covering Texas, Northern Louisiana and Southern

New Mexico). Community organizations that provide housing, workforce development, health and financial

stability programs are invited to participate in the survey. The survey covers a much larger geographic area

156

Greater Houston Partnership. Greater Houston Partnership 2013 Employment Forecast. (accessed October 28, 2013); Available at:

http://www.houston.org/pdf/research/quickview/Partnership_2013_Jobs_Forecast.pdf

2011 2012

Harris Co. 8.2 6.8

Fort Bend Co. 7.4 6.1

Houston MSA 8.1 6.8

Texas 7.9 6.8



Unemployment Rates





Houston, Texas

149

than the subject assessment area but the findings are illustrative of some of the challenges facing low- and

moderate income (LMI) areas across the region. Organizations that participated in the first quarter 2013 survey

identified several positive economic trends, including increased job availability, though optimism about job

openings was tempered by concerns about benefits and living wages and providers noted that underemployment

was still an issue. The other primary areas of concern were affordable housing for LMI populations and

declining public and private funding to support the work of the nonprofit organizations serving LMI individuals

or communities.157


The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas survey identified several factors limiting the supply of affordable housing

in the 11th

District, including the lack of capital for development, high development costs and competition for

grants or subsidies. Survey participants also noted that tighter underwriting requirements and lower credit

quality were impacting LMI individuals considering homeownership.158

Bank management and several community contacts confirmed that affordable rental and single family

homeownership are critical needs in the market. A community contact specializing in affordable housing

indicated that housing prices in Houston are lower than other major markets in the U.S., but are rising rapidly,

making it increasingly difficult for lower-income individuals to purchase homes. The contact stated that

housing prices are typically lower in suburban areas, but the additional transportation costs associated with

living further from job centers would impact affordability. The contact noted that there is an opportunity for

financial institutions to support a loan pool that provides down payment and closing cost assistance, as well as a

single family housing rehabilitation programs.

A second affordable housing contact stated that more affordable rental housing was needed, and particularly

units that are close to transportation and jobs. The contact felt that Houston was shifting away from

homeownership and demand for rental was rising so maintaining an adequate supply of affordable rental

housing for low- and moderate-income renters is critical.

Low-income Housing Tax Credits are an important financing tool for increasing affordable rental housing, and

present a good opportunity for local bank investment. The Texas Department of Housing and Community

Affairs estimated that approximately $9.4 million in low-income housing tax credits would be available to

support affordable rental housing projects in Houston in 2013.159

While the foreclosure problem in Houston was not as bad as elsewhere in the country, the region did receive a

significant allocation through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). Harris County has received

$16.8 million in NSP funds, the city of Houston received $16.9 million, and Fort Bend County received $2.8

million. The NSP funds were used primarily for the acquisition, rehabilitation and resale of foreclosed

properties, as well as new construction.160

157

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Community Outlook Survey, First Quarter 2013. (accessed on October 28, 2013); available at:

http://www.dallasfed.org/cd/cos/index.cfm. 158

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Community Outlook Survey, First Quarter 2013. (accessed on October 28, 2013); available at:

http://www.dallasfed.org/cd/cos/index.cfm. 159

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. (accessed October 25, 2013); available at:

http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/htc/docs/13-AwardLimits-EstRegAlloc.pdf 160

U.S. Department of Housing and Development, Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP Grantees. (accessed October 28, 2013);

available at: http://hudnsphelp.info/index.cfm?do=viewGranteeAreaResults

http://www.dallasfed.org/cd/cos/index.cfm

http://www.dallasfed.org/cd/cos/index.cfm

http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/htc/docs/13-AwardLimits-EstRegAlloc.pdf




Houston, Texas

150

In addition to the revitalization supported by NSP, there are other neighborhoods in need of revitalization. The

Third Ward was mentioned by a community contact in Houston as an example of a neighborhood where more

capital is needed to form businesses, create jobs for low- and moderate-income residents, and develop non-

profit programs for community residents. Banks have an opportunity to support this revitalization by lending or

investing directly in the neighborhoods, or working in partnership with nonprofits and alternative financing

sources like Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs).


A community contact that specializing in small business financing confirmed the statement by bank

management that the Houston economy is strong, and there are opportunities for small businesses to participate

in the economic growth. The critical need for small businesses is access to capital, and particularly working

capital. The community contact indicated that there was need for more flexible financing for microenterprise

and other small businesses that can help revitalize distressed communities and create new jobs. CDFIs are one

resource for small business financing and they provide good investment and partnership opportunities for

financial institutions. There are several CDFIs serving the Houston market, providing access to different loans

types, including microloans and SBA loans, as well as technical assistance.


Economic growth has been strong in Houston yet not all communities have benefitted. The percentage of

people living in poverty has been rising and in Harris County, 17.4 percent of the population lived under the

poverty level between 2007 and 2011, while in the city of Houston, 21.5 percent of the population lived in

poverty. Food stamp usage, another indicator of financial distress, has also been rising and in 2010, 14.3

percent of the population in Harris County was receiving food stamps.161

In light of increasing poverty and other economic challenges facing LMI individuals, there is an opportunity for

banks to support activities that improve financial capability and household financial stability. One approach is

expanding access to mainstream financial services. According to the FDIC’s 2011 National Survey of

Unbanked and Underbanked Households, 15.4 percent of households are unbanked, meaning they have no type

of deposit account with a mainstream financial institution. In addition, 25.6 percent of households are

considered underbanked, meaning they have a deposit account but they also rely on alternative financial


There are a number of efforts to increase financial stability in the

assessment area including Bank On Houston. Bank On Houston is a collaborative effort of financial

institutions, nonprofits and government agencies to increase access to affordable bank accounts and promote

financial education. In addition to local efforts, RAISE Texas is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization

working to promote a range of asset building programs and public policy to enhance the economic security of

LMI individuals statewide.

161








Houston, Texas

151


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the Houston assessment area is good. The geographic distribution of

loans reflects good penetration throughout the assessment area and the distribution of borrowers reflects




business loans in the Houston assessment area. HMDA lending represented 59.8 percent of total lending and

small business accounted for 40.2 percent. Therefore, the performance of HMDA lending is weighted more

heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The Houston assessment area

contains 1.4 percent of the bank’s total HMDA lending and 2.9 percent of its total small business lending by

number of loans. In comparison, 3.0 percent of the bank’s total deposits are in this assessment area.







geographic distribution of loans reflects good penetration throughout the assessment area.

Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending in low-income census tracts is poor and the volume of loans over the

review period was low. In 2011, the bank did not originate any home purchase loans in low-income tracts while

1.6 percent of aggregate loans were in low-income tracts. IBERIABANK’s lending improved in 2012, while

the percentage of loans was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in low income tracts, the bank’s

performance exceeded aggregate.

Home purchase lending in moderate-income tracts is good. The percentage of home purchase loans originated

in moderate-income tracts was slightly less than the percentage of owner-occupied units located in these tracts

but the bank significantly outperformed aggregate performance throughout the review period. In 2012, the bank

originated 20 percent of its home purchase loans in moderate-income tracts compared to 9.5 percent of

aggregate loans.

The bank’s home purchase lending in middle-income tracts exceeded the percentage of owner-occupied units in

these tracts in 2011, yet was less than the percentage of units in 2012. Home purchase lending in upper-income

tracts was greater than the percentage of units in upper-income tracts in both years.



low-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in low-income tracts throughout the

review period. The aggregate also had limited refinance activity in low-income tracts. In 2012, IBERIABANK

originated two home refinance loans in low-income tracts which represented 3.3 percent of bank loans, while

refinance loans in moderate-income tracts accounted for 1.3 percent of aggregate loans.



Houston, Texas

152

The bank’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is good. The bank significantly increased home

refinance lending in moderate income-tracts between 2011 and 2012; in 2012, 27.9 percent of home refinance

loans were made in moderate-income tracts, where 22.8 percent of owner-occupied units are located. The

bank’s refinance lending in moderate-income tracts was identical to aggregate in 2011 but significantly

exceeded aggregate in 2012 (27.9 percent of total loans compared to 7.6 percent of aggregate loans).





IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in low-income census tracts is poor. In 2011, the bank did not

originate any home improvement loans in low-income tracts where 3.5 percent of owner-occupied units are

located; 2.0 percent of aggregate lending occurred in low-income tracts in 2011. In 2012, the bank originated

just one home improvement loan (9.1 percent of total loans) in a low-income tract where 5.1 percent of owner-

occupied units are located. Moreover, the bank significantly exceeded aggregate performance in 2012;

however, the bank’s rating is based on a limited volume of lending in this product category in the assessment

area.

The bank’s home improvement lending in moderate-income census tracts is adequate. In 2011, the bank did not

originate any home improvement loans in moderate-income tracts where 23.5 percent of owner-occupied units

are located; 13.9 percent of aggregate lending occurred in moderate-income tracts in 2011. IBERIABANK’s

home improvement lending in moderate-income tracts improved in 2012. The bank originated 45.5 percent of

total home-improvement loans in moderate-income tracts where 22.8 percent of owner-occupied units are

located. Additionally, the bank’s performance exceeded aggregate.

Overall, IBERIABANK’s volume of home improvement lending was low across all income levels throughout

the review period; in 2011, the bank originated just one home improvement loan in the assessment area. In

2012, the percent of home improvement loans in both middle- and upper-income tracts was well below the

percentage of owner-occupied units.


IBERIABANK’s small business lending in low-income census tracts is excellent. The bank increased small

business lending between 2011 and 2012 and the percent of loans was greater than the percentage of small

businesses in low-income tracts. The bank also exceeded aggregate lending throughout the review period.


moderate-income tracts exceeded the percentage of small businesses in those tracts in 2011 and was well above

aggregate. In 2012, the bank’s small business lending was less than the percentage of small businesses located

in moderate-income tracts and less than the aggregate, at 17.2 percent compared to 19.5 percent.

The bank’s small business lending in middle- and upper-income census tracts was greater than the percentage of

small businesses located in these tracts in 2011; in 2012, the percentage of loans in middle-income tracts

exceeded the percentage of businesses in these tracts, but the percentage of loans in upper-income tracts was

lower than the percentage of businesses.



Houston, Texas

153



distribution of small business lending across business revenue sizes and HMDA lending across borrower

income levels was compared to available demographic information. Performance context issues were also


Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The bank significantly

increased home purchase lending to low-income borrowers between 2011 and 2012, yet lending was less than

the percentage of low-income families living in the assessment area for both years. The bank outperformed

aggregate in 2012, with 21.0 percent of its home purchase loans to low-income borrowers versus the aggregate

at 5.4 percent.


loans to moderate-income borrowers was less than the percentage of moderate-income families located in the

assessment area in 2011, but much greater than the percentage of moderate-income families in 2012. The bank

did not perform well compared to the aggregate in 2011, but in 2012, the bank originated 33.0 percent of home

purchase loans to moderate-income borrowers, significantly exceeding the aggregate at 16.2 percent.

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to middle- and upper-income borrowers was greater the percentage of

families in each income category in the assessment area, while lending in 2012 was less than the percentage of

middle- and upper-income families in the assessment area.



refinance loans to low-income borrowers in 2011, while 2.3 percent of aggregate loans were made to low-

income borrowers. The number of home refinance loans to low-income borrowers increased between 2011 and

2012 but the percentage of loans to low-income borrowers was less than the percentage of low-income families

in the assessment area. The bank performed well compared to aggregate in 2012, originating 13.1 percent of

refinance loans to low-income borrowers compared to the aggregate at 3.1 percent.



assessment area for both years. The bank’s lending volume increased in 2012, with 14.8 percent of loans to

moderate-income borrowers compared to 8.0 percent for the aggregate.


families in the assessment area throughout the review period, while lending to upper-income borrowers was

greater than the percentage of upper-income families.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low-income borrowers is poor. The bank did not originate any

home improvement loans to low-income borrowers in 2011 while 5.3 percent of aggregate loans were made to

low-income borrowers. The bank originated one loan to a low-income borrower in 2012; the percentage of

loans to low-income borrowers was much less than the percentage of low-income families in the assessment

areas. The bank out performed aggregate in 2012 but this was driven by the low loan volume in this product

category.



Houston, Texas

154

The bank’s home improvement lending to moderate-income borrowers is poor. The bank originated no home

improvement loans to moderate-income borrowers in 2011, while loans to moderate-income borrowers

accounted for 11.0 percent of aggregate lending. In 2012, the bank’s percentage of home improvement loans to

moderate-income borrowers was greater the percentage of moderate-income families in the assessment area.

Additionally, the bank performed better than aggregate in home improvement lending to moderate-income

borrowers (18.2 percent compared to 10.0 percent of aggregate) though this performance was based on low

home improvement lending volume.

The bank’s volume of home improvement loans to middle- and upper-income borrowers was very limited in

2011. In 2012, home improvement lending to middle- income borrowers exceeded the percentage of middle-

income families in the assessment area, while lending to upper-income borrowers was less than the percentage

of upper-income families.



percentage of small business loans to businesses with revenues of $1 million or less was less than the

percentage of small businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. Most recently, in 2012, the

bank originated 37.4 percent of its loans to small businesses, although 90.4 percent of total businesses in the

assessment area are classified as small businesses. The bank did not perform as well as aggregate in 2011 but

performed on par with aggregate in 2012.


IBERIABANK is a leader in making community development loans in the Houston assessment area. The bank

originated six community development loans totaling $29.8 million during the review period. The loans

financed more than 300 units of affordable rental housing, which is an identified need in the Houston

assessment area. In addition, the bank had three community development loans totaling $12.1 million that

benefitted a broader regional area that included the assessment area. Two of the three regional loans ($11

million) provided capital to a financial intermediary that invests in companies across the state that are operating

in or are willing to expand or move to under-served markets, creating new jobs and revitalizing lower-income

communities.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the Houston assessment area is good.

The bank had 8 investments totaling $2.2 million; all investments were made during the current review period.

The bank’s investments provided support for economic development and affordable housing, including a $1.0

million investment in a loan fund that provides access to capital for small businesses. The remaining

investments were government-guaranteed mortgage backed securities.


services to low- and moderate-income individuals with an emphasis on education, youth services and health

care.

The bank’s investments and contributions exhibited responsiveness to several identified needs including

affordable housing, small business credit access, and support for basic needs for low- and moderate-income

individuals. A summary of the bank’s investments can be found in Appendix K.



Houston, Texas

155

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the Houston assessment area is adequate. Its retail and

community development services reflect adequate responsiveness to the needs of the assessment area.

Retail Services


and individuals of different income levels. The distribution of six branch offices and six ATMs as of


within the assessment area. The bank has one branch located in a moderate-income tract, representing 16.7


moderate-income communities. During the review period, the bank opened three branches, including the one

branch in a moderate-income census tract.





offices in the Houston assessment area. Bank products, services, and standard business hours are consistent







# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 1 16.7% 1 0 0 0 0 Total 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle 1 16.7% 0 0 1 0 0 Total 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 4 66.7% 1 0 4 0 0 Total 4 66.7% 4 66.7% 1 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 6 100.0% 2 0 5 0 0 Total 6 100.0% 6 100.0% 2 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours

%


Tracts

# % # % #

125 14.5% 11.6% 9.7%

258 29.9% 27.1% 22.1%

210 24.4% 26.7% 24.9%

265 30.7% 34.6% 43.2%

0.0%

862 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


4 0.5% 0.0%



Houston, Texas

156

Board service represented approximately 25 percent of the total community development service hours. Bank

employees engaged in providing financial education, homeownership counseling and small business assistance

as well as working with a variety of organizations that provided community services in low- and moderate-

income geographies and for low- and moderate-income individuals.



Tennessee

157

CRA RATING FOR TENNESSEE: Satisfactory

The Lending Test is rated: Low Satisfactory

The Investment Test is rated: Low Satisfactory



The geographic distribution of loans reflects marginally adequate penetration while the distribution of

borrowers reflects poor penetration among customers of different income levels and businesses of

different revenue sizes in the Memphis assessment area.

The bank made an adequate level community development loans within the assessment areas.

The bank provides an adequate level of qualified community development investments and grants that



levels in the assessment areas.




Tennessee

158


A full scope review was conducted for the only assessment area in the State of Tennessee:

Memphis

The time period, products, and affiliates evaluated for this assessment area is consistent with the scope


DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN TENNESSEE

Lending activity in Tennessee accounted for 2.6 percent of the bank’s total lending activity. HMDA-reportable

lending in Tennessee represented 3.2 percent of the bank’s total HMDA-reportable lending, while small

business lending represented 0.9 percent of the bank’s total small business and small farm lending. As of

June 30, 2012, the bank had $154.5 million in deposits in Tennessee accounting for 1.6 percent of

IBERIABANK’s total deposits. There are 227 financial institutions active in Tennessee and IBERIABANK

holds a very small share of total deposits in the state (0.1 percent). As of December 31, 2012, IBERIABANK

operated 3 branch offices in Tennessee representing 1.6 percent of the bank’s total branches.


Lending Test

The lending test rating in the State of Tennessee is Low Satisfactory. IBERIABANK is both a HMDA and

small business lender; HMDA lending was given greater consideration in determining the lending test rating for

Memphis because the bank originated more HMDA loans by number than small business loans. Since the

Memphis assessment area is the only assessment area in the state, the rating for Tennessee is based solely on the

bank’s performance in Memphis; 100 percent of the bank’s HMDA, small business and community

development lending in Tennessee occurred within the Memphis assessment area. The bank did not originate

any small farm loans in Tennessee.


Loan Type # % $ (000s) %


HMDA Refinance 234 41.5% $48,416 43.9%


HMDA Multi-Family 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

Total HMDA 516 91.5% $96,503 87.4%


Total Farm 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

TOTAL LOANS 564 100.0% $110,405 100.0%


Tennessee




Tennessee

159


scope assessment area can be found in Appendices F-H.


The geographic distribution of IBERIABANK’s HMDA and small business loans is adequate and the

distribution of loans by borrower’s income and revenue size of business is poor. As noted above, the rating for

the state of Tennessee is derived solely from the Memphis assessment area. A detailed discussion of the

borrower and geographic distribution of lending for the Memphis assessment area is included in the next section

of this report.


IBERIABANK made an adequate level of community development loans in Tennessee, originating two

community development loans totaling $1.7 million during the review period. More information on community

development lending can be found in the full-scope assessment area section.

Investment Test

The investment test rating for Tennessee is Low Satisfactory. The bank made adequate use of qualified

investments and contributions with $1.1 million in qualified investments and $31,500 in contributions. The

bank exhibited adequate responsiveness to credit and community development needs through its investment

activities in the Memphis assessment area.




Service Test

The service test rating for Tennessee is High Satisfactory.

Retail Services




income geographies or low- and moderate-income individuals. The bank did not open or close any branches in

the assessment area during the review period so there has been no change in the accessibility of its delivery

systems for low- and moderate-income geographies and/or low- and moderate-income individuals. Additional

detail on the bank’s retail services can be found in the full-scope assessment area section.



of the assessment area. Additional detail on the bank’s retail and community development services can be

found in the full-scope assessment area section.



Memphis, Tennessee

160

METROPOLITAN AREA

(Full Scope Review)

DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTION’S OPERATIONS IN THE MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

ASSESSMENT AREA

The Memphis assessment area includes a portion of Shelby County, Tennessee (37 out of 221 census tracts in

2010). Shelby County is one of the nine counties in the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Metropolitan Statistical Area.

IBERIABANK operates three branches in the assessment area, which are all located in upper-income census

tracts.


Memphis is principal city in Shelby County and the largest city in Tennessee. According to the 2010 U.S.

Census, the Memphis assessment area had a total population of 181,811, representing approximately 20 percent

of the total population in Shelby County. The population in the assessment area is growing faster than Shelby

County as a whole, increasing by almost 19 percent between 2000 and 2010, while Shelby County grew by

about 3.4 percent.163



estimated median family income for 2011 and 2012 for the Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA and also provides a

breakdown of the estimated annual family income for each income category (low, moderate, middle, and

upper). The table indicates that the HUD estimated median family income for the Memphis area increased from

$58,300 in 2011 to $59,100 in 2012.






As shown, the assessment area lost its only low-income tract between 2000 and 2010, though the percentage of

moderate income tracts increased from 3.2 percent to 5.4 percent. The total number of housing units in

moderate income tracts increased from 1,045 in 2000 to 3,395 in 2010, an increase of 225 percent, while the

number of housing units in middle-income tracts increased by 87 percent. The number of units in upper-income

tracts was almost unchanged and the share of vacant housing units increased across all income categories.

163

U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed through PolicyMap. (accessed on January 30, 2013); available from http://www.policymap.com

0 - 49.99% 50% - 79.99% 80% - 119.99% 120% - & above

2011 $58,300 0 - $29,149 $29,150 - $46,639 $46,640 - $69,959 $69,960 - & above

2012 $59,100 0 - $29,549 $29,550 - $47,279 $47,280 - $70,919 $70,920 - & above


Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA


Family Income





Memphis, Tennessee

161


percent were owner-occupied, 26.5 percent were rental units, and 8.5 percent were vacant. In the moderate-

income tracts, only 50 percent of housing units were owner-occupied and the median age was twice the median

age for the assessment area overall. These factors indicate that lending opportunities may be limited in the

moderate-income tracts.



Memphis, Tennessee

162


Assessment Area: TN Memphis

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

3.2

113

0.3

82

72.6

3,123

7.0

Moderate-income

1

3.2

705

1.6

47

6.7

4,486

10.0

Middle-income

4

12.9

4,727

10.5

226

4.8

6,764

15.1

Upper-income

24

77.4

39,263

87.6

817

2.1

30,435

67.9

Unknown-income

1

3.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


31

100.0

44,808

100.0

1,172

2.6

44,808

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

166

6

0.0

3.6

135

81.3

25

15.1

Moderate-income

1,045

779

1.6

74.5

222

21.2

44

4.2

Middle-income

8,362

5,512

11.5

65.9

2,456

29.4

394

4.7

Upper-income

58,526

41,504

86.8

70.9

14,551

24.9

2,471

4.2

Unknown-income

2

2

0.0

100.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


68,101

47,803

100.0

70.2

17,364

25.5

2,934

4.3

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6

0.0

4

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.4

Moderate-income

86

0.6

79

0.6

5

0.5

2

0.4

Middle-income

814

6.0

744

6.1

41

4.1

29

5.7

Upper-income

12,675

92.7

11,262

92.6

941

93.8

472

92.7

Unknown-income

97

0.7

77

0.6

16

1.6

4

0.8


13,678

100.0

12,166

100.0

1,003

100.0

509

100.0


88.9

7.3

3.7

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

5

5.4

4

4.5

0

0.0

1

50.0

Upper-income

84

90.3

81

92.0

2

66.7

1

50.0

Unknown-income

4

4.3

3

3.4

1

33.3

0

0.0


93

100.0

88

100.0

3

100.0

2

100.0


94.6

3.2

2.2




Memphis, Tennessee

163



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

4,485

9.6

Moderate-income

2

5.4

1,995

4.3

489

24.5

5,331

11.4

Middle-income

7

18.9

7,901

16.9

442

5.6

7,211

15.4

Upper-income

26

70.3

36,978

78.9

1,164

3.1

29,847

63.7

Unknown-income

2

5.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


37

100.0

46,874

100.0

2,095

4.5

46,874

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

3,395

1,701

3.4

50.1

1,442

42.5

252

7.4

Middle-income

15,621

7,778

15.5

49.8

6,100

39.0

1,743

11.2

Upper-income

58,250

40,811

81.2

70.1

12,907

22.2

4,532

7.8

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


77,266

50,290

100.0

65.1

20,449

26.5

6,527

8.4

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

271

2.1

247

2.1

11

1.1

13

2.9

Middle-income

1,327

10.1

1,206

10.3

75

7.5

46

10.2

Upper-income

11,442

87.2

10,155

87.0

897

90.0

390

86.3

Unknown-income

80

0.6

63

0.5

14

1.4

3

0.7


13,120

100.0

11,671

100.0

997

100.0

452

100.0


89.0

7.6

3.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

7

7.1

7

7.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

89

90.8

86

91.5

2

66.7

1

100.0

Unknown-income

2

2.0

1

1.1

1

33.3

0

0.0


98

100.0

94

100.0

3

100.0

1

100.0


95.9

3.1

1.0




Memphis, Tennessee

164


The economic downturn took a heavy toll on the housing market in Memphis. According to the National

Association of Realtors, the median home price for the Memphis MSA only recently started to recover. In

2012, the median home price was $117,200.164

Home prices are much lower in Shelby County than the greater

Memphis MSA. According to the Memphis Area Association of Realtors, the median home price in Shelby

County in 2012 was $82,900, which was almost 2% below the median sales price in 2011.165

The Memphis Area Association of Realtors reported that the home sales market in the region is soft, though

showed signs of improvement in 2012 and certain subareas within the county are recovering at a much faster

rate. However, foreclosures are still a big drag on the market, and in 2012, bank sales represented 28 percent of

all home sales.166

New home construction in Memphis slowed significantly during the housing crisis,

bottoming out in 2011. Construction activity picked up in 2012 and most of the new development in Shelby

County is occurring in new subdivisions outside the city of Memphis.167

The foreclosure crisis had a severe impact on the Memphis housing market though foreclosures appear to be

slowing. The percent of seriously delinquent mortgages in the assessment area (defined as more than 90 days

past due or in foreclosure) fell from 9.7 percent in January 2011 to 8.9 percent in December 2012 but remains

well above the rate statewide of 5.5 percent. While delinquencies are improving, Zillow.com reports that at

least 40 percent of homeowners in Memphis are still underwater with their mortgage. Therefore, foreclosure is

still a risk in the assessment area. In addition, many homeowners are lacking the equity needed for any type of

borrowing.168

Memphis is considered a relatively affordable region, yet housing costs are a challenge for many homeowners

and renters. For instance, 31 percent of homeowners and 53 percent of renters in Shelby County are considered

cost-burdened, meaning that homeownership or rental costs account for more than 30 percent of household

income. The lowest income renters in the county are the most likely to be cost burdened.169

The 2013 Out of

Reach study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition confirms housing affordability is a problem,

finding that a minimum wage worker would have to work 2 jobs (assuming 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a

year) in order to afford the fair market rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in the Memphis MSA.170


Memphis is a center for distribution and logistics, and is known as “America’s Aerotropolis.” According to the

Greater Memphis Chamber, an aerotropolis is a city or an economic hub that extends out from a large airport

into a surrounding area that consists mostly of distribution centers, office buildings, light manufacturing firms,

164

National Association of Realtors. “Metropolitan Median Area Prices and Affordability” (accessed on November 5, 2012);

available from: http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/reports/2012/embargoes/2012-q1-metro-home-prices-

49bc10b1efdc1b8cc3eb66dbcdad55f7/metro-home-prices-q1-single-family-2012-05-09.pdf 165

Memphis Area Association of Realtors. “December 2012 Report.” (accessed on July 17, 2013); available at:

http://www.maar.org/assets/1151/sales_stats_december_2012.pdf 166

Memphis Area Association of Realtors, Market Reports. (accessed on February 7, 2013); available at:

http://www.maar.org/assets/1151/sales_stats_december_2012.pdf 167

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. “Memphis, Tennessee-

Mississippi-Arkansas, April 1,2012” (accessed February 8, 2013); available at: 168

Zillow.com. Negative Equity Report. (accessed on July 17, 2013); available at: http://www.zillow.com/visuals/negative-

equity/#11/35.1390/-90.0175 169


National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Out of Reach 2013.” (accessed on June 27, 2013); available at:







Memphis, Tennessee

165

convention centers, and hotels, all linked to the airport via roads, expressways, and rail lines.171

The Memphis

Airport is the world’s busiest airport in terms of cargo tonnage and 98 percent of the cargo is handled by Fed

Ex, the region’s largest employer with 31,000 employees.172

The Memphis economy is fairly diverse and three Fortune 500 companies (Fed Ex, International Paper and

AutoZone) are headquartered in the city.173

The area is also home to First Tennessee Bank, giving it a

significant banking presence. There are employment concentrations in multiple industry sectors, including

wholesale and retail trade; government; education and health services; professional and business services; and

transportation and utilities. In addition to the three Fortune 500 companies, other major employers include

Methodist Healthcare, Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, Wal-Mart, University of Tennessee Health

Science Center, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, and First Horizon National Corporation.174

Small businesses play an important role in the Memphis economy. According to 2012 D&B information, there

were 13,120 businesses within the Memphis assessment area, of which 89 percent had total annual revenues less

than or equal to $1 million, and were therefore considered to be small businesses.175

Access to credit for small

businesses declined during the recession though conditions appear to be improving modestly. In the assessment

area, small business lending to firms with revenues $1.0 million or less fell by 73 percent between 2007 and

2010 before beginning to stabilize in 2011. Small business lending remains well below 50 percent of peak

lending levels.176

Memphis was hit hard by the recession. Between 2007 and 2010, there was job loss in many sectors, with the

largest declines in manufacturing, construction, financial and information services. The only sectors that have

not lost employment are education and health services, which steadily grew even during the recession.177

Unemployment in the region peaked in 2010. Over the review period, the unemployment rate in Shelby County

fell from 10.1 percent to 9.1 percent, though remains well above the state and national unemployment rate. A

community contact stated that in some of the poorest neighborhoods in Memphis the unemployment rate may

be as high as 50 percent, indicating there is great disparity in the economic conditions within the region.

171

Greater Memphis Chamber. (accessed on February 8, 2013); available at: http://www.memphischamber.com/Economic-

Development/Aerotropolis.aspx 172


Mississippi-Arkansas, April 1,2012” (accessed February 8, 2013); available at:

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/PDF/MemphisTN_comp.pdf 173

CNNMoney.com. “Fortune 500 2011: States: Tennessee Companies “ (accessed on February 8, 2013); available at:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/states/TN.html 174






Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economy at a Glance, Memphis TN-AR-MS. (accessed on February 10, 2013); available at:

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tn_memphis_msa.htm



Memphis, Tennessee

166

The Memphis region is recovering, but it is happening slowly. The number of jobs in the MSA remains well

below the peak of 640,800 recorded in 2007.178

In December 2012, Memphis ranked 54th in the Brookings

Institute Metro Monitor index of economic recovery, which considers the pace of recovery in the 100 largest

metro economies based on job creation, unemployment rate, metro economic output and housing prices.179

The

combination of the foreclosure crisis and elevated unemployment rates continue to limit economic growth in the

region, particularly in lower income communities.

According to a small business community contact, Memphis has always been considered a low wage

environment. Therefore, while new job creation is needed, there is concern about the quality of jobs, and the

likelihood that many of the new jobs will be low-skilled and low wage jobs, which won’t significantly help low-

and moderate-income individuals build their financial stability.

Competition

First Tennessee Bank, based in Memphis, is the dominant financial institution in the Memphis market, holding

almost 36 percent of all deposits as of the June 30, 2012 FDIC Summary of Deposits Report. IBERIABANK

has a very small presence in the market, holding less than 1 percent of total deposits. Overall, there are 36

banks active in the market operating 251 branches.

HMDA lending is competitive in Memphis with 283 HMDA lenders in the market in 2012. Wells Fargo is the

dominant lender, reporting 17 percent of HMDA loans in 2011 and 22 percent of loans in 2012. IBERIABANK

Mortgage ranked 8th

and IBERIABANK ranked 47th

in 2011 with IBERIABANK Mortgage reporting

approximately 2.9 percent of total HMDA loans. IBERIABANK Mortgage again ranked 8th

in 2012 and

IBERIABANK ranked 52nd

with IBERIABANK Mortgage reporting 3.0 percent of total HMDA loans.

American Express is the leader in CRA lending in Memphis, followed by Regions Bank. IBERIABANK

ranked 17th

in 2011 and 2012 with less than 1 percent of total CRA loans in both years.

178




Brookings Institute, Metro Monitor 2012. (accessed on February 10, 2013); available at;

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/metromonitor#M32820-recovery-overall-mv

2011 2012

Shelby Co. 10.1 9.1

Memphis MSA 10.0 9.0

Tennessee 9.3 8.0



Unemployment Rates





Memphis, Tennessee

167



The recession, coupled with the housing and foreclosure crisis, has had a significant impact on low- and

moderate-income communities in the Memphis region. Memphis has long struggled with concentrated poverty,

particularly in majority minority neighborhoods. In these communities, the impact of the recession has been

hardest and the recovery has been the slowest. It’s estimated that African American households have lost two

decades of economic gains as a result of subprime lending, the foreclosure crisis, and job loss. Black middle-

class neighborhoods that were beginning to stabilize have seen home prices plummet and housing vacancies

increase, leading to increases in crime and other challenges. Memphis is a city of neighborhoods with many

active community development organizations that have been working for years to revitalize distressed

communities. However, the recession has created a crisis of an entirely different magnitude and it will take

years for these neighborhoods to recover, if they ever do.180

Affordable housing is one of the biggest problems in Memphis. According to a housing needs assessment

conducted by the Tennessee Housing Development Agency in 2012, over one third of the households in

Memphis had a serious housing problem (substandard housing or paying more than 35 percent of their income).

In addition, Shelby County had the second highest percentage of households (homeowners and renters) in the

state that were considered cost burdened. Finally, foreclosures have increased significantly and almost 30

percent of the foreclosure filings in Tennessee in the past 3 years have occurred in Shelby County.181

To aid communities impacted by foreclosures, the federal government created the Neighborhood Stabilization

Program (NSP) in late 2008. To date, through two rounds of NSP funding, $20.8 million has been awarded to

the city of Memphis and Shelby County. The funds have been used to purchase and renovate foreclosed homes

for rental or resale, to rehabilitate multi-family housing and for the removal of blighted properties.182

Financial

and homeownership counseling are critical to the success of the neighborhood stabilization efforts since many

low- and moderate-income individuals are not considered creditworthy by traditional banking institutions.

Community Development Capacity

Memphis has a very well established network of community based organizations that are engaged in affordable

housing, neighborhood stabilization and small business initiatives. There are nine Community Housing

Development Organizations in the city working on affordable housing development and rehabilitation. Many of

these organizations also provide financing and homeownership counseling and are potential partners for bank

CRA activities.183

While there is an active nonprofit network in Memphis, many of the organizations are struggling to recover

from the recession and the sequestration cuts have further impacted their ability to provide needed services. A

community contact noted that operating support for nonprofits was one of the biggest needs in the community.

The contact also noted that alternative sources of financing, like CDFIs, might be better able to bridge the

180

New York Times. May 30, 2010. “Blacks in Memphis Lose Decades of Economic Gains” (accessed on February 11, 2013);

available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/business/economy/31memphis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 181

Tennessee Housing Development Agency. Tennessee Housing Needs Assessment, September 2012. (accessed on February 11,

2013); available at: http://www.thda.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2819 182

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Neighborhood Stabilization Program Resource Exchange. (accessed on

February 11, 2013); available at: https://hudnsphelp.info/index.cfm 183

Memphis Nonprofit Housing Development Center. (accessed on February 11, 2013); available at:

http://www.memphistn.gov/chdo/index.html



Memphis, Tennessee

168

funding gap for nonprofits that are not always considered a good credit risk for a bank. The contact did indicate

that overall, banks are good partners for community development activities, though rarely take a leadership role,

and are not very creative in developing solutions to meet community needs.

Small Business and Economic Development

Small businesses in Memphis were negatively impacted by the recession, and as result, access to bank credit has

diminished. One small business community contact noted that declining cash flow coupled with tighter

underwriting standards has made it very difficult for small businesses to access the capital they need to survive.

A second community contact specializing in small businesses noted that more bank funding is needed to support

businesses that serve as anchor institutions and provide essential services, which help stabilize and revitalize

communities.

There are a number of community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and loan funds serving Memphis

that present opportunities for banks to invest in small businesses and economic development.

CommunnityLIFT is a relatively new community development corporation that recently created an affiliate

CDFI, the River City Capital Investment Corporation. River City Capital Investment Corporation is focused on

providing an alternative source of financing to smaller, service oriented businesses that will create jobs and

provide needed neighborhood services. The River City Capital Investment Corporation has received funding

from the U.S. Treasury and several financial institutions to start capitalizing the loan fund. In addition, Pathway

Lending, a CDFI based in Nashville, Tennessee provides small business loans in the Memphis area. Finally,

there are several other organizations that provide microenterprise loans and other types of technical assistance.

Financial Stability

Memphis ranked as the poorest large metro area (defined as a region with more than one million residents) in

the country according to the 2010 U.S. Census. The poverty rate in the MSA was 19.1 percent and in the

Memphis city limits, the poverty rate exceeded 26 percent.184

In addition, 27 percent of the population in

Shelby County received food stamps.185

In light of the many economic challenges, there is a great need for more financial education and other

household financial stability efforts targeting low- and moderate-income households. One opportunity is

increasing access to mainstream banking products. According to the FDIC’s 2011 National Survey of

Unbanked and Underbanked Households, 15.7 percent of households in the city of Memphis are unbanked,

meaning they have no type of deposit account with a mainstream financial institution. In addition, 28.1 percent

of households are considered underbanked, meaning they have a deposit account but they also rely on

alternative financial services providers on a regular basis. The unbanked are disproportionately lower income

and minority households.186

BankOn Memphis was launched in 2011 to focus on increasing access to

mainstream financial services. Twelve financial institutions are participating in this initiative by providing low-

cost basic transaction accounts.

184

The Commercial Appeal. “Census calls Memphis poorest in nation.” September 23, 2011. (accessed on February 6, 2013);

available at: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/sep/23/census-calls-city-poorest-in-nation/ 185


Calculations by CFED of data from the 2009 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. (accessed

February); available at: http://joinbankon.org/


http://joinbankon.org/



Memphis, Tennessee

169

There are a number of other opportunities for banks to participate in local initiatives focused on the financial

stability. First, there is an active network of volunteer income tax assistance (VITA) sites coordinated by the

United Way of the MidSouth in Shelby County. Second, there are opportunities to support financial education

and homeownership counseling through the large network of nonprofit and community-based organizations.



Memphis, Tennessee

170


Lending Test

IBERIABANK’s lending performance in the Memphis assessment area is adequate. The geographic



revenue sizes. In addition, the bank makes an adequate level of community development loans.

There are several specific performance context factors that may help explain the bank’s lending in low- and

moderate-income communities and to low- and moderate-income borrowers. First, there are a no low-income

census tracts and a limited number moderate-income census tracts in the assessment area, and the bank has a

very small presence overall in the Memphis market. Second, as noted earlier, the housing market in Memphis

only started to recover in 2012 and mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures are still high in the assessment

area. In addition, housing values have been slow to rebound, and there are many homeowners who are still

underwater with their mortgages and do not have the equity to borrow. These factors will impact borrowers in

all communities and at all income levels, but particularly low- and moderate-income borrowers or those living

in low- and moderate-income census tracts, where the housing recovery has been weakest. As a result,

borrowers in low- and moderate-income communities and those classified as low- and moderate-income may

not have the ability to refinance their homes and are less likely to be able to borrow for home improvement

projects. These factors are taken in to consideration when determining the relative weight given to each product

type in the overall analysis of the bank’s HMDA lending.


business loans in the Memphis assessment area. HMDA lending represented 91.5 percent of total lending and

small business accounted for 8.5 percent. Therefore, the performance of HMDA lending is weighted more

heavily than small business lending in determining the final lending test rating. The Memphis assessment area

contains 3.2 percent of the bank’s total HMDA lending and 0.9 percent of its total small business lending by

number of loans. In comparison, 2.0 percent of the bank’s total deposits are in this assessment area.


found in Appendix G and H.





geographic distribution of loans reflects adequate penetration throughout the assessment area. There were no

low-income tracts and just two moderate-income tracts within the Memphis assessment area, which helps

explain the bank’s geographic performance. Since there are no low-income tracts in the assessment area, loans

to low-income tracts were not included in the bank’s geographic rating.

Home Purchase Loans

Home purchase lending in moderate-income tracts is adequate. The bank did not originate any home purchase

loans in a moderate-income tract in 2011. The bank originated 1.4 percent of home purchase loans in moderate-

income tracts in 2012, which was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these tracts; the bank’s

lending was slightly less than aggregate in 2012.



Memphis, Tennessee

171


units in these tracts in 2011 and 2012, while lending in upper-income tracts was greater than the percentage of

units in upper-income tracts in both years.


IBERIABANK’s home refinance lending in moderate-income tracts is poor. The bank did not originate any

home refinance loans in a moderate-income tract in 2011. The bank originated 0.7 percent of home refinance

loans in moderate-income tracts in 2012, which was less than the percentage of owner-occupied units in these

tracts and less than aggregate.

The bank’s home refinance lending in middle-income tracts was less than the percentage of owner-occupied

units in these tracts, while lending in upper-income tracts was greater than the percentage of units in upper-

income tracts throughout the review period.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending in moderate-income tracts is very poor. The bank’s performance

is driven by very limited home improvement loan volume over the review period (less than 2 percent of total

HMDA lending). The bank did not originate any home improvement loans in moderate-income tracts over the

review period. In 2011, there was no aggregate lending, but in 2012, 6.4 percent of aggregate lending was done

in moderate-income tracts.

The bank’s home improvement lending in middle-income tracts was greater than the percentage of owner-

occupied units in these tracts in 2011; however, the bank made no home improvement loans in middle income

tracts in 2012. The bank’s home improvement lending in upper-income tracts was similar to or greater than the

percentage of units in upper-income tracts over the review period.


IBERIABANK’s small business lending in moderate-income tracts is good. The bank originated no small

business loans in moderate-income tracts in 2011. In 2012, loans in moderate-income tracts accounted for 11.1

percent of the bank’s small business loans, which significantly exceeded the percentage of small businesses in

moderate-income tracts and the 1.5 percent of aggregate loans.

The bank made no small business loans in middle-income tracts during the review period. Small business

lending in upper-income tracts was slightly greater than the percentage of small businesses located in these

tracts in both 2011 and 2012.


The distribution of loans based on borrower income or business revenues in the Memphis assessment area is

poor. For this analysis, HMDA lending across borrower income levels and the distribution of small business

lending across business revenue sizes was compared to available demographic information. Performance

context issues (noted above) were also considered, as well as the performance of other banks.

Home Purchase Loans

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to low-income borrowers is adequate. The bank’s percentage of loans

to low-income borrowers was less than the percentage of low-income families in the assessment area

throughout the review period. However, the bank’s performance exceeded the aggregate for both years. In

2012, the bank originated 4.8 percent of loans to low-income borrowers compared to aggregate at 4.2 percent.



Memphis, Tennessee

172


loans to moderate-income borrowers is greater than the percentage of moderate-income families in the

assessment area over the review period. In 2011, the bank’s percentage of loans to moderate-income borrowers

was below aggregate; in 2012, the bank outperformed aggregate with 22.6 percent of home-purchase loans to

moderate-income borrowers, compared to 17.2 percent of aggregate loans.

IBERIABANK’s home purchase lending to middle-income borrowers was greater the percentage of middle-

income families, while lending to upper-income borrowers was below the percentage of upper-income families

in the assessment area throughout the review period.



refinance loans to low-income borrowers in 2011 compared to 2.0 percent of aggregate lending. In 2012, the

bank originated 1.4 percent of home refinance loans to low-income borrowers compared to 9.6 percent of

families classified as low-income in the assessment area; refinance loans to low-income borrowers represented

2.2 percent of aggregate loans.


loans to moderate-income borrowers exceeded the percentage of moderate-income families in the assessment

area and the bank outperformed the aggregate in 2011. In 2012, the bank originated 8.8 percent of home

refinance loans to moderate-income borrowers, which was less than the percentage of families classified as

moderate-income in the assessment area, but above 6.8 percent of aggregate loans to moderate-income families.


families in the assessment area throughout the review period, while lending to upper-income borrowers was

greater than the percentage of upper-income families.


IBERIABANK’s home improvement lending to low and moderate-income borrowers is very poor. The bank

did not originate any home improvement loans to low or moderate-income borrowers throughout the review

period. In 2012, 4.0 percent of aggregate loans were made to low-income borrowers and 10.4 to moderate-

income borrowers.

The bank’s volume of home improvement loans in the assessment area was low in both 2011 and 2012. Home

improvement lending to middle-income borrowers was greater than the percentage of middle-income families

for both years; in 2011, the bank’s lending to upper-income families was greater than the percentage of upper-

income families but fell below in 2012.


IBERIABANK’s distribution of small business loans to businesses of different sizes is poor. The percentage of

small business loans to businesses with revenues of $1 million or less was significantly less than the percentage

of small businesses in the assessment area throughout the review period. The bank performed below the

aggregate throughout the review period as well. In 2012, 22.2 percent of the banks loans were made to small

businesses compared to 37.4 percent of aggregate loans.


IBERIABANK made an adequate level of community development loans in the Memphis assessment area. The

bank originated one community development loan totaling $1.0 million during the review period to support



Memphis, Tennessee

173

community revitalization in a moderate-income tract. In addition, the bank originated a $5.0 million revolving

line of credit to a nonprofit financing intermediary that promotes economic development by lending to small

businesses in Arkansas and Tennessee that may not qualify for traditional bank financing. The loan benefits a

larger regional area that includes the Memphis assessment area.

Investment Test

IBERIABANK’s community development investment performance in the Memphis assessment area is

adequate. The bank had 9 investments totaling $1.1 million. All investments provided support for affordable

housing through the purchase of mortgage backed securities and an investment in a fund that purchased

mortgage backed securities.

The bank made 10 contributions totaling $31,500. Total contributions include $8,000 in down payment

assistance grants for low- and moderate-income homebuyers. The remaining contributions supported

community services to low- and moderate-income individuals with an emphasis on education and youth

services.

The bank’s investments and contributions are responsive to the need in the community for affordable housing.

A summary of the bank’s investments can be found in Appendix K.

Service Test

IBERIABANK’s performance under the service test in the Memphis assessment area is good. Its retail and


Retail Services


and individuals of different income levels. The distribution of three branch offices and four ATMs as of


within the assessment area. The bank has no branches in low or moderate-income tracts; 4.4 percent of

households and 2.1 percent of businesses are located in moderate-income communities within the assessment

area. All of the bank’s branches are located in upper-income tracts. During the review period, the bank opened

two branches and closed one branch.



inconveniences the assessment area, particularly moderate-income geographies or to low- and moderate-income

individuals. IBERIABANK does offer drive through services and extended hours at two branches and weekend

hours at one branch in the Memphis assessment area. Bank products, services, and standard business hours are

consistent throughout the assessment area.



Memphis, Tennessee

174


IBERIABANK is a leader in providing community development services in the Memphis assessment area.


community development organizations by participating in 12 different community development services.

Notably, board service represented approximately 77 percent of the total community development service

hours. Bank employees utilized their financial expertise with a variety of community development

organizations including a land bank, a CDFI, and several affordable housing organizations. Bank employees

also offered financial education through various community partners.


# # # # # # # # % # # # % % %

Low 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 3 100.0% 1 1 3 3 1 Total 4 100.0% 4 100.0% 1 1 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3 100.0% 1 1 3 3 1 Total 4 100.0% 4 100.0% 1 1 0 0.0% 0 0

SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



2 5.4% 0.0% 0.6%

37 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7 18.9% 19.6% 10.1%

26 70.3% 75.9% 87.2%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2 5.4% 4.4% 2.1%

# % # % # %


Tracts

House

holds

Total

Businesses



Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours



Appendix A: Scope of Examination

175


TIME PERIOD REVIEWED

Lending: January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012

Investments, CD Loans, and Services: January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2013

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION

IBERIABANK– Lafayette, Louisiana

PRODUCTS REVIEWED

HMDA Lending & Small Business

AFFILIATE(S)

IBERIABANK Mortgage Co.

AFFILIATE RELATIONSHIP

Subsidiary

PRODUCTS REVIEWED

HMDA Lending

LIST OF ASSESSMENT AREAS AND TYPE OF EXAMINATION

ASSESSMENT

AREA

TYPE

OF EXAMINATION

BRANCHES

VISITED

OTHER

INFORMATION

ALABAMA

Baldwin County Limited-Scope Review

Birmingham, MSA 13820 Full-Scope Review

Huntsville, MSA 26620 Limited-Scope Review

Mobile, MSA 33660 Limited-Scope Review

Montgomery, MSA 33860 Limited-Scope Review

ARKANSAS

Fayetteville, MSA 22220

Full-Scope Review

Jonesboro, MSA 27860

Limited-Scope Review

Little Rock, MSA 30780

Full-Scope Review

Northeast Arkansas


FLORIDA

Naples, MSA 34940 Full-Scope Review




176


ASSESSMENT

AREA

TYPE

OF EXAMINATION

BRANCHES

VISITED

OTHER

INFORMATION

Sarasota, MSA 35840 Full-Scope Review

Palm Beach/Broward, MSA

48424/22744


Ft Myers, MSA 15980 Limited-Scope Review

Florida Keys Limited-Scope Review

LOUISIANA

Acadiana


Allen Limited-Scope Review

Baton Rouge, MSA 12940 Limited-Scope Review

Houma, MSA 26380 Limited-Scope Review

Lafayette, MSA 29180 Full-Scope Review

Lake Charles, MSA 29340 Limited-Scope Review

Lincoln Limited-Scope Review

Monroe, MSA 33740 Limited-Scope Review

Morehouse Limited-Scope Review

New Orleans, MSA 35380 Full-Scope Review

Shreveport, MSA 43340 Limited-Scope Review

TENNESSEE

Memphis, MSA 32820 Full-Scope Review




177


ASSESSMENT

AREA

TYPE

OF EXAMINATION

BRANCHES

VISITED

OTHER

INFORMATION

TEXAS

Houston, MSA 26420 Full-Scope Review



Appendix B: Summary of State Ratings

178

State Name Lending Test

Rating

Investment

Test Rating

Service Test

Rating

Overall State

Rating

Alabama High

Satisfactory

High

Satisfactory

Low

Satisfactory Satisfactory

Arkansas High

Satisfactory

High

Satisfactory

High


Florida Low

Satisfactory

Low

Satisfactory

High


Louisiana High

Satisfactory Outstanding

High


Tennessee Low

Satisfactory

Low

Satisfactory

High


Texas High

Satisfactory

High

Satisfactory

Low




Appendix C: Abbreviations and Definitions

179

Abbreviations

AHP - Affordable Housing Program

ATM - Automated Teller Machine

CDC - Community Development Corporation

CDFI - Community Development Financial Institution

CRA - Community Reinvestment Act (Regulation BB)

FDIC - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FFIEC - Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

HMDA - Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C)

HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development

LMI - Low- and Moderate-Income

LIHTC - Low Income Housing Tax Credit

LTD - Loan-to-Deposit

LTV - Loan-to-Value Ratio

MD - Metropolitan Division

MSA - Metropolitan Statistical Area

OMB - Office of Management and Budget

REIS - Regional Economic Information System

SBA - Small Business Administration

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture



Appendix C: Abbreviations and Definitions

180

Performance Definitions Regarding Lending

Excellent - This rating is assigned to an institution with lending performance that substantially

exceeds the characteristics of demographic data and aggregate performance.

Good - This rating is assigned to an institution with lending performance that exceeds the

characteristics of demographic data and aggregate performance.

Adequate - This rating is assigned to an institution with lending performance that is comparable to

the characteristics of demographic data and aggregate performance.

Poor - This rating is assigned to an institution with lending performance that is significantly

below the characteristics of demographic data and aggregate performance.

Consistent - This term is used to describe the performance of an institution in an assessment area

reviewed not using full-scope procedures when the performance is comparable to the

performance in the state overall.

*Not Consistent - This term is used to describe the performance of an institution in an assessment area

reviewed not using full-scope procedures when the performance is not comparable to the

performance in the state overall.

*A “not consistent” rating only illustrates the performance of an assessment area in comparison to the

performance in the state as a whole. It does not necessarily indicate that the performance is less than

satisfactory.

Rounding Convention

Because the percentages presented in tables were rounded to the nearest tenth in most cases, some columns may

not total exactly 100 percent.



Appendix D: Glossary

181

Aggregate lending: The number of loans originated and purchased by all reporting lenders in specified income

categories as a percentage of the aggregate number of loans originated and purchased by all reporting lenders in

the metropolitan area/assessment area.

Census tract: A small subdivision of metropolitan and other densely populated counties. Census tract

boundaries do not cross county lines; however, they may cross the boundaries of metropolitan statistical areas.

Census tracts usually have between 2,500 and 8,000 persons, and their physical size varies widely depending

upon population density. Census tracts are designed to be homogeneous with respect to population

characteristics, economic status, and living conditions to allow for statistical comparisons.

Community development: All Agencies have adopted the following language. Affordable housing (including

multi-family rental housing) for low- or moderate-income individuals; community services targeted to low- or

moderate-income individuals; activities that promote economic development by financing businesses or farms

that meet the size eligibility standards of the Small Business Administration’s Development Company or Small

Business Investment Company programs (13 CFR 121.301) or have gross annual revenues of $1 million or less;

or, activities that revitalize or stabilize low- or moderate-income geographies.

Effective September 1, 2005, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have adopted the following additional language

as part of the revitalize or stabilize definition of community development. Activities that revitalize or stabilize-

I. Low-or moderate-income geographies;

II. Designated disaster areas; or

III. Distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies designated by the Board,

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, based on-

a. Rates of poverty, unemployment, and population loss; or

b. Population size, density, and dispersion. Activities that revitalize and stabilize

geographies designated based on population size, density, and dispersion if they help to

meet essential community needs, including needs of low- and moderate-income

individuals.

Effective January 19, 2010, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation revised the definition of

community development to include loans, investments, and services by financial institutions that-

I. Support, enable or facilitate projects or activities that meet the “eligible uses” criteria described

in Section 2301(c) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Public Law

110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, as amended, and are conducted in designated target areas identified in

plans approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in

accordance with the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP);

II. Are provided no later than two years after the last date funds appropriated for the NSP are

required to be spent by grantees; and

III. Benefit low-, moderate-, and middle-income individuals and geographies in the bank's

assessment area(s) or areas outside the bank's assessment area(s) provided the bank has

adequately addressed the community development needs of its assessment area(s).




182

Consumer loan(s): A loan(s) to one or more individuals for household, family, or other personal expenditures.

A consumer loan does not include a home mortgage, small business, or small farm loan. This definition

includes the following categories: motor vehicle loans, credit card loans, home equity loans, other secured

consumer loans, and other unsecured consumer loans.

Family: Includes a householder and one or more other persons living in the same household who are related to

the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. The number of family households always equals the number of

families; however, a family household may also include nonrelatives living with the family. Families are

classified by type as either a married-couple family or other family, which is further classified into ‘male

householder’ (a family with a male householder and no wife present) or ‘female householder’ (a family with a

female householder and no husband present).

Full-scope review: Performance under the Lending, Investment, and Service Tests is analyzed considering

performance context, quantitative factors (for example, geographic distribution, borrower distribution, and total

number and dollar amount of investments), and qualitative factors (for example, innovativeness, complexity,

and responsiveness).

Geography: A census tract delineated by the United States Bureau of the Census in the most recent decennial

census.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): The statute that requires certain mortgage lenders that do business

or have banking offices in a metropolitan statistical area to file annual summary reports of their mortgage

lending activity. The reports include such data as the race, gender, and the income of applications, the amount

of loan requested, and the disposition of the application (for example, approved, denied, and withdrawn).

Home mortgage loans: Includes home purchase and home improvement loans as defined in the HMDA

regulation. This definition also includes multi-family (five or more families) dwelling loans, loans for the

purchase of manufactured homes and refinancing of home improvement and home purchase loans.

Household: Includes all persons occupying a housing unit. Persons not living in households are classified as

living in group quarters. In 100 percent tabulations, the count of households always equals the count of

occupied housing units.

Limited-scope review: Performance under the Lending, Investment, and Service Tests is analyzed using only

quantitative factors (for example, geographic distribution, borrower distribution, total number and dollar

amount of investments and branch distribution).

Low-income: Individual income that is less than 50 percent of the area median income, or a median family

income that is less than 50 percent, in the case of geography.

Market share: The number of loans originated and purchased by the institution as a percentage of the

aggregate number of loans originated and purchased by all reporting lenders in the metropolitan area/assessment

area.




183

Metropolitan area (MA): A metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or a metropolitan division (MD) as defined

by the Office of Management and Budget. An MSA is a core area containing at least one urbanized area of

50,000 or more inhabitants, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social

integration with that core. An MD is a division of an MSA based on specific criteria including commuting

patterns. Only an MSA that has a population of at least 2.5 million may be divided into MDs.

Middle-income: Individual income that is at least 80 percent and less than 120 percent of the area median

income, or a median family income that is at least 80 percent and less than 120 percent, in the case of a

geography.

Moderate-income: Individual income that is at least 50 percent and less than 80 percent of the area median

income, or a median family income that is at least 50 percent and less than 80 percent, in the case of a

geography.

Multi-family: Refers to a residential structure that contains five or more units.

Other products: Includes any unreported optional category of loans for which the institution collects and

maintains data for consideration during a CRA examination. Examples of such activity include consumer loans

and other loan data an institution may provide concerning its lending performance.

Owner-occupied units: Includes units occupied by the owner or co-owner, even if the unit has not been fully

paid for or is mortgaged.

Qualified investment: A qualified investment is defined as any lawful investment, deposit, membership share,

or grant that has as its primary purpose community development.

Rated area: A rated area is a state or multistate metropolitan area. For an institution with domestic branches

in only one state, the institution’s CRA rating would be the state rating. If an institution maintains domestic

branches in more than one state, the institution will receive a rating for each state in which those branches are

located. If an institution maintains domestic branches in two or more states within a multistate metropolitan

area, the institution will receive a rating for the multistate metropolitan area.

Small loan(s) to business(es): A loan included in 'loans to small businesses' as defined in the Consolidated

Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) and the Thrift Financial Reporting (TFR) instructions. These

loans have original amounts of $1 million or less and typically are either secured by nonfarm or nonresidential

real estate or are classified as commercial and industrial loans. However, thrift institutions may also exercise

the option to report loans secured by nonfarm residential real estate as "small business loans" if the loans are

reported on the TFR as nonmortgage, commercial loans.

Small loan(s) to farm(s): A loan included in ‘loans to small farms’ as defined in the instructions for

preparation of the Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (Call Report). These loans have original

amounts of $500,000 or less and are either secured by farmland, or are classified as loans to finance agricultural

production and other loans to farmers.




184

Upper-income: Individual income that is more than 120 percent of the area median income, or a median

family income that is more than 120 percent, in the case of a geography.



Appendix E: General Information

185

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires each federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority

when examining financial institutions subject to its supervision to assess the institution’s record of meeting the

credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe

and sound operation of the institution. Upon conclusion of such examination, the agency must prepare a written

evaluation of the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community.

This document is an evaluation of the CRA performance of IBERIABANK prepared by the Federal Reserve

Bank of Atlanta, the institution’s supervisory agency, as of August 5, 2013. The agency rates the CRA

performance of an institution consistent with the provisions set forth in Appendix A to 12 CFR Part 228.



Appendix F: Institution Tables

186

Loan Type # % $(000s) %

Total Consumer related 0 0 0

Home Improvement 620 -- $17,750 --

Home Purchase 3,523 -- $582,407 --


Refinancing 2,831 -- $558,825 --


Small Business 2,490 -- $534,103 --


Small Farm 186 -- $19,135 --


TOTAL LOANS 9,690 100 $1,765,406 100

2011 Summary of Lending Activity

Note: Affiliate loans include only loans originated or purchased within the bank's assessment areas.

Loan Type # % $(000s) %

Total Consumer related 0 0 $0 0

Home Improvement 934 -- $17,535 --

Home Purchase 4,595 -- $818,656 --


Refinancing 4,356 -- $874,001 --


Small Business 3,368 -- $691,530 --


Small Farm 166 -- $19,478 --


TOTAL LOANS 13,470 100 $2,497,882 100

2012 Summary of Lending Activity

Note: Affiliate loans include only loans originated or purchased within the bank's assessment areas.



Appendix F: Institution Tables

187


# # # # # # # # % # # # %

Low 3 1.8% 0 0 3 1 1 Total 4 2.0% 4 2.2% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

DTO 0 0 0 SA 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Moderate 13 7.6% 5 4 12 7 7 Total 18 9.0% 15 8.4% 6 4 3 13.6% 0 0

DTO 0 0 0 SA 4 1 0 0 3 0 0

Middle 84 49.1% 17 3 74 44 27 Total 92 46.0% 83 46.6% 18 2 9 40.9% 0 1

DTO 1 0 0 1 SA 5 0 0 0 5 0 0

Upper 71 41.5% 21 3 61 25 20 Total 86 43.0% 76 42.7% 23 2 10 45.5% 0 1

DTO 5 4 0 5 SA 11 4 0 0 7 0 0

Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0

DTO 0 0 0 SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 171 100.0% 43 10 150 77 55 Total 200 100.0% 178 100.0% 47 8 22 100.0% 0 2

DTO 6 4 0 6 SA 21 6 0 0 15 0 0

DTO - Drive thru only is a subset of total branches.



864 28.4%

14 0.5%

3,039 100.0%

252 8.3%

757 24.9%

1152 37.9%

Cash only ATMs

Census Tracts

# % # % # %

Tract

Category


Total BranchesDrive

thrus

Extend-

ed

Hours

Week-

end

Hours

Total ATMs Full Service ATMs



Appendix G: 2011 Full Scope Lending Tables

188

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 3 7.7% $378 4.3% 22.8% 3 7.7% 7.7% $378 4.3% 4.2%

Middle 7 17.9% $893 10.2% 40.9% 7 17.9% 43.2% $893 10.2% 35.0%

Upper 29 74.4% $7,500 85.5% 33.9% 29 74.4% 48.5% $7,500 85.5% 60.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 39 100.0% $8,771 100.0% 100.0% 39 100.0% 100.0% $8,771 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.8% 0 0.0% 6.7% $0 0.0% 3.8%

Middle 8 17.8% $1,593 11.3% 40.9% 8 17.8% 37.5% $1,593 11.3% 30.4%

Upper 37 82.2% $12,495 88.7% 33.9% 37 82.2% 55.2% $12,495 88.7% 65.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 45 100.0% $14,088 100.0% 100.0% 45 100.0% 100.0% $14,088 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0% 0.8% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 1 25.0% $20 36.4% 22.8% 1 25.0% 11.0% $20 36.4% 6.3%

Middle 1 25.0% $3 5.5% 40.9% 1 25.0% 31.6% $3 5.5% 30.0%

Upper 2 50.0% $32 58.2% 33.9% 2 50.0% 26.6% $32 58.2% 58.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 30.0% $0 0.0% 5.4%

Total 4 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 14.6% 0 0.0% 11.9% $0 0.0% 3.8%

Moderate 1 25.0% $583 24.1% 23.3% 1 25.0% 28.4% $583 24.1% 10.0%

Middle 1 25.0% $388 16.0% 31.0% 1 25.0% 37.3% $388 16.0% 50.5%

Upper 2 50.0% $1,452 59.9% 31.1% 2 50.0% 17.9% $1,452 59.9% 35.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.5% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 4 100.0% $2,423 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $2,423 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 5 5.4% $981 3.9% 22.8% 5 5.4% 7.4% $981 3.9% 4.2%

Middle 17 18.5% $2,877 11.4% 40.9% 17 18.5% 39.5% $2,877 11.4% 32.7%

Upper 70 76.1% $21,479 84.8% 33.9% 70 76.1% 50.9% $21,479 84.8% 62.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 92 100.0% $25,337 100.0% 100.0% 92 100.0% 100.0% $25,337 100.0% 100.0%

Originations & Purchases

Based on 2000 Census Data.

Geographic Distribution of HMDA Loans


RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count

Bank & Aggregate Lending Comparison

Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels

Bank Lending & Demographic Data

Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




189

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 2.6% $138 1.6% 21.5% 1 2.6% 10.3% $138 1.6% 5.2%

Moderate 6 15.4% $655 7.5% 17.3% 6 15.4% 22.8% $655 7.5% 16.5%

Middle 4 10.3% $414 4.7% 20.2% 4 10.3% 20.8% $414 4.7% 19.6%

Upper 26 66.7% $6,958 79.3% 41.0% 26 66.7% 29.4% $6,958 79.3% 43.2%

Unknown 2 5.1% $606 6.9% 0.0% 2 5.1% 16.7% $606 6.9% 15.4%

Total 39 100.0% $8,771 100.0% 100.0% 39 100.0% 100.0% $8,771 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 2.2% $95 0.7% 21.5% 1 2.2% 4.9% $95 0.7% 2.4%

Moderate 2 4.4% $272 1.9% 17.3% 2 4.4% 13.1% $272 1.9% 8.5%

Middle 4 8.9% $703 5.0% 20.2% 4 8.9% 18.6% $703 5.0% 15.0%

Upper 27 60.0% $10,463 74.3% 41.0% 27 60.0% 41.5% $10,463 74.3% 53.8%

Unknown 11 24.4% $2,555 18.1% 0.0% 11 24.4% 21.8% $2,555 18.1% 20.3%

Total 45 100.0% $14,088 100.0% 100.0% 45 100.0% 100.0% $14,088 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 25.0% $20 36.4% 21.5% 1 25.0% 18.2% $20 36.4% 4.8%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.3% 0 0.0% 24.0% $0 0.0% 14.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.2% 0 0.0% 23.6% $0 0.0% 22.6%

Upper 3 75.0% $35 63.6% 41.0% 3 75.0% 29.7% $35 63.6% 50.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.6% $0 0.0% 7.7%

Total 4 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 4 100.0% $2,423 100.0% 0.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $2,423 100.0% 100.0%

Total 4 100.0% $2,423 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $2,423 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 3.3% $253 1.0% 21.5% 3 3.3% 7.8% $253 1.0% 3.5%

Moderate 8 8.7% $927 3.7% 17.3% 8 8.7% 17.6% $927 3.7% 11.5%

Middle 8 8.7% $1,117 4.4% 20.2% 8 8.7% 19.7% $1,117 4.4% 16.5%

Upper 56 60.9% $17,456 68.9% 41.0% 56 60.9% 35.9% $17,456 68.9% 48.1%

Unknown 17 18.5% $5,584 22.0% 0.0% 17 18.5% 18.9% $5,584 22.0% 20.4%

Total 92 100.0% $25,337 100.0% 100.0% 92 100.0% 100.0% $25,337 100.0% 100.0%



2011

Bank Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels


ComparisonBank & Aggregate Lending Comparison

2011

Borrower Distribution of HMDA Loans


Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




190

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 20 14.9% $7,056 23.3% 7.7% 20 14.9% 9.3% $7,056 23.3% 13.8%

Moderate 12 9.0% $1,123 3.7% 15.4% 12 9.0% 11.0% $1,123 3.7% 12.1%

Middle 31 23.1% $9,140 30.2% 36.5% 31 23.1% 28.7% $9,140 30.2% 25.8%

Upper 71 53.0% $12,974 42.8% 40.4% 71 53.0% 48.9% $12,974 42.8% 47.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.1% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Total 134 100.0% $30,293 100.0% 100.0% 134 100.0% 100.0% $30,293 100.0% 100.0%



Geographic Distribution of Small Business Loans


Tract

Income

Levels

Bank Lending & Demographic Data Comparison Bank & Aggregate Lending Comparison

Dollar Bank Bank

2011 2011

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 51 38.1% $10,955 36.2% 51 38.1% 38.5% $10,955 36.2% 35.5%

Over $1 Million 51 38.1% $12,941 42.7% 51 38.1%

Total Rev. available 102 76.2% $23,896 78.9% 102 76.2%

Rev. Not Known 32 23.9% $6,397 21.1% 32 23.9%

Total 134 100.0% $30,293 100.0% 134 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 60 44.8% $3,021 10.0% 60 44.8% 90.2% $3,021 10.0% 30.5%

$100,001 - $250,000 35 26.1% $6,547 21.6% 35 26.1% 4.6% $6,547 21.6% 15.9%

$250,001 - $1 Million 39 29.1% $20,725 68.4% 39 29.1% 5.2% $20,725 68.4% 53.5%

Total 134 100.0% $30,293 100.0% 134 100.0% 100.0% $30,293 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 22 43.1% $1,079 9.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 14 27.5% $2,635 24.1%

$250,001 - $1 Million 15 29.4% $7,241 66.1%

Total 51 100.0% $10,955 100.0%

Based on 2011 D&B information 2000 Census Boundaries.

Small Business Loans by Business Revenue & Loan Size


Business Revenue & Loan

Size


2011

Bank Bank

%

2011

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

90.4%

6.0%

96.4%

3.6%

Aggregate data is unavailable for loans to businesses w ith revenue over $1 million or revenue unknow n, and for loan size by revenue.

LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less





191

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 6 1.0% $1,065 1.2% 3.5% 6 1.0% 1.8% $1,065 1.2% 1.4%

Middle 473 77.7% $65,447 73.7% 78.0% 473 77.7% 77.9% $65,447 73.7% 72.9%

Upper 130 21.3% $22,236 25.1% 18.3% 130 21.3% 20.1% $22,236 25.1% 25.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 609 100.0% $88,748 100.0% 100.0% 609 100.0% 100.0% $88,748 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 4 1.2% $322 0.6% 3.5% 4 1.2% 2.1% $322 0.6% 1.5%

Middle 220 68.5% $34,006 65.3% 78.0% 220 68.5% 72.5% $34,006 65.3% 68.5%

Upper 97 30.2% $17,787 34.1% 18.3% 97 30.2% 25.3% $17,787 34.1% 29.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 321 100.0% $52,115 100.0% 100.0% 321 100.0% 100.0% $52,115 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.5% 0 0.0% 4.0% $0 0.0% 4.7%

Middle 15 65.2% $93 19.1% 78.0% 15 65.2% 75.5% $93 19.1% 66.7%

Upper 8 34.8% $394 80.9% 18.3% 8 34.8% 20.1% $394 80.9% 28.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 23 100.0% $487 100.0% 100.0% 23 100.0% 100.0% $487 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.7% 0 0.0% 17.9% $0 0.0% 12.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.8% 0 0.0% 22.4% $0 0.0% 24.3%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 52.6% 0 0.0% 50.7% $0 0.0% 59.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.0% 0 0.0% 9.0% $0 0.0% 3.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Moderate 10 1.0% $1,387 1.0% 3.5% 10 1.0% 2.1% $1,387 1.0% 2.6%

Middle 708 74.3% $99,546 70.4% 78.0% 708 74.3% 74.9% $99,546 70.4% 70.0%

Upper 235 24.7% $40,417 28.6% 18.3% 235 24.7% 22.8% $40,417 28.6% 26.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 953 100.0% $141,350 100.0% 100.0% 953 100.0% 100.0% $141,350 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




192

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 54 8.9% $4,177 4.7% 17.2% 54 8.9% 10.5% $4,177 4.7% 5.2%

Moderate 136 22.3% $13,467 15.2% 18.0% 136 22.3% 18.8% $13,467 15.2% 12.6%

Middle 136 22.3% $18,306 20.6% 24.1% 136 22.3% 17.9% $18,306 20.6% 15.1%

Upper 281 46.1% $52,474 59.1% 40.6% 281 46.1% 36.2% $52,474 59.1% 48.7%

Unknown 2 0.3% $324 0.4% 0.0% 2 0.3% 16.6% $324 0.4% 18.4%

Total 609 100.0% $88,748 100.0% 100.0% 609 100.0% 100.0% $88,748 100.0% 100.0%

Low 9 2.8% $596 1.1% 17.2% 9 2.8% 5.3% $596 1.1% 2.4%

Moderate 40 12.5% $4,381 8.4% 18.0% 40 12.5% 11.8% $4,381 8.4% 7.2%

Middle 64 19.9% $8,201 15.7% 24.1% 64 19.9% 17.4% $8,201 15.7% 13.1%

Upper 191 59.5% $36,445 69.9% 40.6% 191 59.5% 49.8% $36,445 69.9% 60.8%

Unknown 17 5.3% $2,492 4.8% 0.0% 17 5.3% 15.7% $2,492 4.8% 16.5%

Total 321 100.0% $52,115 100.0% 100.0% 321 100.0% 100.0% $52,115 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 17.4% $20 4.1% 17.2% 4 17.4% 10.4% $20 4.1% 4.1%

Moderate 5 21.7% $26 5.3% 18.0% 5 21.7% 17.9% $26 5.3% 12.9%

Middle 5 21.7% $41 8.4% 24.1% 5 21.7% 21.9% $41 8.4% 15.9%

Upper 9 39.1% $400 82.1% 40.6% 9 39.1% 41.2% $400 82.1% 57.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.6% $0 0.0% 9.1%

Total 23 100.0% $487 100.0% 100.0% 23 100.0% 100.0% $487 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 67 7.0% $4,793 3.4% 17.2% 67 7.0% 7.8% $4,793 3.4% 3.5%

Moderate 181 19.0% $17,874 12.6% 18.0% 181 19.0% 15.1% $17,874 12.6% 9.3%

Middle 205 21.5% $26,548 18.8% 24.1% 205 21.5% 17.7% $26,548 18.8% 13.4%

Upper 481 50.5% $89,319 63.2% 40.6% 481 50.5% 43.2% $89,319 63.2% 52.5%

Unknown 19 2.0% $2,816 2.0% 0.0% 19 2.0% 16.2% $2,816 2.0% 21.4%

Total 953 100.0% $141,350 100.0% 100.0% 953 100.0% 100.0% $141,350 100.0% 100.0%



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank




193

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.8% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 2 5.0% $220 3.6% 8.9% 2 5.0% 9.2% $220 3.6% 8.0%

Middle 34 85.0% $5,805 94.2% 70.6% 34 85.0% 64.4% $5,805 94.2% 66.5%

Upper 4 10.0% $135 2.2% 19.7% 4 10.0% 23.9% $135 2.2% 24.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.9% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 40 100.0% $6,160 100.0% 100.0% 40 100.0% 100.0% $6,160 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.4% 0 0.0% 1.7% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Middle 1 100.0% $196 100.0% 85.3% 1 100.0% 90.2% $196 100.0% 87.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.3% 0 0.0% 7.6% $0 0.0% 10.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 1 100.0% $196 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $196 100.0% 100.0%



SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

M

Count Dollar Bank Bank

2011 2011

Bank Small

Businesses

Count Dollar

Geographic Distribution of Small Business & Small Farm Loans


PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels





194

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

$1 Million or Less 22 55.0% $2,017 32.7% 22 55.0% 60.5% $2,017 32.7% 73.6%

Over $1 Million 14 35.0% $3,865 62.7% 14 35.0%


Rev. Not Known 4 10.0% $278 4.5% 4 10.0%

Total 40 100.0% $6,160 100.0% 40 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 24 60.0% $923 15.0% 24 60.0% 85.3% $923 15.0% 22.7%

$100,001 - $250,000 8 20.0% $1,462 23.7% 8 20.0% 7.6% $1,462 23.7% 20.5%

$250,001 - $1 Million 8 20.0% $3,775 61.3% 8 20.0% 7.1% $3,775 61.3% 56.8%

Total 40 100.0% $6,160 100.0% 40 100.0% 100.0% $6,160 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 16 72.7% $607 30.1%

$100,001 - $250,000 4 18.2% $710 35.2%

$250,001 - $1 Million 2 9.1% $700 34.7%

Total 22 100.0% $2,017 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $196 100.0% 1 100.0% 95.3% $196 100.0% 95.0%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Rev. available 1 100.0% $196 100.0% 1 100.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $196 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 86.2% $0 0.0% 42.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 100.0% $196 100.0% 1 100.0% 10.1% $196 100.0% 31.3%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.7% $0 0.0% 25.8%

Total 1 100.0% $196 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $196 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 100.0% $196 100.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $196 100.0%



Loan S

ize &

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r


100.0%

Lo

an

Siz

e

0.9%

99.5%

0.5%

Loan S

ize &

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Sm

all F

arm

Total Farms

Re

ve

nu

e

98.6%

Sm

all B

usin

ess

Re

ve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize

Count

95.9%

4.1%

100.0%

%

91.2%

4.7%


Pro

du

ct

Ty

pe Bank Lending & Demographic Data Comparison Bank & Aggregate Lending Comparison

2011 2011

Dollar Bank Bank

Bank Total

Businesses

Count Dollar

Small Business & Small Farm Lending By Revenue & Loan Size




195

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 0.6% $220 0.4% 3.0% 2 0.6% 1.3% $220 0.4% 1.1%

Moderate 19 5.7% $1,860 3.6% 21.5% 19 5.7% 9.1% $1,860 3.6% 4.6%

Middle 92 27.5% $11,370 21.8% 33.7% 92 27.5% 35.3% $11,370 21.8% 28.9%

Upper 222 66.3% $38,710 74.2% 41.8% 222 66.3% 54.2% $38,710 74.2% 65.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 335 100.0% $52,160 100.0% 100.0% 335 100.0% 100.0% $52,160 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 0.4% $24 0.1% 3.0% 1 0.4% 0.8% $24 0.1% 0.6%

Moderate 10 3.7% $594 1.3% 21.5% 10 3.7% 6.1% $594 1.3% 2.8%

Middle 74 27.1% $10,261 21.6% 33.7% 74 27.1% 27.1% $10,261 21.6% 21.4%

Upper 188 68.9% $36,560 77.1% 41.8% 188 68.9% 66.0% $36,560 77.1% 75.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 273 100.0% $47,439 100.0% 100.0% 273 100.0% 100.0% $47,439 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 2.2% $9 0.3% 3.0% 1 2.2% 2.3% $9 0.3% 0.3%

Moderate 4 8.9% $32 1.0% 21.5% 4 8.9% 13.5% $32 1.0% 4.9%

Middle 19 42.2% $229 7.1% 33.7% 19 42.2% 35.3% $229 7.1% 25.8%

Upper 21 46.7% $2,936 91.6% 41.8% 21 46.7% 49.0% $2,936 91.6% 69.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 45 100.0% $3,206 100.0% 100.0% 45 100.0% 100.0% $3,206 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 9.3% 0 0.0% 17.1% $0 0.0% 5.8%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.1% 0 0.0% 19.5% $0 0.0% 9.2%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 36.0% 0 0.0% 48.8% $0 0.0% 61.1%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 37.6% 0 0.0% 14.6% $0 0.0% 23.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 4 0.6% $253 0.2% 3.0% 4 0.6% 1.1% $253 0.2% 1.1%

Moderate 33 5.1% $2,486 2.4% 21.5% 33 5.1% 7.8% $2,486 2.4% 3.9%

Middle 185 28.3% $21,860 21.3% 33.7% 185 28.3% 31.2% $21,860 21.3% 26.6%

Upper 431 66.0% $78,206 76.1% 41.8% 431 66.0% 59.9% $78,206 76.1% 68.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 653 100.0% $102,805 100.0% 100.0% 653 100.0% 100.0% $102,805 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




196

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 29 8.7% $2,545 4.9% 21.0% 29 8.7% 8.8% $2,545 4.9% 4.4%

Moderate 67 20.0% $7,748 14.9% 16.8% 67 20.0% 18.7% $7,748 14.9% 13.6%

Middle 80 23.9% $11,453 22.0% 20.4% 80 23.9% 19.0% $11,453 22.0% 17.8%

Upper 154 46.0% $29,840 57.2% 41.9% 154 46.0% 33.1% $29,840 57.2% 45.2%

Unknown 5 1.5% $574 1.1% 0.0% 5 1.5% 20.4% $574 1.1% 18.9%

Total 335 100.0% $52,160 100.0% 100.0% 335 100.0% 100.0% $52,160 100.0% 100.0%

Low 9 3.3% $669 1.4% 21.0% 9 3.3% 3.8% $669 1.4% 1.8%

Moderate 27 9.9% $3,298 7.0% 16.8% 27 9.9% 10.6% $3,298 7.0% 6.4%

Middle 67 24.5% $7,705 16.2% 20.4% 67 24.5% 16.2% $7,705 16.2% 11.8%

Upper 158 57.9% $33,529 70.7% 41.9% 158 57.9% 46.2% $33,529 70.7% 56.9%

Unknown 12 4.4% $2,238 4.7% 0.0% 12 4.4% 23.2% $2,238 4.7% 23.1%

Total 273 100.0% $47,439 100.0% 100.0% 273 100.0% 100.0% $47,439 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 2.2% $26 0.8% 21.0% 1 2.2% 8.1% $26 0.8% 2.4%

Moderate 8 17.8% $103 3.2% 16.8% 8 17.8% 16.2% $103 3.2% 8.2%

Middle 13 28.9% $106 3.3% 20.4% 13 28.9% 24.4% $106 3.3% 16.8%

Upper 23 51.1% $2,971 92.7% 41.9% 23 51.1% 44.4% $2,971 92.7% 63.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.9% $0 0.0% 8.8%

Total 45 100.0% $3,206 100.0% 100.0% 45 100.0% 100.0% $3,206 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 39 6.0% $3,240 3.2% 21.0% 39 6.0% 6.2% $3,240 3.2% 2.8%

Moderate 102 15.6% $11,149 10.8% 16.8% 102 15.6% 14.5% $11,149 10.8% 9.3%

Middle 160 24.5% $19,264 18.7% 20.4% 160 24.5% 17.7% $19,264 18.7% 13.9%

Upper 335 51.3% $66,340 64.5% 41.9% 335 51.3% 40.0% $66,340 64.5% 49.2%

Unknown 17 2.6% $2,812 2.7% 0.0% 17 2.6% 21.7% $2,812 2.7% 24.7%

Total 653 100.0% $102,805 100.0% 100.0% 653 100.0% 100.0% $102,805 100.0% 100.0%



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank




197

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 15 10.8% $2,115 7.3% 7.8% 15 10.8% 8.3% $2,115 7.3% 12.2%

Moderate 26 18.7% $6,618 22.9% 21.5% 26 18.7% 20.8% $6,618 22.9% 21.3%

Middle 39 28.1% $8,296 28.7% 32.6% 39 28.1% 29.7% $8,296 28.7% 27.8%

Upper 59 42.4% $11,841 41.0% 38.1% 59 42.4% 41.3% $11,841 41.0% 38.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 139 100.0% $28,870 100.0% 100.0% 139 100.0% 100.0% $28,870 100.0% 100.0%



2011 2011

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count



Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 43 30.9% $5,658 19.6% 43 30.9% 43.3% $5,658 19.6% 42.5%

Over $1 Million 70 50.4% $19,232 66.6% 70 50.4%


Rev. Not Known 26 18.7% $3,980 13.8% 26 18.7%

Total 139 100.0% $28,870 100.0% 139 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 67 48.2% $3,417 11.8% 67 48.2% 88.7% $3,417 11.8% 25.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 38 27.3% $7,004 24.3% 38 27.3% 5.8% $7,004 24.3% 19.4%

$250,001 - $1 Million 34 24.5% $18,449 63.9% 34 24.5% 5.5% $18,449 63.9% 55.2%

Total 139 100.0% $28,870 100.0% 139 100.0% 100.0% $28,870 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 30 69.8% $1,168 20.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 8 18.6% $1,386 24.5%

$250,001 - $1 Million 5 11.6% $3,104 54.9%

Total 43 100.0% $5,658 100.0%



LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less


Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

88.6%

7.0%

95.6%

4.4%




Size


2011

Bank Bank

%

2011

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar




198

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 9.1% $112 3.3% 2.3% 2 9.1% 0.4% $112 3.3% 0.2%

Moderate 7 31.8% $603 17.5% 13.1% 7 31.8% 13.7% $603 17.5% 8.5%

Middle 10 45.5% $1,855 53.9% 48.0% 10 45.5% 51.7% $1,855 53.9% 40.2%

Upper 3 13.6% $870 25.3% 36.6% 3 13.6% 34.2% $870 25.3% 51.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 22 100.0% $3,440 100.0% 100.0% 22 100.0% 100.0% $3,440 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 1 5.6% $368 4.9% 13.1% 1 5.6% 7.3% $368 4.9% 4.6%

Middle 9 50.0% $1,677 22.5% 48.0% 9 50.0% 43.1% $1,677 22.5% 32.4%

Upper 8 44.4% $5,416 72.6% 36.6% 8 44.4% 49.2% $5,416 72.6% 62.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 18 100.0% $7,461 100.0% 100.0% 18 100.0% 100.0% $7,461 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0% 1.0% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.1% 0 0.0% 13.5% $0 0.0% 4.8%

Middle 1 25.0% $18 16.1% 48.0% 1 25.0% 51.0% $18 16.1% 55.0%

Upper 3 75.0% $94 83.9% 36.6% 3 75.0% 34.4% $94 83.9% 40.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 4 100.0% $112 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $112 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.1% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.0% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 18.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 35.1% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 77.7%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 55.8% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 2 4.5% $112 1.0% 2.3% 2 4.5% 0.4% $112 1.0% 0.3%

Moderate 8 18.2% $971 8.8% 13.1% 8 18.2% 10.9% $971 8.8% 6.7%

Middle 20 45.5% $3,550 32.2% 48.0% 20 45.5% 48.0% $3,550 32.2% 37.1%

Upper 14 31.8% $6,380 57.9% 36.6% 14 31.8% 40.7% $6,380 57.9% 55.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 44 100.0% $11,013 100.0% 100.0% 44 100.0% 100.0% $11,013 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




199

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 12 54.5% $900 26.2% 18.9% 12 54.5% 11.5% $900 26.2% 4.8%

Moderate 3 13.6% $317 9.2% 19.2% 3 13.6% 15.3% $317 9.2% 8.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.7% 0 0.0% 12.9% $0 0.0% 8.9%

Upper 6 27.3% $2,059 59.9% 41.2% 6 27.3% 48.8% $2,059 59.9% 67.5%

Unknown 1 4.5% $164 4.8% 0.0% 1 4.5% 11.5% $164 4.8% 10.4%

Total 22 100.0% $3,440 100.0% 100.0% 22 100.0% 100.0% $3,440 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 5.6% $154 2.1% 18.9% 1 5.6% 4.6% $154 2.1% 1.9%

Moderate 3 16.7% $457 6.1% 19.2% 3 16.7% 10.3% $457 6.1% 4.7%

Middle 4 22.2% $851 11.4% 20.7% 4 22.2% 15.9% $851 11.4% 9.6%

Upper 7 38.9% $2,441 32.7% 41.2% 7 38.9% 54.0% $2,441 32.7% 70.0%

Unknown 3 16.7% $3,558 47.7% 0.0% 3 16.7% 15.2% $3,558 47.7% 13.7%

Total 18 100.0% $7,461 100.0% 100.0% 18 100.0% 100.0% $7,461 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.9% 0 0.0% 8.3% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.2% 0 0.0% 17.7% $0 0.0% 6.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.7% 0 0.0% 24.0% $0 0.0% 12.1%

Upper 4 100.0% $112 100.0% 41.2% 4 100.0% 41.7% $112 100.0% 61.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.3% $0 0.0% 19.3%

Total 4 100.0% $112 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $112 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 13 29.5% $1,054 9.6% 18.9% 13 29.5% 8.5% $1,054 9.6% 3.3%

Moderate 6 13.6% $774 7.0% 19.2% 6 13.6% 13.2% $774 7.0% 6.4%

Middle 4 9.1% $851 7.7% 20.7% 4 9.1% 14.3% $851 7.7% 9.1%

Upper 17 38.6% $4,612 41.9% 41.2% 17 38.6% 50.9% $4,612 41.9% 67.5%

Unknown 4 9.1% $3,722 33.8% 0.0% 4 9.1% 13.1% $3,722 33.8% 13.6%

Total 44 100.0% $11,013 100.0% 100.0% 44 100.0% 100.0% $11,013 100.0% 100.0%



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank




200

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 1 2.3% $1,000 11.7% 1.7% 1 2.3% 0.8% $1,000 11.7% 1.9%

Moderate 1 2.3% $9 0.1% 11.0% 1 2.3% 8.0% $9 0.1% 6.6%

Middle 15 34.1% $3,485 40.7% 45.7% 15 34.1% 43.3% $3,485 40.7% 40.7%

Upper 27 61.4% $4,067 47.5% 41.6% 27 61.4% 47.2% $4,067 47.5% 50.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 44 100.0% $8,561 100.0% 100.0% 44 100.0% 100.0% $8,561 100.0% 100.0%



2011 2011

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count



Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 18 40.9% $2,905 33.9% 18 40.9% 39.5% $2,905 33.9% 39.2%

Over $1 Million 15 34.1% $4,102 47.9% 15 34.1%


Rev. Not Known 11 25.0% $1,554 18.2% 11 25.0%

Total 44 100.0% $8,561 100.0% 44 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 26 59.1% $1,281 15.0% 26 59.1% 95.0% $1,281 15.0% 40.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 7 15.9% $1,438 16.8% 7 15.9% 2.4% $1,438 16.8% 14.4%

$250,001 - $1 Million 11 25.0% $5,842 68.2% 11 25.0% 2.5% $5,842 68.2% 45.3%

Total 44 100.0% $8,561 100.0% 44 100.0% 100.0% $8,561 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 12 66.7% $541 18.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 5.6% $138 4.8%

$250,001 - $1 Million 5 27.8% $2,226 76.6%

Total 18 100.0% $2,905 100.0%



LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less


Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

92.5%

4.1%

96.6%

3.4%




Size


2011

Bank Bank

%

2011

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar




201

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 11 8.1% $845 4.4% 20.5% 11 8.1% 9.5% $845 4.4% 6.2%

Middle 86 63.7% $10,862 56.2% 54.7% 86 63.7% 56.5% $10,862 56.2% 46.3%

Upper 38 28.1% $7,622 39.4% 24.6% 38 28.1% 33.9% $7,622 39.4% 47.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 135 100.0% $19,329 100.0% 100.0% 135 100.0% 100.0% $19,329 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 2 4.3% $179 1.9% 20.5% 2 4.3% 6.4% $179 1.9% 4.2%

Middle 31 67.4% $6,491 69.3% 54.7% 31 67.4% 50.6% $6,491 69.3% 42.0%

Upper 13 28.3% $2,692 28.8% 24.6% 13 28.3% 42.9% $2,692 28.8% 53.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 46 100.0% $9,362 100.0% 100.0% 46 100.0% 100.0% $9,362 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.5% 0 0.0% 17.5% $0 0.0% 8.8%

Middle 3 100.0% $32 100.0% 54.7% 3 100.0% 56.0% $32 100.0% 43.9%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.6% 0 0.0% 26.5% $0 0.0% 47.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $32 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $32 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 2 66.7% $1,900 60.3% 20.9% 2 66.7% 30.0% $1,900 60.3% 5.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 43.0% 0 0.0% 45.0% $0 0.0% 50.4%

Upper 1 33.3% $1,251 39.7% 35.5% 1 33.3% 25.0% $1,251 39.7% 44.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $3,151 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $3,151 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 15 8.0% $2,924 9.2% 20.5% 15 8.0% 8.3% $2,924 9.2% 5.2%

Middle 120 64.2% $17,385 54.5% 54.7% 120 64.2% 53.9% $17,385 54.5% 44.3%

Upper 52 27.8% $11,565 36.3% 24.6% 52 27.8% 37.8% $11,565 36.3% 50.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 187 100.0% $31,874 100.0% 100.0% 187 100.0% 100.0% $31,874 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




202

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 15 11.1% $1,083 5.6% 17.6% 15 11.1% 6.6% $1,083 5.6% 2.8%

Moderate 38 28.1% $3,758 19.4% 19.6% 38 28.1% 15.9% $3,758 19.4% 9.6%

Middle 34 25.2% $5,419 28.0% 23.6% 34 25.2% 18.1% $5,419 28.0% 14.0%

Upper 46 34.1% $8,762 45.3% 39.2% 46 34.1% 46.5% $8,762 45.3% 61.7%

Unknown 2 1.5% $307 1.6% 0.0% 2 1.5% 12.9% $307 1.6% 11.9%

Total 135 100.0% $19,329 100.0% 100.0% 135 100.0% 100.0% $19,329 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.6% 0 0.0% 3.8% $0 0.0% 1.8%

Moderate 11 23.9% $1,156 12.3% 19.6% 11 23.9% 10.7% $1,156 12.3% 6.2%

Middle 8 17.4% $1,164 12.4% 23.6% 8 17.4% 15.9% $1,164 12.4% 11.0%

Upper 21 45.7% $4,423 47.2% 39.2% 21 45.7% 48.9% $4,423 47.2% 62.7%

Unknown 6 13.0% $2,619 28.0% 0.0% 6 13.0% 20.7% $2,619 28.0% 18.4%

Total 46 100.0% $9,362 100.0% 100.0% 46 100.0% 100.0% $9,362 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 66.7% $20 62.5% 17.6% 2 66.7% 15.2% $20 62.5% 3.5%

Moderate 1 33.3% $12 37.5% 19.6% 1 33.3% 27.5% $12 37.5% 12.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.6% 0 0.0% 17.2% $0 0.0% 12.2%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.2% 0 0.0% 36.1% $0 0.0% 64.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.0% $0 0.0% 6.8%

Total 3 100.0% $32 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $32 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 3 100.0% $3,151 100.0% 0.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $3,151 100.0% 100.0%

Total 3 100.0% $3,151 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $3,151 100.0% 100.0%

Low 17 9.1% $1,103 3.5% 17.6% 17 9.1% 5.5% $1,103 3.5% 2.3%

Moderate 50 26.7% $4,926 15.5% 19.6% 50 26.7% 13.8% $4,926 15.5% 7.8%

Middle 42 22.5% $6,583 20.7% 23.6% 42 22.5% 17.1% $6,583 20.7% 12.4%

Upper 67 35.8% $13,185 41.4% 39.2% 67 35.8% 47.4% $13,185 41.4% 61.4%

Unknown 11 5.9% $6,077 19.1% 0.0% 11 5.9% 16.3% $6,077 19.1% 16.1%

Total 187 100.0% $31,874 100.0% 100.0% 187 100.0% 100.0% $31,874 100.0% 100.0%



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank




203

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 1 4.8% $240 4.6% 0.4% 1 4.8% 0.2% $240 4.6% 0.3%

Moderate 2 9.5% $301 5.8% 17.2% 2 9.5% 14.3% $301 5.8% 15.6%

Middle 9 42.9% $2,403 46.0% 52.8% 9 42.9% 49.8% $2,403 46.0% 50.5%

Upper 9 42.9% $2,285 43.7% 29.6% 9 42.9% 34.4% $2,285 43.7% 33.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 21 100.0% $5,229 100.0% 100.0% 21 100.0% 100.0% $5,229 100.0% 100.0%



2011 2011

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count



Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 16 76.2% $3,970 75.9% 16 76.2% 44.0% $3,970 75.9% 36.3%

Over $1 Million 4 19.0% $1,253 24.0% 4 19.0%


Rev. Not Known 1 4.8% $6 0.1% 1 4.8%

Total 21 100.0% $5,229 100.0% 21 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 7 33.3% $330 6.3% 7 33.3% 94.4% $330 6.3% 36.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 8 38.1% $1,497 28.6% 8 38.1% 2.9% $1,497 28.6% 16.6%

$250,001 - $1 Million 6 28.6% $3,402 65.1% 6 28.6% 2.7% $3,402 65.1% 47.0%

Total 21 100.0% $5,229 100.0% 21 100.0% 100.0% $5,229 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 5 31.3% $244 6.1%

$100,001 - $250,000 6 37.5% $1,136 28.6%

$250,001 - $1 Million 5 31.3% $2,590 65.2%

Total 16 100.0% $3,970 100.0%



LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less


Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

92.7%

4.1%

96.8%

3.2%




Size


2011

Bank Bank

%

2011

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar




204

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 0.5% $50 0.1% 2.5% 1 0.5% 0.3% $50 0.1% 0.1%

Moderate 12 6.2% $1,647 4.3% 14.2% 12 6.2% 12.1% $1,647 4.3% 9.3%

Middle 56 29.0% $8,381 22.1% 51.3% 56 29.0% 40.5% $8,381 22.1% 35.2%

Upper 124 64.2% $27,882 73.5% 32.0% 124 64.2% 47.1% $27,882 73.5% 55.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 193 100.0% $37,960 100.0% 100.0% 193 100.0% 100.0% $37,960 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.5% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Moderate 14 5.4% $1,707 3.7% 14.2% 14 5.4% 7.7% $1,707 3.7% 6.5%

Middle 104 40.0% $12,556 26.9% 51.3% 104 40.0% 41.4% $12,556 26.9% 34.5%

Upper 142 54.6% $32,384 69.4% 32.0% 142 54.6% 50.4% $32,384 69.4% 58.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 260 100.0% $46,647 100.0% 100.0% 260 100.0% 100.0% $46,647 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 1.3% $3 0.1% 2.5% 1 1.3% 1.6% $3 0.1% 0.4%

Moderate 9 11.4% $211 9.7% 14.2% 9 11.4% 13.3% $211 9.7% 8.1%

Middle 41 51.9% $1,021 46.9% 51.3% 41 51.9% 59.7% $1,021 46.9% 55.7%

Upper 28 35.4% $942 43.3% 32.0% 28 35.4% 25.4% $942 43.3% 35.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 79 100.0% $2,177 100.0% 100.0% 79 100.0% 100.0% $2,177 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.8% 0 0.0% 10.5% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 9.0% 0 0.0% 10.5% $0 0.0% 4.7%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 50.8% 0 0.0% 42.1% $0 0.0% 24.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 36.5% 0 0.0% 36.8% $0 0.0% 70.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 2 0.4% $53 0.1% 2.5% 2 0.4% 0.5% $53 0.1% 0.3%

Moderate 35 6.6% $3,565 4.1% 14.2% 35 6.6% 10.1% $3,565 4.1% 7.8%

Middle 201 37.8% $21,958 25.3% 51.3% 201 37.8% 42.1% $21,958 25.3% 34.8%

Upper 294 55.3% $61,208 70.5% 32.0% 294 55.3% 47.3% $61,208 70.5% 57.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 532 100.0% $86,784 100.0% 100.0% 532 100.0% 100.0% $86,784 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




205

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 6 3.1% $790 2.1% 23.2% 6 3.1% 6.3% $790 2.1% 3.4%

Moderate 40 20.7% $5,566 14.7% 16.0% 40 20.7% 23.2% $5,566 14.7% 18.3%

Middle 35 18.1% $5,346 14.1% 19.7% 35 18.1% 25.1% $5,346 14.1% 24.0%

Upper 102 52.8% $24,730 65.1% 41.1% 102 52.8% 36.3% $24,730 65.1% 46.6%

Unknown 10 5.2% $1,528 4.0% 0.0% 10 5.2% 9.1% $1,528 4.0% 7.8%

Total 193 100.0% $37,960 100.0% 100.0% 193 100.0% 100.0% $37,960 100.0% 100.0%

Low 9 3.5% $518 1.1% 23.2% 9 3.5% 4.1% $518 1.1% 1.9%

Moderate 28 10.8% $2,860 6.1% 16.0% 28 10.8% 11.6% $2,860 6.1% 7.6%

Middle 45 17.3% $5,138 11.0% 19.7% 45 17.3% 18.8% $5,138 11.0% 15.5%

Upper 163 62.7% $35,956 77.1% 41.1% 163 62.7% 49.0% $35,956 77.1% 59.6%

Unknown 15 5.8% $2,175 4.7% 0.0% 15 5.8% 16.5% $2,175 4.7% 15.4%

Total 260 100.0% $46,647 100.0% 100.0% 260 100.0% 100.0% $46,647 100.0% 100.0%

Low 16 20.3% $176 8.1% 23.2% 16 20.3% 18.9% $176 8.1% 5.5%

Moderate 10 12.7% $165 7.6% 16.0% 10 12.7% 15.9% $165 7.6% 11.1%

Middle 17 21.5% $306 14.1% 19.7% 17 21.5% 22.3% $306 14.1% 19.8%

Upper 34 43.0% $1,392 63.9% 41.1% 34 43.0% 36.3% $1,392 63.9% 57.8%

Unknown 2 2.5% $138 6.3% 0.0% 2 2.5% 6.6% $138 6.3% 5.8%

Total 79 100.0% $2,177 100.0% 100.0% 79 100.0% 100.0% $2,177 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 31 5.8% $1,484 1.7% 23.2% 31 5.8% 6.0% $1,484 1.7% 2.6%

Moderate 78 14.7% $8,591 9.9% 16.0% 78 14.7% 17.1% $8,591 9.9% 12.4%

Middle 97 18.2% $10,790 12.4% 19.7% 97 18.2% 21.9% $10,790 12.4% 19.0%

Upper 299 56.2% $62,078 71.5% 41.1% 299 56.2% 42.3% $62,078 71.5% 51.6%

Unknown 27 5.1% $3,841 4.4% 0.0% 27 5.1% 12.7% $3,841 4.4% 14.6%

Total 532 100.0% $86,784 100.0% 100.0% 532 100.0% 100.0% $86,784 100.0% 100.0%



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank




206

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 6 1.5% $1,224 1.7% 2.6% 6 1.5% 1.6% $1,224 1.7% 1.5%

Moderate 26 6.5% $6,317 8.7% 11.3% 26 6.5% 8.4% $6,317 8.7% 8.6%

Middle 144 36.2% $30,414 41.9% 46.9% 144 36.2% 41.7% $30,414 41.9% 43.5%

Upper 222 55.8% $34,614 47.7% 39.2% 222 55.8% 44.5% $34,614 47.7% 43.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.9% $0 0.0% 2.9%

Total 398 100.0% $72,569 100.0% 100.0% 398 100.0% 100.0% $72,569 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.6% 0 0.0% 7.1% $0 0.0% 2.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 55.4% 0 0.0% 71.4% $0 0.0% 65.3%

Upper 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 32.6% 1 100.0% 14.3% $50 100.0% 28.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.1% $0 0.0% 4.1%

Total 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $50 100.0% 100.0%



SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

M


2011 2011

Bank Small

Businesses

Count Dollar



PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels





207

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

$1 Million or Less 139 34.9% $20,503 28.3% 139 34.9% 30.5% $20,503 28.3% 25.5%

Over $1 Million 156 39.2% $40,719 56.1% 156 39.2%


Rev. Not Known 103 25.9% $11,347 15.6% 103 25.9%

Total 398 100.0% $72,569 100.0% 398 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 229 57.5% $10,293 14.2% 229 57.5% 90.7% $10,293 14.2% 25.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 82 20.6% $15,323 21.1% 82 20.6% 4.1% $15,323 21.1% 15.5%

$250,001 - $1 Million 87 21.9% $46,953 64.7% 87 21.9% 5.2% $46,953 64.7% 59.1%

Total 398 100.0% $72,569 100.0% 398 100.0% 100.0% $72,569 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 90 64.7% $4,350 21.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 26 18.7% $4,542 22.2%

$250,001 - $1 Million 23 16.5% $11,611 56.6%

Total 139 100.0% $20,503 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 1 100.0% 28.6% $50 100.0% 40.4%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $50 100.0% 100.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $50 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $50 100.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $50 100.0%



Loan S

ize &

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r


100.0%

Lo

an

Siz

e

1.5%

100.0%

0.0%

Loan S

ize &

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Sm

all F

arm

Total Farms

Re

ve

nu

e

98.5%

Sm

all B

usin

ess

Re

ve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize

Count

96.7%

3.3%

100.0%

%

90.5%

6.2%


Pro

du

ct

Ty


2011 2011

Dollar Bank Bank

Bank Total

Businesses

Count Dollar





208

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 12 2.5% $1,355 1.3% 5.1% 12 2.5% 2.9% $1,355 1.3% 2.2%

Moderate 60 12.3% $10,094 10.0% 16.9% 60 12.3% 12.4% $10,094 10.0% 10.2%

Middle 154 31.5% $28,431 28.1% 40.4% 154 31.5% 37.6% $28,431 28.1% 31.6%

Upper 263 53.8% $61,310 60.6% 37.7% 263 53.8% 47.0% $61,310 60.6% 56.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 489 100.0% $101,190 100.0% 100.0% 489 100.0% 100.0% $101,190 100.0% 100.0%

Low 16 2.8% $2,161 1.6% 5.1% 16 2.8% 2.0% $2,161 1.6% 1.5%

Moderate 62 10.8% $11,570 8.6% 16.9% 62 10.8% 9.9% $11,570 8.6% 7.8%

Middle 154 26.9% $26,444 19.7% 40.4% 154 26.9% 35.4% $26,444 19.7% 29.6%

Upper 341 59.5% $93,840 70.0% 37.7% 341 59.5% 52.6% $93,840 70.0% 61.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 573 100.0% $134,015 100.0% 100.0% 573 100.0% 100.0% $134,015 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 2.2% $157 3.7% 5.1% 1 2.2% 4.5% $157 3.7% 3.6%

Moderate 11 23.9% $1,312 30.7% 16.9% 11 23.9% 17.5% $1,312 30.7% 15.7%

Middle 17 37.0% $1,080 25.3% 40.4% 17 37.0% 40.3% $1,080 25.3% 28.0%

Upper 17 37.0% $1,720 40.3% 37.7% 17 37.0% 37.7% $1,720 40.3% 52.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 46 100.0% $4,269 100.0% 100.0% 46 100.0% 100.0% $4,269 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 6.7% $1,272 6.2% 16.8% 1 6.7% 14.4% $1,272 6.2% 6.4%

Moderate 5 33.3% $3,553 17.4% 27.3% 5 33.3% 26.4% $3,553 17.4% 10.1%

Middle 6 40.0% $9,734 47.7% 31.8% 6 40.0% 25.6% $9,734 47.7% 47.9%

Upper 3 20.0% $5,856 28.7% 24.1% 3 20.0% 33.6% $5,856 28.7% 35.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 15 100.0% $20,415 100.0% 100.0% 15 100.0% 100.0% $20,415 100.0% 100.0%

Low 30 2.7% $4,945 1.9% 5.1% 30 2.7% 2.5% $4,945 1.9% 2.0%

Moderate 138 12.3% $26,529 10.2% 16.9% 138 12.3% 11.3% $26,529 10.2% 8.9%

Middle 331 29.5% $65,689 25.3% 40.4% 331 29.5% 36.4% $65,689 25.3% 31.0%

Upper 624 55.6% $162,726 62.6% 37.7% 624 55.6% 49.8% $162,726 62.6% 58.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1,123 100.0% $259,889 100.0% 100.0% 1,123 100.0% 100.0% $259,889 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




209

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 23 4.7% $2,289 2.3% 24.4% 23 4.7% 7.1% $2,289 2.3% 3.4%

Moderate 57 11.7% $7,382 7.3% 16.1% 57 11.7% 20.2% $7,382 7.3% 14.2%

Middle 82 16.8% $13,139 13.0% 18.7% 82 16.8% 21.4% $13,139 13.0% 19.0%

Upper 307 62.8% $74,698 73.8% 40.8% 307 62.8% 40.8% $74,698 73.8% 54.2%

Unknown 20 4.1% $3,682 3.6% 0.0% 20 4.1% 10.5% $3,682 3.6% 9.1%

Total 489 100.0% $101,190 100.0% 100.0% 489 100.0% 100.0% $101,190 100.0% 100.0%

Low 22 3.8% $2,043 1.5% 24.4% 22 3.8% 4.3% $2,043 1.5% 2.3%

Moderate 50 8.7% $5,805 4.3% 16.1% 50 8.7% 11.4% $5,805 4.3% 7.2%

Middle 91 15.9% $13,385 10.0% 18.7% 91 15.9% 18.7% $13,385 10.0% 14.6%

Upper 339 59.2% $97,154 72.5% 40.8% 339 59.2% 47.5% $97,154 72.5% 59.1%

Unknown 71 12.4% $15,628 11.7% 0.0% 71 12.4% 18.1% $15,628 11.7% 16.8%

Total 573 100.0% $134,015 100.0% 100.0% 573 100.0% 100.0% $134,015 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 6.5% $78 1.8% 24.4% 3 6.5% 11.4% $78 1.8% 3.7%

Moderate 7 15.2% $462 10.8% 16.1% 7 15.2% 17.9% $462 10.8% 12.1%

Middle 6 13.0% $354 8.3% 18.7% 6 13.0% 19.9% $354 8.3% 15.6%

Upper 20 43.5% $1,887 44.2% 40.8% 20 43.5% 35.0% $1,887 44.2% 49.3%

Unknown 10 21.7% $1,488 34.9% 0.0% 10 21.7% 15.8% $1,488 34.9% 19.2%

Total 46 100.0% $4,269 100.0% 100.0% 46 100.0% 100.0% $4,269 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 15 100.0% $20,415 100.0% 0.0% 15 100.0% 100.0% $20,415 100.0% 100.0%

Total 15 100.0% $20,415 100.0% 100.0% 15 100.0% 100.0% $20,415 100.0% 100.0%

Low 48 4.3% $4,410 1.7% 24.4% 48 4.3% 5.7% $4,410 1.7% 2.7%

Moderate 114 10.2% $13,649 5.3% 16.1% 114 10.2% 15.0% $13,649 5.3% 9.7%

Middle 179 15.9% $26,878 10.3% 18.7% 179 15.9% 19.7% $26,878 10.3% 15.8%

Upper 666 59.3% $173,739 66.9% 40.8% 666 59.3% 44.2% $173,739 66.9% 55.0%

Unknown 116 10.3% $41,213 15.9% 0.0% 116 10.3% 15.4% $41,213 15.9% 16.8%

Total 1,123 100.0% $259,889 100.0% 100.0% 1,123 100.0% 100.0% $259,889 100.0% 100.0%



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank




210

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 12 3.6% $5,721 7.8% 5.8% 12 3.6% 5.6% $5,721 7.8% 7.3%

Moderate 77 22.8% $12,928 17.5% 18.0% 77 22.8% 17.4% $12,928 17.5% 18.7%

Middle 92 27.2% $20,202 27.4% 35.9% 92 27.2% 30.8% $20,202 27.4% 30.9%

Upper 157 46.4% $34,934 47.3% 40.3% 157 46.4% 44.4% $34,934 47.3% 41.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.8% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Total 338 100.0% $73,785 100.0% 100.0% 338 100.0% 100.0% $73,785 100.0% 100.0%



2011 2011

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count



Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 125 37.0% $23,294 31.6% 125 37.0% 37.6% $23,294 31.6% 34.6%

Over $1 Million 125 37.0% $37,319 50.6% 125 37.0%


Rev. Not Known 88 26.0% $13,172 17.9% 88 26.0%

Total 338 100.0% $73,785 100.0% 338 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 153 45.3% $8,441 11.4% 153 45.3% 90.6% $8,441 11.4% 25.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 90 26.6% $16,870 22.9% 90 26.6% 4.4% $16,870 22.9% 17.5%

$250,001 - $1 Million 95 28.1% $48,474 65.7% 95 28.1% 4.9% $48,474 65.7% 57.2%

Total 338 100.0% $73,785 100.0% 338 100.0% 100.0% $73,785 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 58 46.4% $3,542 15.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 40 32.0% $7,178 30.8%

$250,001 - $1 Million 27 21.6% $12,574 54.0%

Total 125 100.0% $23,294 100.0%



LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less


Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

91.2%

4.9%

96.1%

3.9%




Size


2011

Bank Bank

%

2011

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar




211

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Middle 6 4.8% $634 3.0% 11.5% 6 4.8% 7.4% $634 3.0% 3.9%

Upper 120 95.2% $20,313 97.0% 86.8% 120 95.2% 92.0% $20,313 97.0% 95.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 126 100.0% $20,947 100.0% 100.0% 126 100.0% 100.0% $20,947 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Middle 3 3.4% $368 2.2% 11.5% 3 3.4% 5.6% $368 2.2% 3.1%

Upper 84 96.6% $16,549 97.8% 86.8% 84 96.6% 94.1% $16,549 97.8% 96.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 87 100.0% $16,917 100.0% 100.0% 87 100.0% 100.0% $16,917 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 1 16.7% $15 12.2% 11.5% 1 16.7% 11.9% $15 12.2% 8.4%

Upper 5 83.3% $108 87.8% 86.8% 5 83.3% 88.1% $108 87.8% 91.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 6 100.0% $123 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $123 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 87.3% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Middle 10 4.6% $1,017 2.7% 11.5% 10 4.6% 6.5% $1,017 2.7% 3.4%

Upper 209 95.4% $36,970 97.3% 86.8% 209 95.4% 93.1% $36,970 97.3% 96.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 219 100.0% $37,987 100.0% 100.0% 219 100.0% 100.0% $37,987 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




212

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 7 5.6% $562 2.7% 7.0% 7 5.6% 5.1% $562 2.7% 2.5%

Moderate 16 12.7% $1,666 8.0% 10.0% 16 12.7% 16.5% $1,666 8.0% 10.6%

Middle 32 25.4% $4,684 22.4% 15.1% 32 25.4% 20.1% $4,684 22.4% 16.5%

Upper 71 56.3% $14,035 67.0% 67.9% 71 56.3% 42.4% $14,035 67.0% 55.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 16.0% $0 0.0% 15.2%

Total 126 100.0% $20,947 100.0% 100.0% 126 100.0% 100.0% $20,947 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.0% 0 0.0% 2.0% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Moderate 9 10.3% $1,175 6.9% 10.0% 9 10.3% 6.9% $1,175 6.9% 4.0%

Middle 12 13.8% $1,427 8.4% 15.1% 12 13.8% 12.6% $1,427 8.4% 8.5%

Upper 66 75.9% $14,315 84.6% 67.9% 66 75.9% 56.2% $14,315 84.6% 65.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 22.3% $0 0.0% 21.0%

Total 87 100.0% $16,917 100.0% 100.0% 87 100.0% 100.0% $16,917 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.0% 0 0.0% 5.9% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 10.0% 0 0.0% 13.9% $0 0.0% 9.0%

Middle 1 16.7% $8 6.5% 15.1% 1 16.7% 18.8% $8 6.5% 12.1%

Upper 5 83.3% $115 93.5% 67.9% 5 83.3% 57.4% $115 93.5% 67.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.0% $0 0.0% 10.4%

Total 6 100.0% $123 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $123 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 10.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 67.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 7 3.2% $562 1.5% 7.0% 7 3.2% 3.4% $562 1.5% 1.5%

Moderate 25 11.4% $2,841 7.5% 10.0% 25 11.4% 11.3% $2,841 7.5% 6.7%

Middle 45 20.5% $6,119 16.1% 15.1% 45 20.5% 16.1% $6,119 16.1% 11.6%

Upper 142 64.8% $28,465 74.9% 67.9% 142 64.8% 50.0% $28,465 74.9% 59.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 19.3% $0 0.0% 20.7%

Total 219 100.0% $37,987 100.0% 100.0% 219 100.0% 100.0% $37,987 100.0% 100.0%



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank




213

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.6% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.1% 0 0.0% 4.2% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Upper 21 100.0% $5,496 100.0% 92.6% 21 100.0% 94.6% $5,496 100.0% 94.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.6% 0 0.0% 0.9% $0 0.0% 1.6%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 21 100.0% $5,496 100.0% 100.0% 21 100.0% 100.0% $5,496 100.0% 100.0%



2011 2011

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count



Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 2 9.5% $292 5.3% 2 9.5% 38.3% $292 5.3% 32.7%

Over $1 Million 8 38.1% $2,445 44.5% 8 38.1%


Rev. Not Known 11 52.4% $2,759 50.2% 11 52.4%

Total 21 100.0% $5,496 100.0% 21 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 5 23.8% $230 4.2% 5 23.8% 89.3% $230 4.2% 24.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 7 33.3% $1,118 20.3% 7 33.3% 4.8% $1,118 20.3% 16.7%

$250,001 - $1 Million 9 42.9% $4,148 75.5% 9 42.9% 5.9% $4,148 75.5% 58.4%

Total 21 100.0% $5,496 100.0% 21 100.0% 100.0% $5,496 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 50.0% $3 1.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

$250,001 - $1 Million 1 50.0% $289 99.0%

Total 2 100.0% $292 100.0%



LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less


Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

88.9%

7.3%

96.2%

3.7%




Size


2011

Bank Bank

%

2011

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar




214

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.5% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Moderate 5 21.7% $927 17.6% 23.5% 5 21.7% 9.1% $927 17.6% 7.2%

Middle 8 34.8% $1,858 35.3% 30.4% 8 34.8% 30.9% $1,858 35.3% 24.2%

Upper 10 43.5% $2,485 47.2% 42.7% 10 43.5% 58.1% $2,485 47.2% 66.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Total 23 100.0% $5,270 100.0% 100.0% 23 100.0% 100.0% $5,270 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.5% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 1.3%

Moderate 2 7.4% $482 6.5% 23.5% 2 7.4% 7.4% $482 6.5% 5.5%

Middle 3 11.1% $570 7.7% 30.4% 3 11.1% 22.5% $570 7.7% 17.6%

Upper 22 81.5% $6,341 85.8% 42.7% 22 81.5% 68.6% $6,341 85.8% 75.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 27 100.0% $7,393 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $7,393 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.5% 0 0.0% 2.0% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.5% 0 0.0% 13.9% $0 0.0% 9.3%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 30.4% 0 0.0% 25.3% $0 0.0% 21.0%

Upper 1 100.0% $30 100.0% 42.7% 1 100.0% 58.7% $30 100.0% 68.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $30 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $30 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 10.4% 0 0.0% 11.6% $0 0.0% 5.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 35.7% 0 0.0% 31.2% $0 0.0% 30.1%

Middle 2 33.3% $936 7.3% 30.9% 2 33.3% 38.7% $936 7.3% 36.1%

Upper 4 66.7% $11,870 92.7% 23.1% 4 66.7% 18.5% $11,870 92.7% 28.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 6 100.0% $12,806 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $12,806 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.5% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Moderate 7 12.3% $1,409 5.5% 23.5% 7 12.3% 8.5% $1,409 5.5% 7.3%

Middle 13 22.8% $3,364 13.2% 30.4% 13 22.8% 27.0% $3,364 13.2% 21.7%

Upper 37 64.9% $20,726 81.3% 42.7% 37 64.9% 62.8% $20,726 81.3% 69.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 57 100.0% $25,499 100.0% 100.0% 57 100.0% 100.0% $25,499 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2011

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2011

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




215

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.0% 0 0.0% 5.4% $0 0.0% 2.5%

Moderate 2 8.7% $314 6.0% 17.4% 2 8.7% 18.0% $314 6.0% 10.9%

Middle 5 21.7% $884 16.8% 18.6% 5 21.7% 19.4% $884 16.8% 15.3%

Upper 15 65.2% $3,820 72.5% 41.0% 15 65.2% 46.1% $3,820 72.5% 61.7%

Unknown 1 4.3% $252 4.8% 0.0% 1 4.3% 11.0% $252 4.8% 9.7%

Total 23 100.0% $5,270 100.0% 100.0% 23 100.0% 100.0% $5,270 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.0% 0 0.0% 2.3% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 1 3.7% $188 2.5% 17.4% 1 3.7% 7.4% $188 2.5% 4.0%

Middle 3 11.1% $417 5.6% 18.6% 3 11.1% 13.5% $417 5.6% 9.0%

Upper 22 81.5% $6,618 89.5% 41.0% 22 81.5% 56.8% $6,618 89.5% 69.6%

Unknown 1 3.7% $170 2.3% 0.0% 1 3.7% 20.1% $170 2.3% 16.4%

Total 27 100.0% $7,393 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $7,393 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.0% 0 0.0% 5.3% $0 0.0% 2.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.4% 0 0.0% 11.0% $0 0.0% 5.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.6% 0 0.0% 17.5% $0 0.0% 11.1%

Upper 1 100.0% $30 100.0% 41.0% 1 100.0% 60.2% $30 100.0% 74.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.9% $0 0.0% 7.8%

Total 1 100.0% $30 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $30 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 6 100.0% $12,806 100.0% 0.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $12,806 100.0% 100.0%

Total 6 100.0% $12,806 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $12,806 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.0% 0 0.0% 4.0% $0 0.0% 1.7%

Moderate 3 5.3% $502 2.0% 17.4% 3 5.3% 13.0% $502 2.0% 7.3%

Middle 8 14.0% $1,301 5.1% 18.6% 8 14.0% 16.7% $1,301 5.1% 11.8%

Upper 38 66.7% $10,468 41.1% 41.0% 38 66.7% 51.1% $10,468 41.1% 63.0%

Unknown 8 14.0% $13,228 51.9% 0.0% 8 14.0% 15.1% $13,228 51.9% 16.2%

Total 57 100.0% $25,499 100.0% 100.0% 57 100.0% 100.0% $25,499 100.0% 100.0%



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank




216

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 4 7.8% $1,229 8.8% 4.5% 4 7.8% 3.8% $1,229 8.8% 4.4%

Moderate 14 27.5% $2,444 17.5% 21.9% 14 27.5% 20.5% $2,444 17.5% 25.2%

Middle 11 21.6% $3,581 25.7% 28.0% 11 21.6% 25.0% $3,581 25.7% 24.7%

Upper 22 43.1% $6,690 48.0% 45.5% 22 43.1% 49.3% $6,690 48.0% 44.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Total 51 100.0% $13,944 100.0% 100.0% 51 100.0% 100.0% $13,944 100.0% 100.0%



2011 2011

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count



Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 14 27.5% $3,196 22.9% 14 27.5% 38.8% $3,196 22.9% 31.6%

Over $1 Million 32 62.7% $10,118 72.6% 32 62.7%


Rev. Not Known 5 9.8% $630 4.5% 5 9.8%

Total 51 100.0% $13,944 100.0% 51 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 19 37.3% $1,197 8.6% 19 37.3% 93.9% $1,197 8.6% 34.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 13 25.5% $2,640 18.9% 13 25.5% 2.9% $2,640 18.9% 14.2%

$250,001 - $1 Million 19 37.3% $10,107 72.5% 19 37.3% 3.3% $10,107 72.5% 51.2%

Total 51 100.0% $13,944 100.0% 51 100.0% 100.0% $13,944 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 6 42.9% $389 12.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 3 21.4% $595 18.6%

$250,001 - $1 Million 5 35.7% $2,212 69.2%

Total 14 100.0% $3,196 100.0%



LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less


Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

90.9%

5.6%

96.5%

3.5%




Size


2011

Bank Bank

%

2011

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar



Appendix H: 2012 Full Scope Lending Tables

217

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 0.5% $191 0.5% 4.4% 1 0.5% 0.7% $191 0.5% 0.3%

Moderate 14 7.3% $1,385 3.8% 18.3% 14 7.3% 8.2% $1,385 3.8% 4.7%

Middle 61 31.9% $7,517 20.7% 42.0% 61 31.9% 38.8% $7,517 20.7% 29.1%

Upper 113 59.2% $26,837 73.9% 35.3% 113 59.2% 52.3% $26,837 73.9% 65.8%

Unknown 2 1.0% $362 1.0% 0.0% 2 1.0% 0.0% $362 1.0% 0.0%

Total 191 100.0% $36,292 100.0% 100.0% 191 100.0% 100.0% $36,292 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 0.6% $82 0.2% 4.4% 1 0.6% 1.2% $82 0.2% 0.5%

Moderate 14 8.6% $1,915 4.7% 18.3% 14 8.6% 7.4% $1,915 4.7% 4.7%

Middle 32 19.6% $4,619 11.4% 42.0% 32 19.6% 33.9% $4,619 11.4% 26.2%

Upper 116 71.2% $33,925 83.7% 35.3% 116 71.2% 57.5% $33,925 83.7% 68.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 163 100.0% $40,541 100.0% 100.0% 163 100.0% 100.0% $40,541 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 10.3% $27 9.4% 4.4% 3 10.3% 4.1% $27 9.4% 1.0%

Moderate 15 51.7% $143 50.0% 18.3% 15 51.7% 18.0% $143 50.0% 7.9%

Middle 3 10.3% $35 12.2% 42.0% 3 10.3% 41.6% $35 12.2% 30.6%

Upper 8 27.6% $81 28.3% 35.3% 8 27.6% 36.3% $81 28.3% 60.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 29 100.0% $286 100.0% 100.0% 29 100.0% 100.0% $286 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.5% 0 0.0% 15.4% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 28.2% 0 0.0% 16.9% $0 0.0% 21.5%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 31.6% 0 0.0% 55.4% $0 0.0% 51.3%

Upper 1 100.0% $863 100.0% 26.7% 1 100.0% 12.3% $863 100.0% 26.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $863 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $863 100.0% 100.0%

Low 5 1.3% $300 0.4% 4.4% 5 1.3% 1.1% $300 0.4% 0.4%

Moderate 43 11.2% $3,443 4.4% 18.3% 43 11.2% 8.0% $3,443 4.4% 5.2%

Middle 96 25.0% $12,171 15.6% 42.0% 96 25.0% 35.9% $12,171 15.6% 28.0%

Upper 238 62.0% $61,706 79.1% 35.3% 238 62.0% 54.9% $61,706 79.1% 66.3%

Unknown 2 0.5% $362 0.5% 0.0% 2 0.5% 0.0% $362 0.5% 0.0%

Total 384 100.0% $77,982 100.0% 100.0% 384 100.0% 100.0% $77,982 100.0% 100.0%


Based on 2010 ACS Data.



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




218

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 29 15.2% $2,567 7.1% 21.9% 29 15.2% 10.3% $2,567 7.1% 5.1%

Moderate 56 29.3% $7,157 19.7% 17.0% 56 29.3% 23.3% $7,157 19.7% 16.9%

Middle 27 14.1% $4,020 11.1% 19.6% 27 14.1% 19.7% $4,020 11.1% 18.4%

Upper 75 39.3% $21,445 59.1% 41.5% 75 39.3% 29.8% $21,445 59.1% 43.8%

Unknown 4 2.1% $1,103 3.0% 0.0% 4 2.1% 16.9% $1,103 3.0% 15.8%

Total 191 100.0% $36,292 100.0% 100.0% 191 100.0% 100.0% $36,292 100.0% 100.0%

Low 12 7.4% $1,199 3.0% 21.9% 12 7.4% 5.5% $1,199 3.0% 2.8%

Moderate 25 15.3% $3,255 8.0% 17.0% 25 15.3% 12.8% $3,255 8.0% 8.4%

Middle 17 10.4% $2,816 6.9% 19.6% 17 10.4% 18.1% $2,816 6.9% 14.7%

Upper 97 59.5% $30,783 75.9% 41.5% 97 59.5% 43.2% $30,783 75.9% 54.7%

Unknown 12 7.4% $2,488 6.1% 0.0% 12 7.4% 20.4% $2,488 6.1% 19.5%

Total 163 100.0% $40,541 100.0% 100.0% 163 100.0% 100.0% $40,541 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 6.9% $9 3.1% 21.9% 2 6.9% 13.2% $9 3.1% 4.7%

Moderate 8 27.6% $68 23.8% 17.0% 8 27.6% 21.6% $68 23.8% 14.2%

Middle 10 34.5% $87 30.4% 19.6% 10 34.5% 24.9% $87 30.4% 22.5%

Upper 7 24.1% $92 32.2% 41.5% 7 24.1% 35.7% $92 32.2% 53.4%

Unknown 2 6.9% $30 10.5% 0.0% 2 6.9% 4.6% $30 10.5% 5.3%

Total 29 100.0% $286 100.0% 100.0% 29 100.0% 100.0% $286 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $863 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $863 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $863 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $863 100.0% 100.0%

Low 43 11.2% $3,775 4.8% 21.9% 43 11.2% 7.4% $3,775 4.8% 3.5%

Moderate 89 23.2% $10,480 13.4% 17.0% 89 23.2% 16.7% $10,480 13.4% 11.1%

Middle 54 14.1% $6,923 8.9% 19.6% 54 14.1% 18.9% $6,923 8.9% 15.6%

Upper 179 46.6% $52,320 67.1% 41.5% 179 46.6% 38.2% $52,320 67.1% 49.5%

Unknown 19 4.9% $4,484 5.8% 0.0% 19 4.9% 18.8% $4,484 5.8% 20.4%

Total 384 100.0% $77,982 100.0% 100.0% 384 100.0% 100.0% $77,982 100.0% 100.0%


2012

Bank


Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




219

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 22 14.2% $3,638 10.9% 7.4% 22 14.2% 7.3% $3,638 10.9% 10.5%

Moderate 25 16.1% $5,653 16.9% 18.3% 25 16.1% 14.6% $5,653 16.9% 17.8%

Middle 30 19.4% $7,986 23.9% 36.3% 30 19.4% 30.1% $7,986 23.9% 26.8%

Upper 78 50.3% $16,095 48.2% 38.0% 78 50.3% 43.5% $16,095 48.2% 44.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.5% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Total 155 100.0% $33,372 100.0% 100.0% 155 100.0% 100.0% $33,372 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.9% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 29.4% 0 0.0% 31.4% $0 0.0% 19.3%

Middle 1 100.0% $100 100.0% 45.8% 1 100.0% 50.3% $100 100.0% 34.7%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.9% 0 0.0% 17.0% $0 0.0% 45.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $100 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $100 100.0% 100.0%





PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

M


2012 2012

Bank Small

Businesses

Count Dollar




220

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 7 1.0% $1,026 0.9% 1.7% 7 1.0% 1.2% $1,026 0.9% 0.8%

Moderate 33 4.8% $4,692 4.1% 8.7% 33 4.8% 8.4% $4,692 4.1% 5.7%

Middle 340 49.0% $49,702 43.7% 57.2% 340 49.0% 49.2% $49,702 43.7% 43.0%

Upper 314 45.2% $58,398 51.3% 32.4% 314 45.2% 41.2% $58,398 51.3% 50.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 694 100.0% $113,818 100.0% 100.0% 694 100.0% 100.0% $113,818 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 0.7% $430 0.4% 1.7% 4 0.7% 1.1% $430 0.4% 0.8%

Moderate 35 5.8% $4,270 4.3% 8.7% 35 5.8% 7.3% $4,270 4.3% 5.8%

Middle 298 49.2% $44,886 44.9% 57.2% 298 49.2% 50.7% $44,886 44.9% 45.4%

Upper 269 44.4% $50,274 50.3% 32.4% 269 44.4% 40.8% $50,274 50.3% 48.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 606 100.0% $99,860 100.0% 100.0% 606 100.0% 100.0% $99,860 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 6.7% $16 2.7% 1.7% 3 6.7% 1.4% $16 2.7% 2.2%

Moderate 5 11.1% $28 4.7% 8.7% 5 11.1% 8.2% $28 4.7% 4.9%

Middle 25 55.6% $308 51.3% 57.2% 25 55.6% 57.1% $308 51.3% 42.9%

Upper 12 26.7% $248 41.3% 32.4% 12 26.7% 33.3% $248 41.3% 50.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 45 100.0% $600 100.0% 100.0% 45 100.0% 100.0% $600 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.8% 0 0.0% 27.4% $0 0.0% 14.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.5% 0 0.0% 24.7% $0 0.0% 20.2%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 45.6% 0 0.0% 32.9% $0 0.0% 31.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.1% 0 0.0% 15.1% $0 0.0% 34.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 14 1.0% $1,472 0.7% 1.7% 14 1.0% 1.2% $1,472 0.7% 1.3%

Moderate 73 5.4% $8,990 4.2% 8.7% 73 5.4% 7.8% $8,990 4.2% 6.3%

Middle 663 49.3% $94,896 44.3% 57.2% 663 49.3% 50.3% $94,896 44.3% 44.0%

Upper 595 44.2% $108,920 50.8% 32.4% 595 44.2% 40.7% $108,920 50.8% 48.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1,345 100.0% $214,278 100.0% 100.0% 1,345 100.0% 100.0% $214,278 100.0% 100.0%





RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




221

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 57 8.2% $4,624 4.1% 19.6% 57 8.2% 10.2% $4,624 4.1% 4.9%

Moderate 115 16.6% $12,931 11.4% 18.0% 115 16.6% 16.4% $12,931 11.4% 11.1%

Middle 162 23.3% $22,385 19.7% 20.5% 162 23.3% 16.9% $22,385 19.7% 14.7%

Upper 359 51.7% $73,548 64.6% 41.9% 359 51.7% 38.7% $73,548 64.6% 51.9%

Unknown 1 0.1% $330 0.3% 0.0% 1 0.1% 17.8% $330 0.3% 17.4%

Total 694 100.0% $113,818 100.0% 100.0% 694 100.0% 100.0% $113,818 100.0% 100.0%

Low 34 5.6% $3,114 3.1% 19.6% 34 5.6% 6.3% $3,114 3.1% 3.3%

Moderate 71 11.7% $8,279 8.3% 18.0% 71 11.7% 12.3% $8,279 8.3% 7.9%

Middle 108 17.8% $14,784 14.8% 20.5% 108 17.8% 16.8% $14,784 14.8% 13.2%

Upper 341 56.3% $65,477 65.6% 41.9% 341 56.3% 49.6% $65,477 65.6% 59.0%

Unknown 52 8.6% $8,206 8.2% 0.0% 52 8.6% 15.0% $8,206 8.2% 16.6%

Total 606 100.0% $99,860 100.0% 100.0% 606 100.0% 100.0% $99,860 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 8.9% $19 3.2% 19.6% 4 8.9% 9.9% $19 3.2% 4.6%

Moderate 10 22.2% $94 15.7% 18.0% 10 22.2% 15.1% $94 15.7% 8.2%

Middle 3 6.7% $10 1.7% 20.5% 3 6.7% 20.5% $10 1.7% 16.5%

Upper 27 60.0% $474 79.0% 41.9% 27 60.0% 45.7% $474 79.0% 54.3%

Unknown 1 2.2% $3 0.5% 0.0% 1 2.2% 8.8% $3 0.5% 16.4%

Total 45 100.0% $600 100.0% 100.0% 45 100.0% 100.0% $600 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 95 7.1% $7,757 3.6% 19.6% 95 7.1% 7.8% $7,757 3.6% 3.8%

Moderate 196 14.6% $21,304 9.9% 18.0% 196 14.6% 13.8% $21,304 9.9% 8.8%

Middle 273 20.3% $37,179 17.4% 20.5% 273 20.3% 16.9% $37,179 17.4% 13.3%

Upper 727 54.1% $139,499 65.1% 41.9% 727 54.1% 45.3% $139,499 65.1% 54.3%

Unknown 54 4.0% $8,539 4.0% 0.0% 54 4.0% 16.1% $8,539 4.0% 19.8%

Total 1,345 100.0% $214,278 100.0% 100.0% 1,345 100.0% 100.0% $214,278 100.0% 100.0%


2012

Bank


Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




222

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 4 5.9% $828 8.6% 3.2% 4 5.9% 3.3% $828 8.6% 3.3%

Moderate 26 38.2% $4,089 42.2% 16.8% 26 38.2% 16.0% $4,089 42.2% 18.3%

Middle 28 41.2% $3,656 37.8% 50.6% 28 41.2% 46.4% $3,656 37.8% 44.7%

Upper 10 14.7% $1,107 11.4% 29.4% 10 14.7% 30.9% $1,107 11.4% 33.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.3% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Total 68 100.0% $9,680 100.0% 100.0% 68 100.0% 100.0% $9,680 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

2012 2012

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 43 63.2% $4,786 49.4% 43 63.2% 49.8% $4,786 49.4% 60.7%

Over $1 Million 19 27.9% $4,261 44.0% 19 27.9%


Rev. Not Known 6 8.8% $633 6.5% 6 8.8%

Total 68 100.0% $9,680 100.0% 68 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 40 58.8% $1,333 13.8% 40 58.8% 87.0% $1,333 13.8% 22.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 13 19.1% $2,375 24.5% 13 19.1% 6.7% $2,375 24.5% 20.6%

$250,001 - $1 Million 15 22.1% $5,972 61.7% 15 22.1% 6.4% $5,972 61.7% 56.7%

Total 68 100.0% $9,680 100.0% 68 100.0% 100.0% $9,680 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 30 69.8% $1,021 21.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 6 14.0% $1,068 22.3%

$250,001 - $1 Million 7 16.3% $2,697 56.4%

Total 43 100.0% $4,786 100.0%

Based on 2012 D&B information .




Size


2012

Bank Bank

%

2012

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

90.8%

4.9%

95.7%

4.3%


LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less





223

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 11 2.9% $865 1.4% 5.3% 11 2.9% 1.7% $865 1.4% 0.8%

Moderate 39 10.2% $3,256 5.2% 24.4% 39 10.2% 11.6% $3,256 5.2% 6.0%

Middle 89 23.4% $11,507 18.5% 28.1% 89 23.4% 31.5% $11,507 18.5% 24.8%

Upper 242 63.5% $46,456 74.8% 42.1% 242 63.5% 55.2% $46,456 74.8% 68.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 381 100.0% $62,084 100.0% 100.0% 381 100.0% 100.0% $62,084 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 0.3% $69 0.1% 5.3% 1 0.3% 1.0% $69 0.1% 0.6%

Moderate 17 4.6% $1,364 2.1% 24.4% 17 4.6% 7.7% $1,364 2.1% 3.8%

Middle 77 21.0% $9,419 14.2% 28.1% 77 21.0% 23.5% $9,419 14.2% 17.4%

Upper 272 74.1% $55,536 83.7% 42.1% 272 74.1% 67.8% $55,536 83.7% 78.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 367 100.0% $66,388 100.0% 100.0% 367 100.0% 100.0% $66,388 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 1.9% $44 3.3% 5.3% 2 1.9% 2.0% $44 3.3% 0.6%

Moderate 34 32.4% $373 28.0% 24.4% 34 32.4% 21.6% $373 28.0% 6.1%

Middle 30 28.6% $330 24.8% 28.1% 30 28.6% 29.9% $330 24.8% 24.1%

Upper 39 37.1% $585 43.9% 42.1% 39 37.1% 46.5% $585 43.9% 69.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 105 100.0% $1,332 100.0% 100.0% 105 100.0% 100.0% $1,332 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.2% 0 0.0% 11.8% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.9% 0 0.0% 23.5% $0 0.0% 13.7%

Middle 1 100.0% $241 100.0% 29.8% 1 100.0% 29.4% $241 100.0% 10.5%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 33.1% 0 0.0% 35.3% $0 0.0% 73.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0%

Low 14 1.6% $978 0.8% 5.3% 14 1.6% 1.4% $978 0.8% 0.8%

Moderate 90 10.5% $4,993 3.8% 24.4% 90 10.5% 9.8% $4,993 3.8% 5.0%

Middle 197 23.1% $21,497 16.5% 28.1% 197 23.1% 26.8% $21,497 16.5% 20.0%

Upper 553 64.8% $102,577 78.9% 42.1% 553 64.8% 62.0% $102,577 78.9% 74.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 854 100.0% $130,045 100.0% 100.0% 854 100.0% 100.0% $130,045 100.0% 100.0%





RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




224

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 44 11.5% $3,904 6.3% 23.0% 44 11.5% 8.0% $3,904 6.3% 4.1%

Moderate 90 23.6% $10,953 17.6% 17.8% 90 23.6% 17.4% $10,953 17.6% 12.8%

Middle 73 19.2% $11,391 18.3% 18.4% 73 19.2% 17.9% $11,391 18.3% 16.8%

Upper 173 45.4% $35,616 57.4% 40.7% 173 45.4% 32.6% $35,616 57.4% 44.6%

Unknown 1 0.3% $220 0.4% 0.0% 1 0.3% 24.1% $220 0.4% 21.7%

Total 381 100.0% $62,084 100.0% 100.0% 381 100.0% 100.0% $62,084 100.0% 100.0%

Low 17 4.6% $1,358 2.0% 23.0% 17 4.6% 4.1% $1,358 2.0% 2.0%

Moderate 41 11.2% $4,638 7.0% 17.8% 41 11.2% 9.6% $4,638 7.0% 5.8%

Middle 67 18.3% $9,256 13.9% 18.4% 67 18.3% 16.7% $9,256 13.9% 12.5%

Upper 225 61.3% $47,345 71.3% 40.7% 225 61.3% 45.6% $47,345 71.3% 55.2%

Unknown 17 4.6% $3,791 5.7% 0.0% 17 4.6% 24.0% $3,791 5.7% 24.5%

Total 367 100.0% $66,388 100.0% 100.0% 367 100.0% 100.0% $66,388 100.0% 100.0%

Low 7 6.7% $44 3.3% 23.0% 7 6.7% 7.4% $44 3.3% 2.9%

Moderate 23 21.9% $261 19.6% 17.8% 23 21.9% 18.6% $261 19.6% 11.4%

Middle 27 25.7% $235 17.6% 18.4% 27 25.7% 23.9% $235 17.6% 17.2%

Upper 46 43.8% $776 58.3% 40.7% 46 43.8% 45.0% $776 58.3% 62.9%

Unknown 2 1.9% $16 1.2% 0.0% 2 1.9% 5.0% $16 1.2% 5.6%

Total 105 100.0% $1,332 100.0% 100.0% 105 100.0% 100.0% $1,332 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $241 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0%

Low 68 8.0% $5,306 4.1% 23.0% 68 8.0% 5.7% $5,306 4.1% 2.7%

Moderate 154 18.0% $15,852 12.2% 17.8% 154 18.0% 13.0% $15,852 12.2% 8.3%

Middle 167 19.6% $20,882 16.1% 18.4% 167 19.6% 17.4% $20,882 16.1% 13.6%

Upper 444 52.0% $83,737 64.4% 40.7% 444 52.0% 40.3% $83,737 64.4% 49.1%

Unknown 21 2.5% $4,268 3.3% 0.0% 21 2.5% 23.6% $4,268 3.3% 26.3%

Total 854 100.0% $130,045 100.0% 100.0% 854 100.0% 100.0% $130,045 100.0% 100.0%


2012

Bank


Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




225

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 12 7.6% $3,243 11.3% 6.0% 12 7.6% 6.0% $3,243 11.3% 8.8%

Moderate 45 28.7% $8,363 29.1% 30.5% 45 28.7% 26.9% $8,363 29.1% 30.5%

Middle 48 30.6% $8,990 31.3% 26.0% 48 30.6% 23.7% $8,990 31.3% 21.2%

Upper 52 33.1% $8,172 28.4% 37.5% 52 33.1% 43.4% $8,172 28.4% 39.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 157 100.0% $28,768 100.0% 100.0% 157 100.0% 100.0% $28,768 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.8% 0 0.0% 4.8% $0 0.0% 3.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 10.2% 0 0.0% 23.8% $0 0.0% 37.8%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 35.7% 0 0.0% 23.8% $0 0.0% 7.2%

Upper 1 100.0% $109 100.0% 50.4% 1 100.0% 47.6% $109 100.0% 51.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $109 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $109 100.0% 100.0%





PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

M


2012 2012

Bank Small

Businesses

Count Dollar




226

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

$1 Million or Less 66 42.0% $9,873 34.3% 66 42.0% 41.0% $9,873 34.3% 38.5%

Over $1 Million 82 52.2% $17,153 59.6% 82 52.2%


Rev. Not Known 9 5.7% $1,742 6.1% 9 5.7%

Total 157 100.0% $28,768 100.0% 157 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 87 55.4% $4,373 15.2% 87 55.4% 89.0% $4,373 15.2% 22.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 42 26.8% $7,725 26.9% 42 26.8% 5.2% $7,725 26.9% 16.8%

$250,001 - $1 Million 28 17.8% $16,670 57.9% 28 17.8% 5.8% $16,670 57.9% 60.4%

Total 157 100.0% $28,768 100.0% 157 100.0% 100.0% $28,768 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 43 65.2% $1,759 17.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 13 19.7% $2,252 22.8%

$250,001 - $1 Million 10 15.2% $5,862 59.4%

Total 66 100.0% $9,873 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 59.5% $0 0.0% 50.3%

Over $1 Million 1 100.0% $109 100.0% 1 100.0%


Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $109 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 81.0% $0 0.0% 30.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 100.0% $109 100.0% 1 100.0% 11.9% $109 100.0% 31.2%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.1% $0 0.0% 38.6%

Total 1 100.0% $109 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $109 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0%




Pro

du

ct

Ty


2012 2012

Dollar Bank Bank

Bank Total

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count

95.6%

4.4%

100.0%

%

88.6%

7.0%

2.2%

100.0%

0.0%

Loan S

ize &

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Sm

all F

arm

Total Farms

Re

ve

nu

e

97.8%

Sm

all B

usin

ess

Re

ve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize


Loan S

ize &

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r


100.0%

Lo

an

Siz

e




227

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 3.1% $125 0.9% 2.4% 2 3.1% 2.7% $125 0.9% 1.0%

Moderate 7 10.8% $704 5.2% 16.4% 7 10.8% 13.8% $704 5.2% 8.7%

Middle 37 56.9% $6,805 50.4% 46.0% 37 56.9% 50.0% $6,805 50.4% 39.7%

Upper 19 29.2% $5,873 43.5% 35.2% 19 29.2% 33.6% $5,873 43.5% 50.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 65 100.0% $13,507 100.0% 100.0% 65 100.0% 100.0% $13,507 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 1.9% $100 0.9% 2.4% 1 1.9% 0.7% $100 0.9% 0.4%

Moderate 8 15.1% $1,028 8.9% 16.4% 8 15.1% 11.2% $1,028 8.9% 8.0%

Middle 20 37.7% $3,421 29.6% 46.0% 20 37.7% 47.9% $3,421 29.6% 38.3%

Upper 24 45.3% $7,027 60.7% 35.2% 24 45.3% 40.1% $7,027 60.7% 53.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 53 100.0% $11,576 100.0% 100.0% 53 100.0% 100.0% $11,576 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 14.3% $13 4.5% 2.4% 2 14.3% 3.1% $13 4.5% 0.2%

Moderate 5 35.7% $53 18.2% 16.4% 5 35.7% 11.9% $53 18.2% 7.0%

Middle 4 28.6% $135 46.4% 46.0% 4 28.6% 51.6% $135 46.4% 36.9%

Upper 3 21.4% $90 30.9% 35.2% 3 21.4% 33.3% $90 30.9% 55.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 14 100.0% $291 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $291 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.8% 0 0.0% 21.1% $0 0.0% 25.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.5% 0 0.0% 36.8% $0 0.0% 23.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 43.7% 0 0.0% 42.1% $0 0.0% 51.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 5 3.8% $238 0.9% 2.4% 5 3.8% 1.6% $238 0.9% 0.6%

Moderate 20 15.2% $1,785 7.0% 16.4% 20 15.2% 12.4% $1,785 7.0% 8.5%

Middle 61 46.2% $10,361 40.8% 46.0% 61 46.2% 48.9% $10,361 40.8% 38.7%

Upper 46 34.8% $12,990 51.2% 35.2% 46 34.8% 37.1% $12,990 51.2% 52.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 132 100.0% $25,374 100.0% 100.0% 132 100.0% 100.0% $25,374 100.0% 100.0%



MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units



RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar




228

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 11 16.9% $1,087 8.0% 21.1% 11 16.9% 8.4% $1,087 8.0% 3.4%

Moderate 16 24.6% $2,103 15.6% 18.3% 16 24.6% 13.3% $2,103 15.6% 7.1%

Middle 12 18.5% $2,561 19.0% 19.0% 12 18.5% 13.8% $2,561 19.0% 9.4%

Upper 26 40.0% $7,756 57.4% 41.5% 26 40.0% 52.8% $7,756 57.4% 72.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 11.7% $0 0.0% 8.0%

Total 65 100.0% $13,507 100.0% 100.0% 65 100.0% 100.0% $13,507 100.0% 100.0%

Low 5 9.4% $435 3.8% 21.1% 5 9.4% 6.4% $435 3.8% 3.3%

Moderate 13 24.5% $1,914 16.5% 18.3% 13 24.5% 12.0% $1,914 16.5% 6.8%

Middle 9 17.0% $1,890 16.3% 19.0% 9 17.0% 17.0% $1,890 16.3% 11.7%

Upper 24 45.3% $6,804 58.8% 41.5% 24 45.3% 55.7% $6,804 58.8% 67.7%

Unknown 2 3.8% $533 4.6% 0.0% 2 3.8% 8.9% $533 4.6% 10.4%

Total 53 100.0% $11,576 100.0% 100.0% 53 100.0% 100.0% $11,576 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 21.4% $18 6.2% 21.1% 3 21.4% 13.2% $18 6.2% 1.8%

Moderate 2 14.3% $18 6.2% 18.3% 2 14.3% 18.9% $18 6.2% 9.6%

Middle 2 14.3% $30 10.3% 19.0% 2 14.3% 22.6% $30 10.3% 17.4%

Upper 7 50.0% $225 77.3% 41.5% 7 50.0% 43.4% $225 77.3% 70.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.9% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Total 14 100.0% $291 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $291 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 19 14.4% $1,540 6.1% 21.1% 19 14.4% 7.4% $1,540 6.1% 3.3%

Moderate 31 23.5% $4,035 15.9% 18.3% 31 23.5% 12.6% $4,035 15.9% 6.8%

Middle 23 17.4% $4,481 17.7% 19.0% 23 17.4% 15.6% $4,481 17.7% 10.6%

Upper 57 43.2% $14,785 58.3% 41.5% 57 43.2% 54.2% $14,785 58.3% 68.7%

Unknown 2 1.5% $533 2.1% 0.0% 2 1.5% 10.2% $533 2.1% 10.5%

Total 132 100.0% $25,374 100.0% 100.0% 132 100.0% 100.0% $25,374 100.0% 100.0%


Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE



Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012 2012

Bank





229

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 3 4.5% $182 1.8% 2.6% 3 4.5% 1.8% $182 1.8% 2.6%

Moderate 6 9.1% $518 5.2% 13.6% 6 9.1% 10.1% $518 5.2% 7.7%

Middle 17 25.8% $2,755 27.5% 43.5% 17 25.8% 40.2% $2,755 27.5% 36.4%

Upper 40 60.6% $6,561 65.5% 40.2% 40 60.6% 45.4% $6,561 65.5% 52.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.5% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Total 66 100.0% $10,016 100.0% 100.0% 66 100.0% 100.0% $10,016 100.0% 100.0%



2012 2012

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count



Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 33 50.0% $3,216 32.1% 33 50.0% 36.7% $3,216 32.1% 37.4%

Over $1 Million 30 45.5% $6,626 66.2% 30 45.5%


Rev. Not Known 3 4.5% $174 1.7% 3 4.5%

Total 66 100.0% $10,016 100.0% 66 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 47 71.2% $1,695 16.9% 47 71.2% 95.3% $1,695 16.9% 37.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 8 12.1% $1,625 16.2% 8 12.1% 2.2% $1,625 16.2% 13.8%

$250,001 - $1 Million 11 16.7% $6,696 66.9% 11 16.7% 2.6% $6,696 66.9% 49.2%

Total 66 100.0% $10,016 100.0% 66 100.0% 100.0% $10,016 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 27 81.8% $709 22.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 2 6.1% $361 11.2%

$250,001 - $1 Million 4 12.1% $2,146 66.7%

Total 33 100.0% $3,216 100.0%



LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less


Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

92.6%

4.0%

96.6%

3.3%




Size


2012

Bank Bank

%

2012

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar




230

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 0.7% $33 0.1% 1.3% 1 0.7% 0.2% $33 0.1% 0.1%

Moderate 24 15.8% $2,904 11.8% 20.1% 24 15.8% 10.6% $2,904 11.8% 6.9%

Middle 81 53.3% $11,538 46.8% 49.0% 81 53.3% 49.0% $11,538 46.8% 36.7%

Upper 46 30.3% $10,174 41.3% 29.7% 46 30.3% 40.1% $10,174 41.3% 56.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 152 100.0% $24,649 100.0% 100.0% 152 100.0% 100.0% $24,649 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 3.7% $316 2.0% 1.3% 3 3.7% 0.3% $316 2.0% 0.1%

Moderate 9 11.1% $1,400 9.0% 20.1% 9 11.1% 9.8% $1,400 9.0% 7.3%

Middle 39 48.1% $6,210 39.9% 49.0% 39 48.1% 49.2% $6,210 39.9% 40.4%

Upper 30 37.0% $7,633 49.1% 29.7% 30 37.0% 40.7% $7,633 49.1% 52.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 81 100.0% $15,559 100.0% 100.0% 81 100.0% 100.0% $15,559 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 1.5% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 1 11.1% $20 16.1% 20.1% 1 11.1% 19.4% $20 16.1% 6.3%

Middle 6 66.7% $56 45.2% 49.0% 6 66.7% 49.0% $56 45.2% 32.8%

Upper 2 22.2% $48 38.7% 29.7% 2 22.2% 30.0% $48 38.7% 60.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 9 100.0% $124 100.0% 100.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $124 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.6% 0 0.0% 30.8% $0 0.0% 23.3%

Middle 1 100.0% $119 100.0% 38.7% 1 100.0% 50.0% $119 100.0% 48.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.5% 0 0.0% 19.2% $0 0.0% 28.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $119 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $119 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 1.6% $349 0.9% 1.3% 4 1.6% 0.3% $349 0.9% 0.1%

Moderate 34 14.0% $4,324 10.7% 20.1% 34 14.0% 10.3% $4,324 10.7% 7.5%

Middle 127 52.3% $17,923 44.3% 49.0% 127 52.3% 49.2% $17,923 44.3% 39.1%

Upper 78 32.1% $17,855 44.1% 29.7% 78 32.1% 40.2% $17,855 44.1% 53.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 243 100.0% $40,451 100.0% 100.0% 243 100.0% 100.0% $40,451 100.0% 100.0%





RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




231

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 9 5.9% $531 2.2% 19.6% 9 5.9% 5.7% $531 2.2% 2.4%

Moderate 38 25.0% $4,744 19.2% 19.0% 38 25.0% 15.3% $4,744 19.2% 9.2%

Middle 33 21.7% $5,038 20.4% 20.9% 33 21.7% 18.2% $5,038 20.4% 14.2%

Upper 71 46.7% $14,135 57.3% 40.5% 71 46.7% 50.5% $14,135 57.3% 65.3%

Unknown 1 0.7% $201 0.8% 0.0% 1 0.7% 10.3% $201 0.8% 8.9%

Total 152 100.0% $24,649 100.0% 100.0% 152 100.0% 100.0% $24,649 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 4.9% $317 2.0% 19.6% 4 4.9% 6.1% $317 2.0% 3.6%

Moderate 11 13.6% $1,266 8.1% 19.0% 11 13.6% 12.2% $1,266 8.1% 7.8%

Middle 15 18.5% $2,169 13.9% 20.9% 15 18.5% 19.2% $2,169 13.9% 14.7%

Upper 46 56.8% $10,687 68.7% 40.5% 46 56.8% 50.8% $10,687 68.7% 62.4%

Unknown 5 6.2% $1,120 7.2% 0.0% 5 6.2% 11.7% $1,120 7.2% 11.6%

Total 81 100.0% $15,559 100.0% 100.0% 81 100.0% 100.0% $15,559 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 11.1% $3 2.4% 19.6% 1 11.1% 10.8% $3 2.4% 2.3%

Moderate 2 22.2% $25 20.2% 19.0% 2 22.2% 24.8% $25 20.2% 8.5%

Middle 1 11.1% $13 10.5% 20.9% 1 11.1% 22.2% $13 10.5% 15.5%

Upper 2 22.2% $48 38.7% 40.5% 2 22.2% 38.2% $48 38.7% 66.8%

Unknown 3 33.3% $35 28.2% 0.0% 3 33.3% 3.9% $35 28.2% 6.9%

Total 9 100.0% $124 100.0% 100.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $124 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $119 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $119 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $119 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $119 100.0% 100.0%

Low 14 5.8% $851 2.1% 19.6% 14 5.8% 6.0% $851 2.1% 3.0%

Moderate 51 21.0% $6,035 14.9% 19.0% 51 21.0% 13.6% $6,035 14.9% 8.2%

Middle 49 20.2% $7,220 17.8% 20.9% 49 20.2% 18.8% $7,220 17.8% 14.1%

Upper 119 49.0% $24,870 61.5% 40.5% 119 49.0% 50.4% $24,870 61.5% 62.0%

Unknown 10 4.1% $1,475 3.6% 0.0% 10 4.1% 11.1% $1,475 3.6% 12.8%

Total 243 100.0% $40,451 100.0% 100.0% 243 100.0% 100.0% $40,451 100.0% 100.0%


2012

Bank


Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




232

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.0% 1.7% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Moderate 15 38.5% $996 25.4% 19.9% 15 38.5% 18.8% $996 25.4% 21.4%

Middle 10 25.6% $417 10.6% 44.5% 10 25.6% 38.0% $417 10.6% 34.1%

Upper 14 35.9% $2,515 64.0% 34.0% 14 35.9% 39.5% $2,515 64.0% 41.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.1% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Total 39 100.0% $3,928 100.0% 100.0% 39 100.0% 100.0% $3,928 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

2012 2012

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 30 76.9% $2,892 73.6% 30 76.9% 42.0% $2,892 73.6% 38.4%

Over $1 Million 8 20.5% $986 25.1% 8 20.5%


Rev. Not Known 1 2.6% $50 1.3% 1 2.6%

Total 39 100.0% $3,928 100.0% 39 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 26 66.7% $1,063 27.1% 26 66.7% 94.7% $1,063 27.1% 37.1%

$100,001 - $250,000 10 25.6% $1,511 38.5% 10 25.6% 2.7% $1,511 38.5% 16.0%

$250,001 - $1 Million 3 7.7% $1,354 34.5% 3 7.7% 2.6% $1,354 34.5% 46.8%

Total 39 100.0% $3,928 100.0% 39 100.0% 100.0% $3,928 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 21 70.0% $659 22.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 7 23.3% $1,152 39.8%

$250,001 - $1 Million 2 6.7% $1,081 37.4%

Total 30 100.0% $2,892 100.0%





Size


2012

Bank Bank

%

2012

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

93.3%

3.9%

97.2%

2.9%


LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less





233

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 8 2.4% $33 0.1% 2.8% 8 2.4% 0.8% $33 0.1% 0.2%

Moderate 91 27.6% $9,748 18.3% 23.3% 91 27.6% 20.1% $9,748 18.3% 17.2%

Middle 112 33.9% $14,226 26.7% 46.2% 112 33.9% 37.6% $14,226 26.7% 32.1%

Upper 119 36.1% $29,298 55.0% 27.8% 119 36.1% 41.5% $29,298 55.0% 50.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 330 100.0% $53,305 100.0% 100.0% 330 100.0% 100.0% $53,305 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.8% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 52 15.6% $9,387 13.6% 23.3% 52 15.6% 16.9% $9,387 13.6% 15.2%

Middle 117 35.0% $17,280 25.1% 46.2% 117 35.0% 38.9% $17,280 25.1% 32.4%

Upper 165 49.4% $42,201 61.3% 27.8% 165 49.4% 43.8% $42,201 61.3% 52.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 334 100.0% $68,868 100.0% 100.0% 334 100.0% 100.0% $68,868 100.0% 100.0%

Low 5 4.1% $85 4.1% 2.8% 5 4.1% 2.0% $85 4.1% 0.5%

Moderate 43 35.0% $618 29.7% 23.3% 43 35.0% 23.1% $618 29.7% 15.7%

Middle 45 36.6% $891 42.8% 46.2% 45 36.6% 50.9% $891 42.8% 39.6%

Upper 30 24.4% $489 23.5% 27.8% 30 24.4% 23.9% $489 23.5% 44.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 123 100.0% $2,083 100.0% 100.0% 123 100.0% 100.0% $2,083 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 29.8% 0 0.0% 48.0% $0 0.0% 26.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.7% 0 0.0% 44.0% $0 0.0% 21.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 27.0% 0 0.0% 8.0% $0 0.0% 51.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 13 1.7% $118 0.1% 2.8% 13 1.7% 0.7% $118 0.1% 0.3%

Moderate 186 23.6% $19,753 15.9% 23.3% 186 23.6% 18.8% $19,753 15.9% 16.4%

Middle 274 34.8% $32,397 26.1% 46.2% 274 34.8% 39.0% $32,397 26.1% 32.1%

Upper 314 39.9% $71,988 57.9% 27.8% 314 39.9% 41.6% $71,988 57.9% 51.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 787 100.0% $124,256 100.0% 100.0% 787 100.0% 100.0% $124,256 100.0% 100.0%





RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




234

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 50 15.2% $1,052 2.0% 24.2% 50 15.2% 6.5% $1,052 2.0% 3.0%

Moderate 72 21.8% $6,992 13.1% 16.6% 72 21.8% 23.5% $6,992 13.1% 18.4%

Middle 44 13.3% $6,661 12.5% 17.8% 44 13.3% 25.8% $6,661 12.5% 25.1%

Upper 150 45.5% $36,171 67.9% 41.4% 150 45.5% 35.6% $36,171 67.9% 45.6%

Unknown 14 4.2% $2,429 4.6% 0.0% 14 4.2% 8.5% $2,429 4.6% 7.9%

Total 330 100.0% $53,305 100.0% 100.0% 330 100.0% 100.0% $53,305 100.0% 100.0%

Low 12 3.6% $805 1.2% 24.2% 12 3.6% 4.9% $805 1.2% 2.2%

Moderate 32 9.6% $2,887 4.2% 16.6% 32 9.6% 11.0% $2,887 4.2% 6.9%

Middle 52 15.6% $6,611 9.6% 17.8% 52 15.6% 19.8% $6,611 9.6% 16.0%

Upper 216 64.7% $55,407 80.5% 41.4% 216 64.7% 50.3% $55,407 80.5% 59.9%

Unknown 22 6.6% $3,158 4.6% 0.0% 22 6.6% 14.0% $3,158 4.6% 15.1%

Total 334 100.0% $68,868 100.0% 100.0% 334 100.0% 100.0% $68,868 100.0% 100.0%

Low 15 12.2% $102 4.9% 24.2% 15 12.2% 14.9% $102 4.9% 4.8%

Moderate 20 16.3% $233 11.2% 16.6% 20 16.3% 17.7% $233 11.2% 9.9%

Middle 33 26.8% $605 29.0% 17.8% 33 26.8% 20.5% $605 29.0% 14.6%

Upper 42 34.1% $995 47.8% 41.4% 42 34.1% 40.7% $995 47.8% 65.6%

Unknown 13 10.6% $148 7.1% 0.0% 13 10.6% 6.2% $148 7.1% 5.1%

Total 123 100.0% $2,083 100.0% 100.0% 123 100.0% 100.0% $2,083 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 77 9.8% $1,959 1.6% 24.2% 77 9.8% 6.2% $1,959 1.6% 2.6%

Moderate 124 15.8% $10,112 8.1% 16.6% 124 15.8% 16.9% $10,112 8.1% 12.0%

Middle 129 16.4% $13,877 11.2% 17.8% 129 16.4% 22.5% $13,877 11.2% 19.8%

Upper 408 51.8% $92,573 74.5% 41.4% 408 51.8% 43.1% $92,573 74.5% 52.0%

Unknown 49 6.2% $5,735 4.6% 0.0% 49 6.2% 11.3% $5,735 4.6% 13.6%

Total 787 100.0% $124,256 100.0% 100.0% 787 100.0% 100.0% $124,256 100.0% 100.0%


2012

Bank


Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




235

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 4 0.9% $1,675 2.0% 2.8% 4 0.9% 2.3% $1,675 2.0% 2.2%

Moderate 105 23.2% $20,489 24.8% 24.0% 105 23.2% 22.3% $20,489 24.8% 28.4%

Middle 199 43.9% $36,165 43.7% 45.0% 199 43.9% 43.0% $36,165 43.7% 44.6%

Upper 145 32.0% $24,447 29.5% 28.2% 145 32.0% 28.2% $24,447 29.5% 23.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.1% $0 0.0% 1.8%

Total 453 100.0% $82,776 100.0% 100.0% 453 100.0% 100.0% $82,776 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.8% 0 0.0% 34.9% $0 0.0% 29.9%

Middle 1 100.0% $48 100.0% 53.4% 1 100.0% 44.2% $48 100.0% 38.1%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 26.3% 0 0.0% 18.6% $0 0.0% 8.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.3% $0 0.0% 23.3%

Total 1 100.0% $48 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $48 100.0% 100.0%





PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

M


2012 2012

Bank Small

Businesses

Count Dollar




236

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

$1 Million or Less 200 44.2% $26,630 32.2% 200 44.2% 30.3% $26,630 32.2% 30.0%

Over $1 Million 190 41.9% $47,067 56.9% 190 41.9%


Rev. Not Known 63 13.9% $9,079 11.0% 63 13.9%

Total 453 100.0% $82,776 100.0% 453 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 269 59.4% $11,981 14.5% 269 59.4% 90.3% $11,981 14.5% 24.5%

$100,001 - $250,000 79 17.4% $14,907 18.0% 79 17.4% 4.7% $14,907 18.0% 17.4%

$250,001 - $1 Million 105 23.2% $55,888 67.5% 105 23.2% 5.0% $55,888 67.5% 58.1%

Total 453 100.0% $82,776 100.0% 453 100.0% 100.0% $82,776 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 141 70.5% $5,927 22.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 26 13.0% $4,400 16.5%

$250,001 - $1 Million 33 16.5% $16,303 61.2%

Total 200 100.0% $26,630 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $48 100.0% 1 100.0% 32.6% $48 100.0% 40.7%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0%


Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $48 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $48 100.0% 1 100.0% 90.7% $48 100.0% 34.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.3% $0 0.0% 7.1%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.0% $0 0.0% 58.7%

Total 1 100.0% $48 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $48 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $48 100.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $48 100.0%




Pro

du

ct

Ty


2012 2012

Dollar Bank Bank

Bank Total

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count

96.5%

3.5%

100.0%

%

90.1%

6.4%

1.5%

100.0%

0.0%

Loan S

ize &

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Sm

all F

arm

Total Farms

Re

ve

nu

e

98.5%

Sm

all B

usin

ess

Re

ve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize


Loan S

ize &

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r


100.0%

Lo

an

Siz

e




237

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 22 3.6% $2,967 2.2% 4.6% 22 3.6% 3.7% $2,967 2.2% 2.5%

Moderate 78 12.6% $12,558 9.5% 17.5% 78 12.6% 13.4% $12,558 9.5% 10.0%

Middle 145 23.4% $26,123 19.7% 42.0% 145 23.4% 37.6% $26,123 19.7% 31.2%

Upper 374 60.4% $90,857 68.6% 35.9% 374 60.4% 45.3% $90,857 68.6% 56.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 619 100.0% $132,505 100.0% 100.0% 619 100.0% 100.0% $132,505 100.0% 100.0%

Low 14 1.9% $1,975 1.1% 4.6% 14 1.9% 2.6% $1,975 1.1% 1.9%

Moderate 70 9.3% $10,061 5.8% 17.5% 70 9.3% 10.8% $10,061 5.8% 7.5%

Middle 186 24.6% $33,081 19.2% 42.0% 186 24.6% 34.7% $33,081 19.2% 28.2%

Upper 485 64.2% $127,015 73.8% 35.9% 485 64.2% 51.9% $127,015 73.8% 62.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 755 100.0% $172,132 100.0% 100.0% 755 100.0% 100.0% $172,132 100.0% 100.0%

Low 7 11.3% $85 2.4% 4.6% 7 11.3% 7.1% $85 2.4% 4.9%

Moderate 24 38.7% $251 7.2% 17.5% 24 38.7% 20.0% $251 7.2% 12.2%

Middle 15 24.2% $2,089 59.7% 42.0% 15 24.2% 35.6% $2,089 59.7% 27.6%

Upper 16 25.8% $1,076 30.7% 35.9% 16 25.8% 37.3% $1,076 30.7% 55.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 62 100.0% $3,501 100.0% 100.0% 62 100.0% 100.0% $3,501 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 11.1% $450 6.8% 15.2% 1 11.1% 13.5% $450 6.8% 6.9%

Moderate 4 44.4% $2,456 37.0% 31.1% 4 44.4% 27.9% $2,456 37.0% 9.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 28.8% 0 0.0% 26.9% $0 0.0% 45.7%

Upper 4 44.4% $3,723 56.2% 24.8% 4 44.4% 31.7% $3,723 56.2% 37.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 9 100.0% $6,629 100.0% 100.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $6,629 100.0% 100.0%

Low 44 3.0% $5,477 1.7% 4.6% 44 3.0% 3.2% $5,477 1.7% 2.3%

Moderate 176 12.2% $25,326 8.0% 17.5% 176 12.2% 12.2% $25,326 8.0% 8.6%

Middle 346 23.9% $61,293 19.5% 42.0% 346 23.9% 35.8% $61,293 19.5% 29.7%

Upper 879 60.8% $222,671 70.7% 35.9% 879 60.8% 48.8% $222,671 70.7% 59.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1,445 100.0% $314,767 100.0% 100.0% 1,445 100.0% 100.0% $314,767 100.0% 100.0%





RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




238

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 34 5.5% $2,719 2.1% 23.4% 34 5.5% 6.8% $2,719 2.1% 3.2%

Moderate 92 14.9% $11,894 9.0% 16.8% 92 14.9% 19.7% $11,894 9.0% 13.4%

Middle 105 17.0% $19,434 14.7% 18.5% 105 17.0% 20.7% $19,434 14.7% 18.2%

Upper 371 59.9% $90,852 68.6% 41.3% 371 59.9% 41.6% $90,852 68.6% 55.2%

Unknown 17 2.7% $7,606 5.7% 0.0% 17 2.7% 11.2% $7,606 5.7% 10.0%

Total 619 100.0% $132,505 100.0% 100.0% 619 100.0% 100.0% $132,505 100.0% 100.0%

Low 30 4.0% $2,620 1.5% 23.4% 30 4.0% 4.4% $2,620 1.5% 2.3%

Moderate 86 11.4% $9,525 5.5% 16.8% 86 11.4% 11.6% $9,525 5.5% 7.0%

Middle 120 15.9% $19,116 11.1% 18.5% 120 15.9% 19.0% $19,116 11.1% 14.7%

Upper 483 64.0% $130,853 76.0% 41.3% 483 64.0% 50.7% $130,853 76.0% 61.8%

Unknown 36 4.8% $10,018 5.8% 0.0% 36 4.8% 14.4% $10,018 5.8% 14.1%

Total 755 100.0% $172,132 100.0% 100.0% 755 100.0% 100.0% $172,132 100.0% 100.0%

Low 10 16.1% $123 3.5% 23.4% 10 16.1% 11.8% $123 3.5% 4.2%

Moderate 11 17.7% $151 4.3% 16.8% 11 17.7% 15.4% $151 4.3% 9.4%

Middle 20 32.3% $329 9.4% 18.5% 20 32.3% 21.9% $329 9.4% 15.4%

Upper 15 24.2% $2,761 78.9% 41.3% 15 24.2% 43.2% $2,761 78.9% 62.7%

Unknown 6 9.7% $137 3.9% 0.0% 6 9.7% 7.7% $137 3.9% 8.4%

Total 62 100.0% $3,501 100.0% 100.0% 62 100.0% 100.0% $3,501 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 9 100.0% $6,629 100.0% 0.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $6,629 100.0% 100.0%

Total 9 100.0% $6,629 100.0% 100.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $6,629 100.0% 100.0%

Low 74 5.1% $5,462 1.7% 23.4% 74 5.1% 5.5% $5,462 1.7% 2.6%

Moderate 189 13.1% $21,570 6.9% 16.8% 189 13.1% 14.8% $21,570 6.9% 9.3%

Middle 245 17.0% $38,879 12.4% 18.5% 245 17.0% 19.7% $38,879 12.4% 15.7%

Upper 869 60.1% $224,466 71.3% 41.3% 869 60.1% 46.8% $224,466 71.3% 58.1%

Unknown 68 4.7% $24,390 7.7% 0.0% 68 4.7% 13.2% $24,390 7.7% 14.3%

Total 1,445 100.0% $314,767 100.0% 100.0% 1,445 100.0% 100.0% $314,767 100.0% 100.0%


2012

Bank


Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




239

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 22 4.4% $8,255 7.2% 6.0% 22 4.4% 6.0% $8,255 7.2% 7.7%

Moderate 106 21.1% $21,464 18.7% 18.4% 106 21.1% 17.9% $21,464 18.7% 16.9%

Middle 120 23.9% $28,147 24.5% 32.6% 120 23.9% 27.9% $28,147 24.5% 23.1%

Upper 255 50.7% $57,086 49.7% 42.9% 255 50.7% 45.1% $57,086 49.7% 50.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.1% $0 0.0% 1.3%

Total 503 100.0% $114,952 100.0% 100.0% 503 100.0% 100.0% $114,952 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

2012 2012

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 219 43.5% $42,369 36.9% 219 43.5% 36.5% $42,369 36.9% 37.4%

Over $1 Million 211 41.9% $58,184 50.6% 211 41.9%


Rev. Not Known 73 14.5% $14,399 12.5% 73 14.5%

Total 503 100.0% $114,952 100.0% 503 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 239 47.5% $12,390 10.8% 239 47.5% 90.3% $12,390 10.8% 22.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 111 22.1% $20,003 17.4% 111 22.1% 4.2% $20,003 17.4% 16.0%

$250,001 - $1 Million 153 30.4% $82,559 71.8% 153 30.4% 5.5% $82,559 71.8% 62.0%

Total 503 100.0% $114,952 100.0% 503 100.0% 100.0% $114,952 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 110 50.2% $5,647 13.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 53 24.2% $9,613 22.7%

$250,001 - $1 Million 56 25.6% $27,109 64.0%

Total 219 100.0% $42,369 100.0%





Size


2012

Bank Bank

%

2012

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

90.4%

5.7%

96.1%

3.9%


LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less





240

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 2 1.4% $148 0.5% 3.4% 2 1.4% 1.6% $148 0.5% 0.9%

Middle 16 11.0% $2,095 7.8% 15.5% 16 11.0% 14.9% $2,095 7.8% 9.3%

Upper 128 87.7% $24,698 91.7% 81.2% 128 87.7% 83.6% $24,698 91.7% 89.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 146 100.0% $26,941 100.0% 100.0% 146 100.0% 100.0% $26,941 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 0.7% $76 0.2% 3.4% 1 0.7% 1.5% $76 0.2% 0.8%

Middle 11 7.5% $1,330 4.2% 15.5% 11 7.5% 12.2% $1,330 4.2% 7.6%

Upper 135 91.8% $30,093 95.5% 81.2% 135 91.8% 86.3% $30,093 95.5% 91.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 147 100.0% $31,499 100.0% 100.0% 147 100.0% 100.0% $31,499 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.4% 0 0.0% 6.4% $0 0.0% 4.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.5% 0 0.0% 10.4% $0 0.0% 4.8%

Upper 4 100.0% $76 100.0% 81.2% 4 100.0% 83.2% $76 100.0% 91.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 4 100.0% $76 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $76 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 72.6% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 3 1.0% $224 0.4% 3.4% 3 1.0% 1.6% $224 0.4% 0.9%

Middle 27 9.1% $3,425 5.9% 15.5% 27 9.1% 13.1% $3,425 5.9% 8.0%

Upper 267 89.9% $54,867 93.8% 81.2% 267 89.9% 85.3% $54,867 93.8% 91.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 297 100.0% $58,516 100.0% 100.0% 297 100.0% 100.0% $58,516 100.0% 100.0%





RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




241

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 7 4.8% $711 2.6% 9.6% 7 4.8% 4.2% $711 2.6% 2.1%

Moderate 33 22.6% $3,642 13.5% 11.4% 33 22.6% 17.2% $3,642 13.5% 11.1%

Middle 27 18.5% $4,459 16.6% 15.4% 27 18.5% 17.6% $4,459 16.6% 14.0%

Upper 79 54.1% $18,129 67.3% 63.7% 79 54.1% 45.4% $18,129 67.3% 58.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.6% $0 0.0% 13.9%

Total 146 100.0% $26,941 100.0% 100.0% 146 100.0% 100.0% $26,941 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 1.4% $162 0.5% 9.6% 2 1.4% 2.2% $162 0.5% 1.1%

Moderate 13 8.8% $1,520 4.8% 11.4% 13 8.8% 6.8% $1,520 4.8% 4.0%

Middle 18 12.2% $2,465 7.8% 15.4% 18 12.2% 12.7% $2,465 7.8% 8.7%

Upper 111 75.5% $26,787 85.0% 63.7% 111 75.5% 57.1% $26,787 85.0% 66.7%

Unknown 3 2.0% $565 1.8% 0.0% 3 2.0% 21.3% $565 1.8% 19.5%

Total 147 100.0% $31,499 100.0% 100.0% 147 100.0% 100.0% $31,499 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 9.6% 0 0.0% 4.0% $0 0.0% 1.3%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.4% 0 0.0% 10.4% $0 0.0% 8.5%

Middle 2 50.0% $26 34.2% 15.4% 2 50.0% 19.2% $26 34.2% 10.6%

Upper 2 50.0% $50 65.8% 63.7% 2 50.0% 63.2% $50 65.8% 77.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.2% $0 0.0% 1.7%

Total 4 100.0% $76 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $76 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 9.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 63.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 9 3.0% $873 1.5% 9.6% 9 3.0% 3.0% $873 1.5% 1.4%

Moderate 46 15.5% $5,162 8.8% 11.4% 46 15.5% 10.6% $5,162 8.8% 6.3%

Middle 47 15.8% $6,950 11.9% 15.4% 47 15.8% 14.5% $6,950 11.9% 10.3%

Upper 192 64.6% $44,966 76.8% 63.7% 192 64.6% 52.9% $44,966 76.8% 62.2%

Unknown 3 1.0% $565 1.0% 0.0% 3 1.0% 19.0% $565 1.0% 19.9%

Total 297 100.0% $58,516 100.0% 100.0% 297 100.0% 100.0% $58,516 100.0% 100.0%


2012

Bank


Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




242

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 3 11.1% $824 9.8% 2.1% 3 11.1% 1.5% $824 9.8% 1.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 10.3% 0 0.0% 7.7% $0 0.0% 6.6%

Upper 24 88.9% $7,582 90.2% 87.0% 24 88.9% 89.8% $7,582 90.2% 90.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.5% 0 0.0% 1.1% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 27 100.0% $8,406 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $8,406 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

2012 2012

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 6 22.2% $1,134 13.5% 6 22.2% 37.4% $1,134 13.5% 34.1%

Over $1 Million 14 51.9% $4,777 56.8% 14 51.9%


Rev. Not Known 7 25.9% $2,495 29.7% 7 25.9%

Total 27 100.0% $8,406 100.0% 27 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 7 25.9% $343 4.1% 7 25.9% 91.2% $343 4.1% 26.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 9 33.3% $1,651 19.6% 9 33.3% 4.0% $1,651 19.6% 16.3%

$250,001 - $1 Million 11 40.7% $6,412 76.3% 11 40.7% 4.8% $6,412 76.3% 57.1%

Total 27 100.0% $8,406 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $8,406 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 3 50.0% $123 10.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 16.7% $245 21.6%

$250,001 - $1 Million 2 33.3% $766 67.5%

Total 6 100.0% $1,134 100.0%





Size


2012

Bank Bank

%

2012

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

89.0%

7.6%

96.6%

3.4%


LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less





243

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 4 4.0% $501 2.2% 5.1% 4 4.0% 1.4% $501 2.2% 1.0%

Moderate 20 20.0% $2,399 10.3% 22.8% 20 20.0% 9.5% $2,399 10.3% 5.6%

Middle 21 21.0% $2,916 12.5% 28.9% 21 21.0% 27.8% $2,916 12.5% 20.2%

Upper 55 55.0% $17,442 75.0% 43.3% 55 55.0% 61.3% $17,442 75.0% 73.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100 100.0% $23,258 100.0% 100.0% 100 100.0% 100.0% $23,258 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 3.3% $119 0.7% 5.1% 2 3.3% 1.3% $119 0.7% 0.9%

Moderate 17 27.9% $1,676 10.3% 22.8% 17 27.9% 7.6% $1,676 10.3% 4.3%

Middle 8 13.1% $1,091 6.7% 28.9% 8 13.1% 21.4% $1,091 6.7% 14.8%

Upper 34 55.7% $13,392 82.3% 43.3% 34 55.7% 69.6% $13,392 82.3% 80.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 61 100.0% $16,278 100.0% 100.0% 61 100.0% 100.0% $16,278 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 9.1% $17 10.8% 5.1% 1 9.1% 2.9% $17 10.8% 1.1%

Moderate 5 45.5% $39 24.8% 22.8% 5 45.5% 11.9% $39 24.8% 6.1%

Middle 2 18.2% $66 42.0% 28.9% 2 18.2% 22.6% $66 42.0% 16.3%

Upper 3 27.3% $35 22.3% 43.3% 3 27.3% 62.6% $35 22.3% 76.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 11 100.0% $157 100.0% 100.0% 11 100.0% 100.0% $157 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 6.3% $1,160 4.4% 24.6% 1 6.3% 21.5% $1,160 4.4% 15.8%

Moderate 4 25.0% $14,099 53.6% 31.9% 4 25.0% 30.5% $14,099 53.6% 29.0%

Middle 1 6.3% $585 2.2% 20.6% 1 6.3% 18.4% $585 2.2% 14.0%

Upper 10 62.5% $10,471 39.8% 22.9% 10 62.5% 29.7% $10,471 39.8% 41.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 16 100.0% $26,315 100.0% 100.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $26,315 100.0% 100.0%

Low 8 4.3% $1,797 2.7% 5.1% 8 4.3% 1.4% $1,797 2.7% 1.6%

Moderate 46 24.5% $18,213 27.6% 22.8% 46 24.5% 8.7% $18,213 27.6% 6.0%

Middle 32 17.0% $4,658 7.1% 28.9% 32 17.0% 24.6% $4,658 7.1% 17.4%

Upper 102 54.3% $41,340 62.6% 43.3% 102 54.3% 65.3% $41,340 62.6% 75.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 188 100.0% $66,008 100.0% 100.0% 188 100.0% 100.0% $66,008 100.0% 100.0%





RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

Count


Bank

2012

Dollar

BankCount Dollar

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels


Comparison

2012

Bank O wner

O ccupied

Units

Multi-Family Units




244

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 21 21.0% $1,695 7.3% 25.1% 21 21.0% 5.4% $1,695 7.3% 2.5%

Moderate 33 33.0% $3,998 17.2% 16.9% 33 33.0% 16.2% $3,998 17.2% 9.8%

Middle 10 10.0% $1,467 6.3% 17.3% 10 10.0% 18.9% $1,467 6.3% 14.8%

Upper 35 35.0% $15,853 68.2% 40.6% 35 35.0% 48.1% $15,853 68.2% 63.6%

Unknown 1 1.0% $245 1.1% 0.0% 1 1.0% 11.4% $245 1.1% 9.3%

Total 100 100.0% $23,258 100.0% 100.0% 100 100.0% 100.0% $23,258 100.0% 100.0%

Low 8 13.1% $865 5.3% 25.1% 8 13.1% 3.1% $865 5.3% 1.5%

Moderate 9 14.8% $916 5.6% 16.9% 9 14.8% 8.0% $916 5.6% 4.3%

Middle 9 14.8% $1,099 6.8% 17.3% 9 14.8% 14.6% $1,099 6.8% 9.7%

Upper 31 50.8% $12,322 75.7% 40.6% 31 50.8% 59.0% $12,322 75.7% 71.2%

Unknown 4 6.6% $1,076 6.6% 0.0% 4 6.6% 15.3% $1,076 6.6% 13.4%

Total 61 100.0% $16,278 100.0% 100.0% 61 100.0% 100.0% $16,278 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 9.1% $5 3.2% 25.1% 1 9.1% 5.2% $5 3.2% 1.7%

Moderate 2 18.2% $42 26.8% 16.9% 2 18.2% 10.0% $42 26.8% 4.7%

Middle 3 27.3% $23 14.6% 17.3% 3 27.3% 14.3% $23 14.6% 8.2%

Upper 4 36.4% $77 49.0% 40.6% 4 36.4% 67.6% $77 49.0% 80.6%

Unknown 1 9.1% $10 6.4% 0.0% 1 9.1% 2.8% $10 6.4% 4.8%

Total 11 100.0% $157 100.0% 100.0% 11 100.0% 100.0% $157 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 16 100.0% $26,315 100.0% 0.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $26,315 100.0% 100.0%

Total 16 100.0% $26,315 100.0% 100.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $26,315 100.0% 100.0%

Low 30 16.0% $2,565 3.9% 25.1% 30 16.0% 4.3% $2,565 3.9% 1.9%

Moderate 44 23.4% $4,956 7.5% 16.9% 44 23.4% 12.1% $4,956 7.5% 6.8%

Middle 22 11.7% $2,589 3.9% 17.3% 22 11.7% 16.7% $2,589 3.9% 11.8%

Upper 70 37.2% $28,252 42.8% 40.6% 70 37.2% 53.7% $28,252 42.8% 64.6%

Unknown 22 11.7% $27,646 41.9% 0.0% 22 11.7% 13.2% $27,646 41.9% 15.0%

Total 188 100.0% $66,008 100.0% 100.0% 188 100.0% 100.0% $66,008 100.0% 100.0%


2012

Bank


Dollar

Bank

Count

Count Dollar Bank

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower

Income

Levels



2012



Families

by Family

Income

RE

FIN

AN

CE

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE




245

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ 000s $ % $ %

Low 13 13.1% $2,899 8.5% 9.3% 13 13.1% 9.0% $2,899 8.5% 10.9%

Moderate 17 17.2% $6,452 18.8% 21.9% 17 17.2% 19.5% $6,452 18.8% 21.0%

Middle 30 30.3% $12,154 35.5% 25.0% 30 30.3% 22.9% $12,154 35.5% 23.9%

Upper 39 39.4% $12,732 37.2% 43.8% 39 39.4% 45.5% $12,732 37.2% 42.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.0% $0 0.0% 1.4%

Total 99 100.0% $34,237 100.0% 100.0% 99 100.0% 100.0% $34,237 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels


Dollar Bank Bank

2012 2012

BankSmall

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count

Agg Agg

# % $ % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

$1million or Less 37 37.4% $8,524 24.9% 37 37.4% 37.3% $8,524 24.9% 31.1%

Over $1 Million 53 53.5% $23,144 67.6% 53 53.5%


Rev. Not Known 9 9.1% $2,569 7.5% 9 9.1%

Total 99 100.0% $34,237 100.0% 99 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 31 31.3% $1,452 4.2% 31 31.3% 93.7% $1,452 4.2% 32.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 23 23.2% $4,459 13.0% 23 23.2% 2.8% $4,459 13.0% 13.6%

$250,001 - $1 Million 45 45.5% $28,326 82.7% 45 45.5% 3.5% $28,326 82.7% 54.2%

Total 99 100.0% $34,237 100.0% 99 100.0% 100.0% $34,237 100.0% 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 17 45.9% $869 10.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 9 24.3% $1,625 19.1%

$250,001 - $1 Million 11 29.7% $6,030 70.7%

Total 37 100.0% $8,524 100.0%





Size


2012

Bank Bank

%

2012

BankTotal

Businesses

Count Dollar

Count $ (000s)

100.0%

LO

AN

SIZ

EB

US

INE

SS

RE

VE

NU

E

90.4%

5.7%

96.1%

3.9%


LO

AN

SIZ

E

Rev $

1 M

ill o

r

Less




Appendix I: 2011 Limited Scope Tables

246


Assessment Area: AL Baldwin

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

5,070

12.5

Moderate-income

1

4.3

988

2.4

292

29.6

5,219

12.9

Middle-income

10

43.5

18,472

45.6

1,538

8.3

8,280

20.4

Upper-income

12

52.2

21,071

52.0

1,252

5.9

21,962

54.2

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


23

100.0

40,531

100.0

3,082

7.6

40,531

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

1,380

854

1.9

61.9

440

31.9

86

6.2

Middle-income

28,967

20,254

46.0

69.9

4,353

15.0

4,360

15.1

Upper-income

43,938

22,928

52.1

52.2

6,507

14.8

14,503

33.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


74,285

44,036

100.0

59.3

11,300

15.2

18,949

25.5

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

143

1.1

121

1.0

12

2.2

10

1.9

Middle-income

5,104

38.3

4,710

38.5

214

39.2

180

33.7

Upper-income

8,067

60.6

7,403

60.5

320

58.6

344

64.4

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


13,314

100.0

12,234

100.0

546

100.0

534

100.0


91.9

4.1

4.0

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

5

2.0

5

2.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

142

58.2

136

58.1

5

55.6

1

100.0

Upper-income

97

39.8

93

39.7

4

44.4

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


244

100.0

234

100.0

9

100.0

1

100.0


95.9

3.7

.4





247

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.5% 0 0.0% 1.9% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.9% 0 0.0% 12.8% $0 0.0% 7.5%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.4% 0 0.0% 18.5% $0 0.0% 13.3%

Upper 16 100.0% $3,993 100.0% 54.2% 16 100.0% 55.2% $3,993 100.0% 66.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 11.6% $0 0.0% 12.2%

Total 16 100.0% $3,993 100.0% 100.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $3,993 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.5% 0 0.0% 1.8% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.9% 0 0.0% 5.8% $0 0.0% 3.2%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.4% 0 0.0% 13.9% $0 0.0% 9.0%

Upper 15 88.2% $9,541 96.4% 54.2% 15 88.2% 56.4% $9,541 96.4% 66.3%

Unknown 2 11.8% $359 3.6% 0.0% 2 11.8% 22.0% $359 3.6% 20.7%

Total 17 100.0% $9,900 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $9,900 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.5% 0 0.0% 7.6% $0 0.0% 2.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.9% 0 0.0% 18.5% $0 0.0% 10.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.4% 0 0.0% 21.7% $0 0.0% 12.3%

Upper 1 100.0% $8 100.0% 54.2% 1 100.0% 45.7% $8 100.0% 61.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.5% $0 0.0% 13.7%

Total 1 100.0% $8 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $8 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 54.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.5% 0 0.0% 2.0% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.9% 0 0.0% 9.5% $0 0.0% 5.2%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.4% 0 0.0% 16.4% $0 0.0% 11.0%

Upper 32 94.1% $13,542 97.4% 54.2% 32 94.1% 55.5% $13,542 97.4% 65.9%

Unknown 2 5.9% $359 2.6% 0.0% 2 5.9% 16.6% $359 2.6% 17.0%

Total 34 100.0% $13,901 100.0% 100.0% 34 100.0% 100.0% $13,901 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 9 25.0% $2,015 21.6% 91.9% 9 25.0% 43.5% $2,015 21.6% 49.3%

Over $1 Million 14 38.9% $5,360 57.3% 4.1% 14 38.9%

Total Rev. available 23 63.9% $7,375 78.9% 96.0% 23 63.9%

Rev. Not Known 13 36.1% $1,973 21.1% 4.0% 13 36.1%

Total 36 100.0% $9,348 100.0% 100.0% 36 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 11 30.6% $750 8.0% 11 30.6% 90.1% $750 8.0% 29.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 15 41.7% $2,623 28.1% 15 41.7% 5.3% $2,623 28.1% 19.9%

$250,001 - $1 Million 10 27.8% $5,975 63.9% 10 27.8% 4.6% $5,975 63.9% 50.9%

Total 36 100.0% $9,348 100.0% 36 100.0% 100.0% $9,348 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 95.9% 0 0.0% 57.1% $0 0.0% 59.6%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.7% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.4% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 76.2% $0 0.0% 16.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.5% $0 0.0% 19.7%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14.3% $0 0.0% 63.9%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Based on 2011 D&B information and 2000 Census Data.

Total Farms

Sm

all F

arm R

eve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

AL

SS

ma

ll B

usin

ess

Total Businesses

Re

ve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize

2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar


Borrower Distribution of HMDA Loans & Small Business/Small Farm Lending

by Revenue & Loan Size




248

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.9% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Middle 4 25.0% $815 20.4% 46.0% 4 25.0% 31.5% $815 20.4% 24.4%

Upper 12 75.0% $3,178 79.6% 52.1% 12 75.0% 68.3% $3,178 79.6% 75.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 16 100.0% $3,993 100.0% 100.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $3,993 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.9% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Middle 1 5.9% $380 3.8% 46.0% 1 5.9% 32.2% $380 3.8% 24.8%

Upper 16 94.1% $9,520 96.2% 52.1% 16 94.1% 67.4% $9,520 96.2% 75.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 17 100.0% $9,900 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $9,900 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.9% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 46.0% 0 0.0% 47.3% $0 0.0% 32.8%

Upper 1 100.0% $8 100.0% 52.1% 1 100.0% 51.1% $8 100.0% 65.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $8 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $8 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 60.2%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 39.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.9% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Middle 5 14.7% $1,195 8.6% 46.0% 5 14.7% 32.3% $1,195 8.6% 24.8%

Upper 29 85.3% $12,706 91.4% 52.1% 29 85.3% 67.4% $12,706 91.4% 75.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 34 100.0% $13,901 100.0% 100.0% 34 100.0% 100.0% $13,901 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.0% 0 0.0% 1.0% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Middle 5 13.9% $2,055 22.0% 38.5% 5 13.9% 29.8% $2,055 22.0% 26.8%

Upper 31 86.1% $7,293 78.0% 60.5% 31 86.1% 64.7% $7,293 78.0% 71.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.4% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Total 36 100.0% $9,348 100.0% 100.0% 36 100.0% 100.0% $9,348 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.1% 0 0.0% 4.8% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 58.1% 0 0.0% 57.1% $0 0.0% 36.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.7% 0 0.0% 38.1% $0 0.0% 63.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

AL

L F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

AL

L B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank Owner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar


Geographic Distribution of HMDA, Small Business, & Small Farm Loans




249


Assessment Area: AL Huntsville

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6

8.2

2,903

3.8

1,309

45.1

14,866

19.6

Moderate-income

19

26.0

16,797

22.1

2,351

14.0

13,045

17.2

Middle-income

26

35.6

29,453

38.8

1,601

5.4

15,786

20.8

Upper-income

22

30.1

26,722

35.2

860

3.2

32,178

42.4

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


73

100.0

75,875

100.0

6,121

8.1

75,875

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6,314

1,147

1.5

18.2

4,037

63.9

1,130

17.9

Moderate-income

32,355

14,832

19.3

45.8

13,426

41.5

4,097

12.7

Middle-income

44,767

31,839

41.4

71.1

9,798

21.9

3,130

7.0

Upper-income

36,852

28,998

37.7

78.7

5,878

16.0

1,976

5.4

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


120,288

76,816

100.0

63.9

33,139

27.5

10,333

8.6

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,915

8.7

1,634

8.1

219

18.2

62

8.2

Moderate-income

4,388

19.9

3,991

19.9

221

18.3

176

23.3

Middle-income

8,322

37.7

7,559

37.6

464

38.5

299

39.6

Upper-income

7,440

33.7

6,919

34.4

302

25.0

219

29.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


22,065

100.0

20,103

100.0

1,206

100.0

756

100.0


91.1

5.5

3.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

5

1.7

5

1.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

51

17.1

50

17.3

1

14.3

0

0.0

Middle-income

149

49.8

145

50.2

4

57.1

0

0.0

Upper-income

94

31.4

89

30.8

2

28.6

3

100.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


299

100.0

289

100.0

7

100.0

3

100.0


96.7

2.3

1.0





250

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.5% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.3% 0 0.0% 10.1% $0 0.0% 6.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.4% 0 0.0% 40.8% $0 0.0% 37.0%

Upper 2 100.0% $1,795 100.0% 37.7% 2 100.0% 48.7% $1,795 100.0% 56.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $1,795 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $1,795 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.5% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.3% 0 0.0% 8.6% $0 0.0% 5.9%

Middle 2 15.4% $425 5.6% 41.4% 2 15.4% 37.8% $425 5.6% 32.6%

Upper 11 84.6% $7,121 94.4% 37.7% 11 84.6% 53.1% $7,121 94.4% 61.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 13 100.0% $7,546 100.0% 100.0% 13 100.0% 100.0% $7,546 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.5% 0 0.0% 1.1% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.3% 0 0.0% 14.6% $0 0.0% 7.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.4% 0 0.0% 46.9% $0 0.0% 38.4%

Upper 1 100.0% $25 100.0% 37.7% 1 100.0% 37.4% $25 100.0% 53.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $25 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $25 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 20.0% $0 0.0% 16.5%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 46.7% $0 0.0% 14.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 33.3% $0 0.0% 69.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.5% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.3% 0 0.0% 9.7% $0 0.0% 6.2%

Middle 2 12.5% $425 4.5% 41.4% 2 12.5% 39.7% $425 4.5% 34.8%

Upper 14 87.5% $8,941 95.5% 37.7% 14 87.5% 50.1% $8,941 95.5% 58.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 16 100.0% $9,366 100.0% 100.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $9,366 100.0% 100.0%

Low 6 22.2% $1,249 21.5% 8.1% 6 22.2% 11.5% $1,249 21.5% 14.6%

Moderate 5 18.5% $950 16.4% 19.9% 5 18.5% 14.6% $950 16.4% 17.3%

Middle 6 22.2% $1,264 21.8% 37.6% 6 22.2% 33.7% $1,264 21.8% 30.8%

Upper 10 37.0% $2,341 40.3% 34.4% 10 37.0% 39.0% $2,341 40.3% 37.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 27 100.0% $5,804 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $5,804 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.7% 0 0.0% 8.0% $0 0.0% 4.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.3% 0 0.0% 8.0% $0 0.0% 7.7%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 50.2% 0 0.0% 44.0% $0 0.0% 33.1%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 30.8% 0 0.0% 40.0% $0 0.0% 54.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

AL

L F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

AL

L B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

ETract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank Owner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






251

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 14.2% $0 0.0% 7.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.2% 0 0.0% 20.2% $0 0.0% 15.7%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.8% 0 0.0% 20.9% $0 0.0% 20.4%

Upper 2 100.0% $1,795 100.0% 42.4% 2 100.0% 32.6% $1,795 100.0% 44.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.1% $0 0.0% 11.1%

Total 2 100.0% $1,795 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $1,795 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 7.1% $0 0.0% 3.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.2% 0 0.0% 12.0% $0 0.0% 7.7%

Middle 1 7.7% $176 2.3% 20.8% 1 7.7% 16.1% $176 2.3% 13.3%

Upper 12 92.3% $7,370 97.7% 42.4% 12 92.3% 45.3% $7,370 97.7% 56.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 19.4% $0 0.0% 19.0%

Total 13 100.0% $7,546 100.0% 100.0% 13 100.0% 100.0% $7,546 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 21.8% $0 0.0% 8.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.2% 0 0.0% 23.8% $0 0.0% 13.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.8% 0 0.0% 22.8% $0 0.0% 19.3%

Upper 1 100.0% $25 100.0% 42.4% 1 100.0% 30.1% $25 100.0% 55.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.5% $0 0.0% 4.6%

Total 1 100.0% $25 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $25 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 42.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 11.0% $0 0.0% 5.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.2% 0 0.0% 16.1% $0 0.0% 11.0%

Middle 1 6.3% $176 1.9% 20.8% 1 6.3% 18.5% $176 1.9% 16.2%

Upper 15 93.8% $9,190 98.1% 42.4% 15 93.8% 39.1% $9,190 98.1% 51.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.2% $0 0.0% 16.2%

Total 16 100.0% $9,366 100.0% 100.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $9,366 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 4 14.8% $1,064 18.3% 91.1% 4 14.8% 42.9% $1,064 18.3% 39.2%

Over $1 Million 13 48.1% $4,046 69.7% 5.5% 13 48.1%


Rev. Not Known 10 37.0% $694 12.0% 3.4% 10 37.0%

Total 27 100.0% $5,804 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 13 48.1% $550 9.5% 13 48.1% 86.8% $550 9.5% 23.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 4 14.8% $605 10.4% 4 14.8% 6.1% $605 10.4% 17.7%

$250,001 - $1 Million 10 37.0% $4,649 80.1% 10 37.0% 7.1% $4,649 80.1% 59.3%

Total 27 100.0% $5,804 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $5,804 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 96.7% 0 0.0% 60.0% $0 0.0% 59.2%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 52.0% $0 0.0% 12.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 36.0% $0 0.0% 51.3%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.0% $0 0.0% 35.8%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all F

arm R

eve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

AL

SS

ma

ll B

usin

ess

Total Businesses

Re

ve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize

2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







252


Assessment Area: AL Mobile

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

17

14.9

9,101

8.5

4,581

50.3

25,477

23.7

Moderate-income

20

17.5

14,378

13.4

3,942

27.4

16,878

15.7

Middle-income

51

44.7

52,919

49.3

6,690

12.6

21,393

19.9

Upper-income

26

22.8

30,940

28.8

1,507

4.9

43,590

40.6

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


114

100.0

107,338

100.0

16,720

15.6

107,338

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

15,189

5,075

4.9

33.4

7,753

51.0

2,361

15.5

Moderate-income

23,442

12,299

11.9

52.5

8,355

35.6

2,788

11.9

Middle-income

81,043

53,306

51.6

65.8

20,460

25.2

7,277

9.0

Upper-income

45,427

32,722

31.6

72.0

10,209

22.5

2,496

5.5

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


165,101

103,402

100.0

62.6

46,777

28.3

14,922

9.0

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,697

7.2

1,467

6.9

169

11.5

61

7.4

Moderate-income

2,277

9.7

2,008

9.5

180

12.3

89

10.8

Middle-income

11,590

49.4

10,487

49.5

703

48.0

400

48.7

Upper-income

7,901

33.7

7,217

34.1

412

28.1

272

33.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


23,465

100.0

21,179

100.0

1,464

100.0

822

100.0


90.3

6.2

3.5

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

8

3.1

6

2.5

2

13.3

0

0.0

Moderate-income

15

5.9

12

5.0

3

20.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

166

65.4

157

65.7

9

60.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

65

25.6

64

26.8

1

6.7

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


254

100.0

239

100.0

15

100.0

0

.0


94.1

5.9

.0





253

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.9% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.9% 0 0.0% 3.7% $0 0.0% 2.8%

Middle 4 36.4% $352 13.8% 51.6% 4 36.4% 48.9% $352 13.8% 43.9%

Upper 7 63.6% $2,190 86.2% 31.6% 7 63.6% 46.8% $2,190 86.2% 53.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 11 100.0% $2,542 100.0% 100.0% 11 100.0% 100.0% $2,542 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 5.9% $25 0.5% 4.9% 1 5.9% 0.5% $25 0.5% 0.2%

Moderate 3 17.6% $185 3.4% 11.9% 3 17.6% 3.3% $185 3.4% 2.4%

Middle 2 11.8% $277 5.1% 51.6% 2 11.8% 44.9% $277 5.1% 39.8%

Upper 11 64.7% $4,902 91.0% 31.6% 11 64.7% 51.3% $4,902 91.0% 57.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 17 100.0% $5,389 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $5,389 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.9% 0 0.0% 1.3% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.9% 0 0.0% 5.8% $0 0.0% 6.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 51.6% 0 0.0% 67.7% $0 0.0% 49.8%

Upper 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 31.6% 1 100.0% 25.1% $65 100.0% 43.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $65 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 14.3% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 35.7% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 98.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 1 3.4% $25 0.3% 4.9% 1 3.4% 0.5% $25 0.3% 0.2%

Moderate 3 10.3% $185 2.3% 11.9% 3 10.3% 3.6% $185 2.3% 2.5%

Middle 6 20.7% $629 7.9% 51.6% 6 20.7% 47.8% $629 7.9% 39.3%

Upper 19 65.5% $7,157 89.5% 31.6% 19 65.5% 48.0% $7,157 89.5% 57.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 29 100.0% $7,996 100.0% 100.0% 29 100.0% 100.0% $7,996 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 6.3% $1,472 7.3% 6.9% 4 6.3% 6.9% $1,472 7.3% 8.5%

Moderate 1 1.6% $1,000 5.0% 9.5% 1 1.6% 8.7% $1,000 5.0% 8.7%

Middle 38 60.3% $12,317 61.4% 49.5% 38 60.3% 46.2% $12,317 61.4% 49.1%

Upper 20 31.7% $5,260 26.2% 34.1% 20 31.7% 36.2% $5,260 26.2% 33.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.0% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Total 63 100.0% $20,049 100.0% 100.0% 63 100.0% 100.0% $20,049 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.5% 0 0.0% 2.8% $0 0.0% 3.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.0% 0 0.0% 2.8% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 65.7% 0 0.0% 44.4% $0 0.0% 56.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 26.8% 0 0.0% 47.2% $0 0.0% 40.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.8% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

AL

L F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

AL

L B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

ETract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank Owner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






254

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.7% 0 0.0% 6.2% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.7% 0 0.0% 21.0% $0 0.0% 15.7%

Middle 2 18.2% $209 8.2% 19.9% 2 18.2% 25.9% $209 8.2% 24.7%

Upper 9 81.8% $2,333 91.8% 40.6% 9 81.8% 31.3% $2,333 91.8% 41.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.6% $0 0.0% 14.4%

Total 11 100.0% $2,542 100.0% 100.0% 11 100.0% 100.0% $2,542 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.7% 0 0.0% 3.4% $0 0.0% 1.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.7% 0 0.0% 10.8% $0 0.0% 7.2%

Middle 1 5.9% $103 1.9% 19.9% 1 5.9% 18.9% $103 1.9% 15.8%

Upper 15 88.2% $5,261 97.6% 40.6% 15 88.2% 43.8% $5,261 97.6% 53.9%

Unknown 1 5.9% $25 0.5% 0.0% 1 5.9% 23.1% $25 0.5% 21.3%

Total 17 100.0% $5,389 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $5,389 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.7% 0 0.0% 10.2% $0 0.0% 5.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.7% 0 0.0% 17.5% $0 0.0% 7.3%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.9% 0 0.0% 28.1% $0 0.0% 22.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.6% 0 0.0% 35.7% $0 0.0% 50.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 8.4% $65 100.0% 14.8%

Total 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $65 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.7% 0 0.0% 5.0% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.7% 0 0.0% 15.8% $0 0.0% 10.4%

Middle 3 10.3% $312 3.9% 19.9% 3 10.3% 22.5% $312 3.9% 18.7%

Upper 24 82.8% $7,594 95.0% 40.6% 24 82.8% 37.7% $7,594 95.0% 45.6%

Unknown 2 6.9% $90 1.1% 0.0% 2 6.9% 19.1% $90 1.1% 23.1%

Total 29 100.0% $7,996 100.0% 100.0% 29 100.0% 100.0% $7,996 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 20 31.7% $6,673 33.3% 90.3% 20 31.7% 37.4% $6,673 33.3% 40.1%

Over $1 Million 28 44.4% $10,957 54.7% 6.2% 28 44.4%


Rev. Not Known 15 23.8% $2,419 12.1% 3.5% 15 23.8%

Total 63 100.0% $20,049 100.0% 100.0% 63 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 19 30.2% $1,099 5.5% 19 30.2% 87.1% $1,099 5.5% 25.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 19 30.2% $3,435 17.1% 19 30.2% 7.3% $3,435 17.1% 22.9%

$250,001 - $1 Million 25 39.7% $15,515 77.4% 25 39.7% 5.6% $15,515 77.4% 51.2%

Total 63 100.0% $20,049 100.0% 63 100.0% 100.0% $20,049 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 94.1% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 58.1%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.9% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 52.8% $0 0.0% 11.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 27.8% $0 0.0% 36.4%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19.4% $0 0.0% 52.3%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Fa

rm Re

ven

ue

Lo

an

Siz

e


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

AL

SS

ma

ll B

usi

ne

ss

Total Businesses

Re

ven

ue

Lo

an

Siz

e

2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







255


Assessment Area: AL Montgomery

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

9

11.0

5,811

6.4

2,521

43.4

19,838

21.9

Moderate-income

18

22.0

16,308

18.0

3,881

23.8

15,423

17.0

Middle-income

39

47.6

43,962

48.5

3,955

9.0

19,026

21.0

Upper-income

16

19.5

24,507

27.1

597

2.4

36,301

40.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


82

100.0

90,588

100.0

10,954

12.1

90,588

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

11,867

3,690

4.1

31.1

5,705

48.1

2,472

20.8

Moderate-income

26,951

15,909

17.5

59.0

7,554

28.0

3,488

12.9

Middle-income

66,702

44,898

49.5

67.3

15,955

23.9

5,849

8.8

Upper-income

39,113

26,167

28.9

66.9

9,839

25.2

3,107

7.9

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


144,633

90,664

100.0

62.7

39,053

27.0

14,916

10.3

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2,024

9.1

1,656

8.3

215

17.5

153

17.8

Moderate-income

3,031

13.7

2,743

13.7

163

13.2

125

14.6

Middle-income

9,252

41.8

8,528

42.5

439

35.7

285

33.2

Upper-income

7,849

35.4

7,140

35.6

414

33.6

295

34.4

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


22,156

100.0

20,067

100.0

1,231

100.0

858

100.0


90.6

5.6

3.9

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

13

3.2

11

2.8

1

7.7

1

33.3

Moderate-income

64

15.6

59

14.9

4

30.8

1

33.3

Middle-income

239

58.2

231

58.5

7

53.8

1

33.3

Upper-income

95

23.1

94

23.8

1

7.7

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


411

100.0

395

100.0

13

100.0

3

100.0


96.1

3.2

.7





256

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.1% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 13 4.7% $1,264 2.9% 17.5% 13 4.7% 5.3% $1,264 2.9% 2.9%

Middle 138 49.6% $19,775 45.7% 49.5% 138 49.6% 49.9% $19,775 45.7% 43.9%

Upper 127 45.7% $22,217 51.4% 28.9% 127 45.7% 44.4% $22,217 51.4% 53.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 278 100.0% $43,256 100.0% 100.0% 278 100.0% 100.0% $43,256 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.1% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 3 3.1% $398 2.3% 17.5% 3 3.1% 4.9% $398 2.3% 3.4%

Middle 39 39.8% $6,342 37.4% 49.5% 39 39.8% 46.1% $6,342 37.4% 41.7%

Upper 56 57.1% $10,221 60.3% 28.9% 56 57.1% 48.6% $10,221 60.3% 54.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 98 100.0% $16,961 100.0% 100.0% 98 100.0% 100.0% $16,961 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.1% 0 0.0% 1.5% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.5% 0 0.0% 5.9% $0 0.0% 4.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 49.5% 0 0.0% 76.7% $0 0.0% 54.2%

Upper 1 100.0% $3 100.0% 28.9% 1 100.0% 15.9% $3 100.0% 39.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $3 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $3 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 18.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.3% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 37.5% $0 0.0% 37.9%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 43.8% $0 0.0% 42.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.1% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Moderate 16 4.2% $1,662 2.8% 17.5% 16 4.2% 5.2% $1,662 2.8% 3.1%

Middle 177 46.9% $26,117 43.4% 49.5% 177 46.9% 49.6% $26,117 43.4% 42.5%

Upper 184 48.8% $32,441 53.9% 28.9% 184 48.8% 44.7% $32,441 53.9% 53.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 377 100.0% $60,220 100.0% 100.0% 377 100.0% 100.0% $60,220 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 4.8% $50 1.4% 8.3% 1 4.8% 12.1% $50 1.4% 17.0%

Moderate 2 9.5% $85 2.4% 13.7% 2 9.5% 10.6% $85 2.4% 12.0%

Middle 4 19.0% $667 19.0% 42.5% 4 19.0% 33.8% $667 19.0% 26.7%

Upper 14 66.7% $2,714 77.2% 35.6% 14 66.7% 41.2% $2,714 77.2% 44.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.2% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 21 100.0% $3,516 100.0% 100.0% 21 100.0% 100.0% $3,516 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.8% 0 0.0% 2.5% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 1 100.0% $175 100.0% 14.9% 1 100.0% 33.3% $175 100.0% 32.8%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 58.5% 0 0.0% 35.8% $0 0.0% 44.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.8% 0 0.0% 24.7% $0 0.0% 21.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.7% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Total 1 100.0% $175 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $175 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

AL

L F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

AL

L B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

Bank Owner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






257

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 39 14.0% $3,296 7.6% 21.9% 39 14.0% 10.2% $3,296 7.6% 5.2%

Moderate 82 29.5% $10,295 23.8% 17.0% 82 29.5% 21.8% $10,295 23.8% 16.5%

Middle 73 26.3% $10,832 25.0% 21.0% 73 26.3% 22.1% $10,832 25.0% 21.0%

Upper 84 30.2% $18,833 43.5% 40.1% 84 30.2% 28.4% $18,833 43.5% 41.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 17.5% $0 0.0% 16.3%

Total 278 100.0% $43,256 100.0% 100.0% 278 100.0% 100.0% $43,256 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 3.1% $325 1.9% 21.9% 3 3.1% 4.2% $325 1.9% 2.2%

Moderate 13 13.3% $1,641 9.7% 17.0% 13 13.3% 12.2% $1,641 9.7% 8.2%

Middle 27 27.6% $3,747 22.1% 21.0% 27 27.6% 18.9% $3,747 22.1% 15.7%

Upper 39 39.8% $8,081 47.6% 40.1% 39 39.8% 37.9% $8,081 47.6% 46.4%

Unknown 16 16.3% $3,167 18.7% 0.0% 16 16.3% 26.8% $3,167 18.7% 27.6%

Total 98 100.0% $16,961 100.0% 100.0% 98 100.0% 100.0% $16,961 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.9% 0 0.0% 19.9% $0 0.0% 6.9%

Moderate 1 100.0% $3 100.0% 17.0% 1 100.0% 26.3% $3 100.0% 16.8%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.0% 0 0.0% 23.3% $0 0.0% 21.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.1% 0 0.0% 25.6% $0 0.0% 42.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.0% $0 0.0% 12.2%

Total 1 100.0% $3 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $3 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 42 11.1% $3,621 6.0% 21.9% 42 11.1% 7.6% $3,621 6.0% 3.2%

Moderate 96 25.5% $11,939 19.8% 17.0% 96 25.5% 16.9% $11,939 19.8% 11.0%

Middle 100 26.5% $14,579 24.2% 21.0% 100 26.5% 20.4% $14,579 24.2% 17.0%

Upper 123 32.6% $26,914 44.7% 40.1% 123 32.6% 33.3% $26,914 44.7% 41.9%

Unknown 16 4.2% $3,167 5.3% 0.0% 16 4.2% 21.8% $3,167 5.3% 26.9%

Total 377 100.0% $60,220 100.0% 100.0% 377 100.0% 100.0% $60,220 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 9 42.9% $763 21.7% 90.6% 9 42.9% 39.4% $763 21.7% 41.9%

Over $1 Million 8 38.1% $2,101 59.8% 5.6% 8 38.1%


Rev. Not Known 4 19.0% $652 18.5% 3.9% 4 19.0%

Total 21 100.0% $3,516 100.0% 100.0% 21 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 11 52.4% $541 15.4% 11 52.4% 87.5% $541 15.4% 26.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 5 23.8% $815 23.2% 5 23.8% 6.4% $815 23.2% 19.4%

$250,001 - $1 Million 5 23.8% $2,160 61.4% 5 23.8% 6.1% $2,160 61.4% 54.4%

Total 21 100.0% $3,516 100.0% 21 100.0% 100.0% $3,516 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 96.1% 0 0.0% 76.5% $0 0.0% 90.1%

Over $1 Million 1 100.0% $175 100.0% 3.2% 1 100.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.7% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $175 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 74.1% $0 0.0% 24.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 100.0% $175 100.0% 1 100.0% 19.8% $175 100.0% 45.5%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.2% $0 0.0% 30.1%

Total 1 100.0% $175 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $175 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all F

arm R

eve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

AL

SS

ma

ll B

usin

ess

Total Businesses

Re

ve

nu

eL

oa

n S

ize

2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







258


Assessment Area: AR Jonesboro

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

5.0

876

3.0

415

47.4

6,292

21.3

Moderate-income

2

10.0

1,641

5.6

395

24.1

5,137

17.4

Middle-income

15

75.0

22,004

74.7

2,715

12.3

6,408

21.7

Upper-income

2

10.0

4,955

16.8

316

6.4

11,639

39.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


20

100.0

29,476

100.0

3,841

13.0

29,476

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2,193

216

0.8

9.8

1,663

75.8

314

14.3

Moderate-income

2,867

1,336

4.9

46.6

1,254

43.7

277

9.7

Middle-income

34,421

20,949

76.6

60.9

10,552

30.7

2,920

8.5

Upper-income

6,703

4,850

17.7

72.4

1,507

22.5

346

5.2

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


46,184

27,351

100.0

59.2

14,976

32.4

3,857

8.4

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

130

2.1

115

2.0

11

2.8

4

1.7

Moderate-income

309

4.9

265

4.7

22

5.7

22

9.1

Middle-income

4,487

71.0

4,029

70.8

278

72.0

180

74.4

Upper-income

1,392

22.0

1,281

22.5

75

19.4

36

14.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


6,318

100.0

5,690

100.0

386

100.0

242

100.0


90.1

6.1

3.8

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

0.2

1

0.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

25

4.0

20

3.3

3

23.1

2

40.0

Middle-income

476

76.4

466

77.0

8

61.5

2

40.0

Upper-income

121

19.4

118

19.5

2

15.4

1

20.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


623

100.0

605

100.0

13

100.0

5

100.0


97.1

2.1

.8





259

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.8% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.9% 0 0.0% 2.3% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Middle 18 41.9% $2,273 31.7% 76.6% 18 41.9% 61.1% $2,273 31.7% 51.4%

Upper 25 58.1% $4,904 68.3% 17.7% 25 58.1% 35.9% $4,904 68.3% 47.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 43 100.0% $7,177 100.0% 100.0% 43 100.0% 100.0% $7,177 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.8% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 6 8.1% $149 1.2% 4.9% 6 8.1% 2.0% $149 1.2% 0.9%

Middle 37 50.0% $4,538 37.1% 76.6% 37 50.0% 58.7% $4,538 37.1% 47.1%

Upper 31 41.9% $7,535 61.7% 17.7% 31 41.9% 38.9% $7,535 61.7% 51.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 74 100.0% $12,222 100.0% 100.0% 74 100.0% 100.0% $12,222 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.8% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Moderate 5 17.9% $75 15.2% 4.9% 5 17.9% 6.2% $75 15.2% 3.0%

Middle 13 46.4% $171 34.7% 76.6% 13 46.4% 71.0% $171 34.7% 61.1%

Upper 10 35.7% $247 50.1% 17.7% 10 35.7% 22.5% $247 50.1% 35.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 28 100.0% $493 100.0% 100.0% 28 100.0% 100.0% $493 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.4% $0 0.0% 3.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 73.1% $0 0.0% 91.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 11.5% $0 0.0% 5.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.8% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 11 7.6% $224 1.1% 4.9% 11 7.6% 2.4% $224 1.1% 1.0%

Middle 68 46.9% $6,982 35.1% 76.6% 68 46.9% 60.5% $6,982 35.1% 51.8%

Upper 66 45.5% $12,686 63.8% 17.7% 66 45.5% 36.5% $12,686 63.8% 46.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 145 100.0% $19,892 100.0% 100.0% 145 100.0% 100.0% $19,892 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 1.1% $100 0.5% 2.0% 1 1.1% 1.6% $100 0.5% 1.7%

Moderate 2 2.1% $176 0.8% 4.7% 2 2.1% 1.5% $176 0.8% 0.8%

Middle 78 82.1% $15,741 75.7% 70.8% 78 82.1% 69.9% $15,741 75.7% 71.9%

Upper 14 14.7% $4,775 23.0% 22.5% 14 14.7% 22.7% $4,775 23.0% 24.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.4% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Total 95 100.0% $20,792 100.0% 100.0% 95 100.0% 100.0% $20,792 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.3% 0 0.0% 4.9% $0 0.0% 7.8%

Middle 20 80.0% $2,517 78.2% 77.0% 20 80.0% 73.6% $2,517 78.2% 73.9%

Upper 5 20.0% $700 21.8% 19.5% 5 20.0% 19.1% $700 21.8% 18.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.4% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 25 100.0% $3,217 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% $3,217 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






260

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 4.7% $176 2.5% 21.3% 2 4.7% 8.2% $176 2.5% 4.1%

Moderate 8 18.6% $932 13.0% 17.4% 8 18.6% 19.7% $932 13.0% 13.1%

Middle 11 25.6% $1,516 21.1% 21.7% 11 25.6% 18.5% $1,516 21.1% 16.8%

Upper 21 48.8% $4,465 62.2% 39.5% 21 48.8% 34.3% $4,465 62.2% 46.3%

Unknown 1 2.3% $88 1.2% 0.0% 1 2.3% 19.3% $88 1.2% 19.8%

Total 43 100.0% $7,177 100.0% 100.0% 43 100.0% 100.0% $7,177 100.0% 100.0%

Low 8 10.8% $252 2.1% 21.3% 8 10.8% 3.9% $252 2.1% 1.4%

Moderate 12 16.2% $930 7.6% 17.4% 12 16.2% 10.5% $930 7.6% 5.6%

Middle 11 14.9% $1,109 9.1% 21.7% 11 14.9% 17.0% $1,109 9.1% 12.1%

Upper 41 55.4% $9,672 79.1% 39.5% 41 55.4% 45.9% $9,672 79.1% 55.0%

Unknown 2 2.7% $259 2.1% 0.0% 2 2.7% 22.8% $259 2.1% 26.0%

Total 74 100.0% $12,222 100.0% 100.0% 74 100.0% 100.0% $12,222 100.0% 100.0%

Low 6 21.4% $38 7.7% 21.3% 6 21.4% 13.0% $38 7.7% 4.8%

Moderate 2 7.1% $40 8.1% 17.4% 2 7.1% 15.9% $40 8.1% 11.2%

Middle 6 21.4% $70 14.2% 21.7% 6 21.4% 18.5% $70 14.2% 15.8%

Upper 12 42.9% $299 60.6% 39.5% 12 42.9% 45.3% $299 60.6% 58.5%

Unknown 2 7.1% $46 9.3% 0.0% 2 7.1% 7.2% $46 9.3% 9.7%

Total 28 100.0% $493 100.0% 100.0% 28 100.0% 100.0% $493 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 16 11.0% $466 2.3% 21.3% 16 11.0% 6.3% $466 2.3% 2.4%

Moderate 22 15.2% $1,902 9.6% 17.4% 22 15.2% 14.8% $1,902 9.6% 8.4%

Middle 28 19.3% $2,695 13.5% 21.7% 28 19.3% 17.6% $2,695 13.5% 13.3%

Upper 74 51.0% $14,436 72.6% 39.5% 74 51.0% 40.6% $14,436 72.6% 48.1%

Unknown 5 3.4% $393 2.0% 0.0% 5 3.4% 20.8% $393 2.0% 27.8%

Total 145 100.0% $19,892 100.0% 100.0% 145 100.0% 100.0% $19,892 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 55 57.9% $9,285 44.7% 90.1% 55 57.9% 40.0% $9,285 44.7% 40.1%

Over $1 Million 26 27.4% $9,114 43.8% 6.1% 26 27.4%


Rev. Not Known 14 14.7% $2,393 11.5% 3.8% 14 14.7%

Total 95 100.0% $20,792 100.0% 100.0% 95 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 49 51.6% $2,292 11.0% 49 51.6% 88.6% $2,292 11.0% 24.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 17 17.9% $2,583 12.4% 17 17.9% 5.4% $2,583 12.4% 16.5%

$250,001 - $1 Million 29 30.5% $15,917 76.6% 29 30.5% 6.0% $15,917 76.6% 58.7%

Total 95 100.0% $20,792 100.0% 95 100.0% 100.0% $20,792 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 19 76.0% $2,579 80.2% 97.1% 19 76.0% 67.1% $2,579 80.2% 62.7%

Over $1 Million 4 16.0% $525 16.3% 2.1% 4 16.0%

Not Known 2 8.0% $113 3.5% 0.8% 2 8.0%

Total 25 100.0% $3,217 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 14 56.0% $737 22.9% 14 56.0% 49.6% $737 22.9% 12.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 7 28.0% $1,187 36.9% 7 28.0% 24.8% $1,187 36.9% 27.6%

$250,001 - $500,000 4 16.0% $1,293 40.2% 4 16.0% 25.6% $1,293 40.2% 60.2%

Total 25 100.0% $3,217 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% $3,217 100.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar


Aggregate data is unavailable for loans to businesses with revenue over $1 million or revenue unknown, and for loan size by revenue.

HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




261


Assessment Area: AR Northeast AR

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

6,986

19.4

Moderate-income

1

3.2

567

1.6

97

17.1

7,127

19.8

Middle-income

28

90.3

31,548

87.7

4,025

12.8

8,390

23.3

Upper-income

2

6.5

3,865

10.7

255

6.6

13,477

37.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


31

100.0

35,980

100.0

4,377

12.2

35,980

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

1,139

677

1.8

59.4

108

9.5

354

31.1

Middle-income

51,104

32,600

87.7

63.8

11,779

23.0

6,725

13.2

Upper-income

6,067

3,898

10.5

64.2

1,660

27.4

509

8.4

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


58,310

37,175

100.0

63.8

13,547

23.2

7,588

13.0

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

69

1.1

63

1.1

1

0.4

5

1.7

Middle-income

5,309

85.3

4,827

85.1

225

87.2

257

86.0

Upper-income

849

13.6

780

13.8

32

12.4

37

12.4

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


6,227

100.0

5,670

100.0

258

100.0

299

100.0


91.1

4.1

4.8

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

6

0.8

6

0.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

758

96.1

750

96.0

6

100.0

2

100.0

Upper-income

25

3.2

25

3.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


789

100.0

781

100.0

6

100.0

2

100.0


99.0

.8

.3





262

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.8% 0 0.0% 1.1% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Middle 46 92.0% $3,788 89.7% 87.7% 46 92.0% 75.1% $3,788 89.7% 71.2%

Upper 4 8.0% $433 10.3% 10.5% 4 8.0% 23.6% $433 10.3% 27.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 50 100.0% $4,221 100.0% 100.0% 50 100.0% 100.0% $4,221 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 0.9% $19 0.3% 1.8% 1 0.9% 1.3% $19 0.3% 1.1%

Middle 102 94.4% $5,515 91.0% 87.7% 102 94.4% 79.5% $5,515 91.0% 74.0%

Upper 5 4.6% $524 8.6% 10.5% 5 4.6% 19.1% $524 8.6% 24.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 108 100.0% $6,058 100.0% 100.0% 108 100.0% 100.0% $6,058 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.8% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 2.9%

Middle 60 96.8% $823 97.1% 87.7% 60 96.8% 88.3% $823 97.1% 88.3%

Upper 2 3.2% $25 2.9% 10.5% 2 3.2% 9.8% $25 2.9% 8.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Total 62 100.0% $848 100.0% 100.0% 62 100.0% 100.0% $848 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 1 100.0% $150 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 71.4% $150 100.0% 73.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 28.6% $0 0.0% 27.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $150 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $150 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 0.5% $19 0.2% 1.8% 1 0.5% 1.2% $19 0.2% 1.0%

Middle 209 94.6% $10,276 91.1% 87.7% 209 94.6% 78.3% $10,276 91.1% 73.2%

Upper 11 5.0% $982 8.7% 10.5% 11 5.0% 20.3% $982 8.7% 25.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 221 100.0% $11,277 100.0% 100.0% 221 100.0% 100.0% $11,277 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.1% 0 0.0% 1.1% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Middle 51 96.2% $5,688 88.4% 85.1% 51 96.2% 77.9% $5,688 88.4% 77.9%

Upper 2 3.8% $750 11.6% 13.8% 2 3.8% 14.2% $750 11.6% 20.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.9% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Total 53 100.0% $6,438 100.0% 100.0% 53 100.0% 100.0% $6,438 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.8% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Middle 128 100.0% $12,697 100.0% 96.0% 128 100.0% 93.3% $12,697 100.0% 94.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.2% 0 0.0% 4.2% $0 0.0% 5.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 128 100.0% $12,697 100.0% 100.0% 128 100.0% 100.0% $12,697 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




263

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 11 22.0% $569 13.5% 19.4% 11 22.0% 7.8% $569 13.5% 4.6%

Moderate 11 22.0% $906 21.5% 19.8% 11 22.0% 22.0% $906 21.5% 17.8%

Middle 10 20.0% $693 16.4% 23.3% 10 20.0% 19.0% $693 16.4% 19.0%

Upper 18 36.0% $2,053 48.6% 37.5% 18 36.0% 37.1% $2,053 48.6% 45.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 14.1% $0 0.0% 13.1%

Total 50 100.0% $4,221 100.0% 100.0% 50 100.0% 100.0% $4,221 100.0% 100.0%

Low 13 12.0% $319 5.3% 19.4% 13 12.0% 6.9% $319 5.3% 3.5%

Moderate 29 26.9% $1,133 18.7% 19.8% 29 26.9% 14.4% $1,133 18.7% 9.4%

Middle 16 14.8% $577 9.5% 23.3% 16 14.8% 18.0% $577 9.5% 13.7%

Upper 48 44.4% $3,864 63.8% 37.5% 48 44.4% 48.9% $3,864 63.8% 59.5%

Unknown 2 1.9% $165 2.7% 0.0% 2 1.9% 11.9% $165 2.7% 14.0%

Total 108 100.0% $6,058 100.0% 100.0% 108 100.0% 100.0% $6,058 100.0% 100.0%

Low 13 21.0% $131 15.4% 19.4% 13 21.0% 15.4% $131 15.4% 6.2%

Moderate 15 24.2% $115 13.6% 19.8% 15 24.2% 24.3% $115 13.6% 16.4%

Middle 7 11.3% $64 7.5% 23.3% 7 11.3% 19.6% $64 7.5% 20.7%

Upper 27 43.5% $538 63.4% 37.5% 27 43.5% 37.9% $538 63.4% 53.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.8% $0 0.0% 3.5%

Total 62 100.0% $848 100.0% 100.0% 62 100.0% 100.0% $848 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 37.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $150 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $150 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $150 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $150 100.0% 100.0%

Low 37 16.7% $1,019 9.0% 19.4% 37 16.7% 7.9% $1,019 9.0% 4.0%

Moderate 55 24.9% $2,154 19.1% 19.8% 55 24.9% 18.3% $2,154 19.1% 13.1%

Middle 33 14.9% $1,334 11.8% 23.3% 33 14.9% 18.5% $1,334 11.8% 16.1%

Upper 93 42.1% $6,455 57.2% 37.5% 93 42.1% 43.1% $6,455 57.2% 53.1%

Unknown 3 1.4% $315 2.8% 0.0% 3 1.4% 12.3% $315 2.8% 13.7%

Total 221 100.0% $11,277 100.0% 100.0% 221 100.0% 100.0% $11,277 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 23 43.4% $1,755 27.3% 91.1% 23 43.4% 35.6% $1,755 27.3% 35.5%

Over $1 Million 14 26.4% $3,751 58.3% 4.1% 14 26.4%


Rev. Not Known 16 30.2% $932 14.5% 4.8% 16 30.2%

Total 53 100.0% $6,438 100.0% 100.0% 53 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 39 73.6% $1,588 24.7% 39 73.6% 93.5% $1,588 24.7% 39.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 7 13.2% $1,132 17.6% 7 13.2% 3.2% $1,132 17.6% 13.7%

$250,001 - $1 Million 7 13.2% $3,718 57.8% 7 13.2% 3.4% $3,718 57.8% 46.7%

Total 53 100.0% $6,438 100.0% 53 100.0% 100.0% $6,438 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 109 85.2% $11,004 86.7% 99.0% 109 85.2% 72.1% $11,004 86.7% 63.1%

Over $1 Million 4 3.1% $791 6.2% 0.8% 4 3.1%

Not Known 15 11.7% $902 7.1% 0.3% 15 11.7%

Total 128 100.0% $12,697 100.0% 100.0% 128 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 79 61.7% $3,646 28.7% 79 61.7% 61.0% $3,646 28.7% 18.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 41 32.0% $6,301 49.6% 41 32.0% 23.7% $6,301 49.6% 34.1%

$250,001 - $500,000 8 6.3% $2,750 21.7% 8 6.3% 15.3% $2,750 21.7% 47.6%

Total 128 100.0% $12,697 100.0% 128 100.0% 100.0% $12,697 100.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




264


Assessment Area: FL Ft. Myers

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2

1.7

2,090

1.6

906

43.3

22,017

17.1

Moderate-income

20

17.1

18,440

14.4

2,789

15.1

25,614

19.9

Middle-income

68

58.1

80,176

62.4

4,285

5.3

29,947

23.3

Upper-income

27

23.1

27,717

21.6

616

2.2

50,845

39.6

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


117

100.0

128,423

100.0

8,596

6.7

128,423

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3,069

1,248

0.9

40.7

1,591

51.8

230

7.5

Moderate-income

37,265

17,856

12.4

47.9

12,959

34.8

6,450

17.3

Middle-income

144,203

92,210

63.9

63.9

24,057

16.7

27,936

19.4

Upper-income

60,868

32,942

22.8

54.1

5,736

9.4

22,190

36.5

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


245,405

144,256

100.0

58.8

44,343

18.1

56,806

23.1

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

429

0.8

378

0.7

33

1.6

18

1.0

Moderate-income

6,077

11.1

5,440

10.7

363

17.2

274

15.0

Middle-income

34,294

62.4

32,118

62.9

1,123

53.3

1,053

57.6

Upper-income

14,195

25.8

13,126

25.7

586

27.8

483

26.4

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


54,995

100.0

51,062

100.0

2,105

100.0

1,828

100.0


92.8

3.8

3.3

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

0.3

1

0.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

39

10.3

36

9.8

3

30.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

247

65.2

240

65.2

6

60.0

1

100.0

Upper-income

92

24.3

91

24.7

1

10.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


379

100.0

368

100.0

10

100.0

1

100.0


97.1

2.6

.3





265

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 0.9% $75 0.4% 0.9% 2 0.9% 0.1% $75 0.4% 0.0%

Moderate 14 6.2% $840 4.1% 12.4% 14 6.2% 4.3% $840 4.1% 3.1%

Middle 191 84.5% $16,027 79.1% 63.9% 191 84.5% 67.0% $16,027 79.1% 53.8%

Upper 19 8.4% $3,315 16.4% 22.8% 19 8.4% 28.6% $3,315 16.4% 43.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 226 100.0% $20,257 100.0% 100.0% 226 100.0% 100.0% $20,257 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.4% 0 0.0% 3.3% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Middle 7 70.0% $1,557 70.6% 63.9% 7 70.0% 52.6% $1,557 70.6% 40.2%

Upper 3 30.0% $649 29.4% 22.8% 3 30.0% 44.1% $649 29.4% 57.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 10 100.0% $2,206 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $2,206 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.9% 0 0.0% 1.7% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.4% 0 0.0% 14.6% $0 0.0% 7.2%

Middle 3 100.0% $70 100.0% 63.9% 3 100.0% 61.8% $70 100.0% 48.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.8% 0 0.0% 21.9% $0 0.0% 43.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $70 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $70 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.0% $0 0.0% 13.8%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 45.0% $0 0.0% 56.5%

Upper 1 100.0% $3,439 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 40.0% $3,439 100.0% 29.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $3,439 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $3,439 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 0.8% $75 0.3% 0.9% 2 0.8% 0.1% $75 0.3% 0.0%

Moderate 14 5.8% $840 3.2% 12.4% 14 5.8% 4.1% $840 3.2% 2.8%

Middle 201 83.8% $17,654 68.0% 63.9% 201 83.8% 61.7% $17,654 68.0% 47.8%

Upper 23 9.6% $7,403 28.5% 22.8% 23 9.6% 34.1% $7,403 28.5% 49.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 240 100.0% $25,972 100.0% 100.0% 240 100.0% 100.0% $25,972 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.7% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Moderate 2 11.8% $1,116 25.2% 10.7% 2 11.8% 9.5% $1,116 25.2% 12.6%

Middle 7 41.2% $1,318 29.8% 62.9% 7 41.2% 58.2% $1,318 29.8% 53.0%

Upper 8 47.1% $1,986 44.9% 25.7% 8 47.1% 29.9% $1,986 44.9% 32.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.8% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Total 17 100.0% $4,420 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $4,420 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 9.8% 0 0.0% 4.2% $0 0.0% 28.5%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 65.2% 0 0.0% 70.8% $0 0.0% 37.2%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.7% 0 0.0% 25.0% $0 0.0% 34.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




266

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 83 36.7% $5,405 26.7% 17.1% 83 36.7% 8.6% $5,405 26.7% 4.1%

Moderate 71 31.4% $6,285 31.0% 19.9% 71 31.4% 15.0% $6,285 31.0% 9.3%

Middle 33 14.6% $3,326 16.4% 23.3% 33 14.6% 15.8% $3,326 16.4% 12.5%

Upper 37 16.4% $4,980 24.6% 39.6% 37 16.4% 45.8% $4,980 24.6% 60.8%

Unknown 2 0.9% $261 1.3% 0.0% 2 0.9% 14.7% $261 1.3% 13.3%

Total 226 100.0% $20,257 100.0% 100.0% 226 100.0% 100.0% $20,257 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.1% 0 0.0% 3.9% $0 0.0% 1.8%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.9% 0 0.0% 8.2% $0 0.0% 4.2%

Middle 1 10.0% $125 5.7% 23.3% 1 10.0% 14.6% $125 5.7% 9.2%

Upper 7 70.0% $1,653 74.9% 39.6% 7 70.0% 53.6% $1,653 74.9% 67.0%

Unknown 2 20.0% $428 19.4% 0.0% 2 20.0% 19.7% $428 19.4% 17.7%

Total 10 100.0% $2,206 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $2,206 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.1% 0 0.0% 10.3% $0 0.0% 1.8%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.9% 0 0.0% 23.6% $0 0.0% 11.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.3% 0 0.0% 24.5% $0 0.0% 17.0%

Upper 3 100.0% $70 100.0% 39.6% 3 100.0% 36.9% $70 100.0% 62.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.7% $0 0.0% 7.1%

Total 3 100.0% $70 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $70 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $3,439 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $3,439 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $3,439 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $3,439 100.0% 100.0%

Low 83 34.6% $5,405 20.8% 17.1% 83 34.6% 6.9% $5,405 20.8% 3.1%

Moderate 71 29.6% $6,285 24.2% 19.9% 71 29.6% 12.7% $6,285 24.2% 7.0%

Middle 34 14.2% $3,451 13.3% 23.3% 34 14.2% 15.5% $3,451 13.3% 11.0%

Upper 47 19.6% $6,703 25.8% 39.6% 47 19.6% 48.5% $6,703 25.8% 63.2%

Unknown 5 2.1% $4,128 15.9% 0.0% 5 2.1% 16.5% $4,128 15.9% 15.7%

Total 240 100.0% $25,972 100.0% 100.0% 240 100.0% 100.0% $25,972 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 6 35.3% $2,941 66.5% 92.8% 6 35.3% 43.8% $2,941 66.5% 38.4%

Over $1 Million 4 23.5% $866 19.6% 3.8% 4 23.5%


Rev. Not Known 7 41.2% $613 13.9% 3.3% 7 41.2%

Total 17 100.0% $4,420 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 7 41.2% $301 6.8% 7 41.2% 95.1% $301 6.8% 37.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 5 29.4% $934 21.1% 5 29.4% 2.3% $934 21.1% 13.3%

$250,001 - $1 Million 5 29.4% $3,185 72.1% 5 29.4% 2.6% $3,185 72.1% 48.7%

Total 17 100.0% $4,420 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $4,420 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 97.1% 0 0.0% 54.2% $0 0.0% 56.6%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.6% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 83.3% $0 0.0% 19.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.3% $0 0.0% 24.9%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.3% $0 0.0% 55.2%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




267


Assessment Area: FL Keys

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2,548

12.3

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2,533

12.3

Middle-income

7

26.9

5,205

25.2

628

12.1

3,536

17.1

Upper-income

18

69.2

15,456

74.8

775

5.0

12,044

58.3

Unknown-income

1

3.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


26

100.0

20,661

100.0

1,403

6.8

20,661

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

11,977

4,435

20.3

37.0

5,207

43.5

2,335

19.5

Upper-income

39,612

17,465

79.7

44.1

7,951

20.1

14,196

35.8

Unknown-income

28

0

0.0

0.0

28

100.0

0

0.0


51,617

21,900

100.0

42.4

13,186

25.5

16,531

32.0

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

2,137

22.8

1,947

22.6

97

25.3

93

26.5

Upper-income

7,227

77.2

6,682

77.4

287

74.7

258

73.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


9,364

100.0

8,629

100.0

384

100.0

351

100.0


92.2

4.1

3.7

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

12

19.4

12

19.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

50

80.6

50

80.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


62

100.0

62

100.0

0

.0

0

.0


100.0

.0

.0





268

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 8 19.0% $2,161 19.4% 20.3% 8 19.0% 15.4% $2,161 19.4% 16.6%

Upper 34 81.0% $8,974 80.6% 79.7% 34 81.0% 84.6% $8,974 80.6% 83.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 42 100.0% $11,135 100.0% 100.0% 42 100.0% 100.0% $11,135 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 11 37.9% $2,958 32.8% 20.3% 11 37.9% 17.0% $2,958 32.8% 19.2%

Upper 18 62.1% $6,063 67.2% 79.7% 18 62.1% 83.0% $6,063 67.2% 80.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 29 100.0% $9,021 100.0% 100.0% 29 100.0% 100.0% $9,021 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 1 50.0% $5 5.3% 20.3% 1 50.0% 15.4% $5 5.3% 10.7%

Upper 1 50.0% $89 94.7% 79.7% 1 50.0% 84.6% $89 94.7% 89.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $94 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $94 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 20 27.4% $5,124 25.3% 20.3% 20 27.4% 16.2% $5,124 25.3% 17.8%

Upper 53 72.6% $15,126 74.7% 79.7% 53 72.6% 83.8% $15,126 74.7% 82.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 73 100.0% $20,250 100.0% 100.0% 73 100.0% 100.0% $20,250 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 8 57.1% $1,806 48.5% 22.6% 8 57.1% 28.9% $1,806 48.5% 31.9%

Upper 6 42.9% $1,917 51.5% 77.4% 6 42.9% 67.5% $1,917 51.5% 67.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.6% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Total 14 100.0% $3,723 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $3,723 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.4% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 76.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 80.6% 0 0.0% 87.5% $0 0.0% 23.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




269

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.3% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 1 2.4% $161 1.4% 12.3% 1 2.4% 1.0% $161 1.4% 0.4%

Middle 7 16.7% $1,246 11.2% 17.1% 7 16.7% 6.6% $1,246 11.2% 3.6%

Upper 34 81.0% $9,728 87.4% 58.3% 34 81.0% 76.4% $9,728 87.4% 81.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.7% $0 0.0% 14.5%

Total 42 100.0% $11,135 100.0% 100.0% 42 100.0% 100.0% $11,135 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.3% 0 0.0% 1.0% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Moderate 1 3.4% $148 1.6% 12.3% 1 3.4% 2.9% $148 1.6% 1.4%

Middle 3 10.3% $593 6.6% 17.1% 3 10.3% 5.3% $593 6.6% 3.0%

Upper 19 65.5% $5,639 62.5% 58.3% 19 65.5% 69.0% $5,639 62.5% 77.7%

Unknown 6 20.7% $2,641 29.3% 0.0% 6 20.7% 21.8% $2,641 29.3% 17.5%

Total 29 100.0% $9,021 100.0% 100.0% 29 100.0% 100.0% $9,021 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.3% 0 0.0% 3.8% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 1 50.0% $5 5.3% 12.3% 1 50.0% 7.7% $5 5.3% 1.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.1% 0 0.0% 15.4% $0 0.0% 10.5%

Upper 1 50.0% $89 94.7% 58.3% 1 50.0% 73.1% $89 94.7% 88.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $94 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $94 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 58.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.3% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 3 4.1% $314 1.6% 12.3% 3 4.1% 2.0% $314 1.6% 0.9%

Middle 10 13.7% $1,839 9.1% 17.1% 10 13.7% 6.1% $1,839 9.1% 3.3%

Upper 54 74.0% $15,456 76.3% 58.3% 54 74.0% 72.7% $15,456 76.3% 79.1%

Unknown 6 8.2% $2,641 13.0% 0.0% 6 8.2% 18.6% $2,641 13.0% 16.5%

Total 73 100.0% $20,250 100.0% 100.0% 73 100.0% 100.0% $20,250 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 9 64.3% $2,428 65.2% 92.2% 9 64.3% 45.7% $2,428 65.2% 55.5%

Over $1 Million 3 21.4% $850 22.8% 4.1% 3 21.4%


Rev. Not Known 2 14.3% $445 12.0% 3.7% 2 14.3%

Total 14 100.0% $3,723 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 3 21.4% $184 4.9% 3 21.4% 95.2% $184 4.9% 34.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 6 42.9% $1,039 27.9% 6 42.9% 2.1% $1,039 27.9% 14.1%

$250,001 - $1 Million 5 35.7% $2,500 67.2% 5 35.7% 2.7% $2,500 67.2% 51.0%

Total 14 100.0% $3,723 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $3,723 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 86.0%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 87.5% $0 0.0% 23.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 76.4%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




270


Assessment Area: FL Palm Beach/Broward

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

27

5.0

22,372

3.1

7,765

34.7

147,294

20.5

Moderate-income

142

26.1

184,487

25.6

25,977

14.1

132,139

18.4

Middle-income

206

37.9

285,413

39.6

16,704

5.9

147,822

20.5

Upper-income

167

30.7

227,688

31.6

6,563

2.9

292,705

40.7

Unknown-income

2

0.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


544

100.0

719,960

100.0

57,009

7.9

719,960

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

38,378

10,049

1.2

26.2

23,713

61.8

4,616

12.0

Moderate-income

360,048

195,461

24.2

54.3

116,972

32.5

47,615

13.2

Middle-income

524,799

337,460

41.7

64.3

126,060

24.0

61,279

11.7

Upper-income

374,246

265,679

32.9

71.0

53,226

14.2

55,341

14.8

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


1,297,471

808,649

100.0

62.3

319,971

24.7

168,851

13.0

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

10,006

3.4

8,781

3.2

808

6.0

417

4.4

Moderate-income

61,653

21.0

55,825

20.7

3,653

27.3

2,175

23.2

Middle-income

112,036

38.2

103,523

38.3

4,867

36.4

3,646

38.8

Upper-income

109,109

37.2

101,951

37.7

4,020

30.1

3,138

33.4

Unknown-income

150

0.1

110

0.0

27

0.2

13

0.1


292,954

100.0

270,190

100.0

13,375

100.0

9,389

100.0


92.2

4.6

3.2

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

50

3.9

44

3.7

6

10.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

175

13.8

160

13.3

14

23.3

1

25.0

Middle-income

411

32.4

396

32.9

13

21.7

2

50.0

Upper-income

631

49.8

603

50.1

27

45.0

1

25.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


1,267

100.0

1,203

100.0

60

100.0

4

100.0


94.9

4.7

.3





271

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.2% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 1 7.1% $205 7.2% 24.2% 1 7.1% 14.8% $205 7.2% 9.4%

Middle 8 57.1% $1,002 35.0% 41.7% 8 57.1% 40.5% $1,002 35.0% 32.5%

Upper 5 35.7% $1,656 57.8% 32.9% 5 35.7% 43.5% $1,656 57.8% 57.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 14 100.0% $2,863 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $2,863 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.2% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Moderate 3 17.6% $286 2.8% 24.2% 3 17.6% 7.9% $286 2.8% 5.1%

Middle 6 35.3% $1,367 13.4% 41.7% 6 35.3% 31.8% $1,367 13.4% 25.1%

Upper 8 47.1% $8,529 83.8% 32.9% 8 47.1% 59.7% $8,529 83.8% 69.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 17 100.0% $10,182 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $10,182 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.2% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 1 33.3% $20 28.6% 24.2% 1 33.3% 14.5% $20 28.6% 5.8%

Middle 1 33.3% $15 21.4% 41.7% 1 33.3% 32.0% $15 21.4% 23.3%

Upper 1 33.3% $35 50.0% 32.9% 1 33.3% 51.8% $35 50.0% 70.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $70 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $70 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.8% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 30.4% $0 0.0% 21.7%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 33.0% $0 0.0% 40.3%

Upper 2 100.0% $1,454 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 28.7% $1,454 100.0% 37.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $1,454 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $1,454 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.2% 0 0.0% 1.0% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Moderate 5 13.9% $511 3.5% 24.2% 5 13.9% 11.9% $511 3.5% 8.2%

Middle 15 41.7% $2,384 16.4% 41.7% 15 41.7% 36.7% $2,384 16.4% 29.6%

Upper 16 44.4% $11,674 80.1% 32.9% 16 44.4% 50.4% $11,674 80.1% 61.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 36 100.0% $14,569 100.0% 100.0% 36 100.0% 100.0% $14,569 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.2% 0 0.0% 3.4% $0 0.0% 5.0%

Moderate 6 23.1% $1,420 23.0% 20.7% 6 23.1% 17.2% $1,420 23.0% 20.4%

Middle 10 38.5% $2,688 43.6% 38.3% 10 38.5% 36.6% $2,688 43.6% 37.5%

Upper 10 38.5% $2,060 33.4% 37.7% 10 38.5% 42.1% $2,060 33.4% 36.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 26 100.0% $6,168 100.0% 100.0% 26 100.0% 100.0% $6,168 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.7% 0 0.0% 5.3% $0 0.0% 9.5%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.3% 0 0.0% 6.3% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 32.9% 0 0.0% 28.4% $0 0.0% 15.1%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 50.1% 0 0.0% 58.9% $0 0.0% 74.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.1% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




272

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.5% 0 0.0% 6.2% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Moderate 4 28.6% $374 13.1% 18.4% 4 28.6% 18.4% $374 13.1% 10.5%

Middle 3 21.4% $452 15.8% 20.5% 3 21.4% 19.5% $452 15.8% 15.6%

Upper 7 50.0% $2,037 71.1% 40.7% 7 50.0% 43.3% $2,037 71.1% 59.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 12.5%

Total 14 100.0% $2,863 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $2,863 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 5.9% $50 0.5% 20.5% 1 5.9% 3.7% $50 0.5% 1.8%

Moderate 1 5.9% $138 1.4% 18.4% 1 5.9% 8.3% $138 1.4% 4.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.5% 0 0.0% 13.6% $0 0.0% 9.3%

Upper 11 64.7% $3,581 35.2% 40.7% 11 64.7% 49.0% $3,581 35.2% 62.1%

Unknown 4 23.5% $6,413 63.0% 0.0% 4 23.5% 25.5% $6,413 63.0% 22.3%

Total 17 100.0% $10,182 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $10,182 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.5% 0 0.0% 8.6% $0 0.0% 1.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.4% 0 0.0% 18.1% $0 0.0% 5.4%

Middle 2 66.7% $35 50.0% 20.5% 2 66.7% 22.5% $35 50.0% 13.0%

Upper 1 33.3% $35 50.0% 40.7% 1 33.3% 45.5% $35 50.0% 64.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.3% $0 0.0% 15.3%

Total 3 100.0% $70 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $70 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 2 100.0% $1,454 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $1,454 100.0% 100.0%

Total 2 100.0% $1,454 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $1,454 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 2.8% $50 0.3% 20.5% 1 2.8% 5.2% $50 0.3% 2.1%

Moderate 5 13.9% $512 3.5% 18.4% 5 13.9% 14.1% $512 3.5% 7.3%

Middle 5 13.9% $487 3.3% 20.5% 5 13.9% 17.0% $487 3.3% 12.1%

Upper 19 52.8% $5,653 38.8% 40.7% 19 52.8% 45.7% $5,653 38.8% 57.4%

Unknown 6 16.7% $7,867 54.0% 0.0% 6 16.7% 18.1% $7,867 54.0% 21.1%

Total 36 100.0% $14,569 100.0% 100.0% 36 100.0% 100.0% $14,569 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 11 42.3% $3,427 55.6% 92.2% 11 42.3% 43.2% $3,427 55.6% 29.9%

Over $1 Million 7 26.9% $1,280 20.8% 4.6% 7 26.9%


Rev. Not Known 8 30.8% $1,461 23.7% 3.2% 8 30.8%

Total 26 100.0% $6,168 100.0% 100.0% 26 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 9 34.6% $368 6.0% 9 34.6% 96.1% $368 6.0% 44.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 9 34.6% $1,659 26.9% 9 34.6% 2.0% $1,659 26.9% 14.7%

$250,001 - $1 Million 8 30.8% $4,141 67.1% 8 30.8% 1.9% $4,141 67.1% 41.1%

Total 26 100.0% $6,168 100.0% 26 100.0% 100.0% $6,168 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 94.9% 0 0.0% 65.3% $0 0.0% 50.3%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.7% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 92.6% $0 0.0% 45.1%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.1% $0 0.0% 8.8%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.3% $0 0.0% 46.2%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




273


Assessment Area: LA Acadiana

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2

5.4

2,187

4.4

1,031

47.1

11,603

23.5

Moderate-income

5

13.5

5,262

10.7

1,744

33.1

7,241

14.7

Middle-income

18

48.6

23,442

47.5

4,697

20.0

8,708

17.6

Upper-income

11

29.7

18,505

37.5

2,222

12.0

21,844

44.2

Unknown-income

1

2.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


37

100.0

49,396

100.0

9,694

19.6

49,396

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3,699

1,722

3.5

46.6

1,402

37.9

575

15.5

Moderate-income

8,048

4,311

8.8

53.6

3,001

37.3

736

9.1

Middle-income

35,692

23,187

47.2

65.0

8,868

24.8

3,637

10.2

Upper-income

26,075

19,934

40.6

76.4

3,930

15.1

2,211

8.5

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


73,514

49,154

100.0

66.9

17,201

23.4

7,159

9.7

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

267

2.4

256

2.5

3

0.6

8

2.1

Moderate-income

1,001

9.0

944

9.2

28

5.3

29

7.5

Middle-income

5,732

51.4

5,206

50.8

318

60.0

208

53.9

Upper-income

4,162

37.3

3,840

37.5

181

34.2

141

36.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


11,162

100.0

10,246

100.0

530

100.0

386

100.0


91.8

4.7

3.5

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2

0.4

2

0.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

26

5.3

25

5.3

1

10.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

208

42.7

205

43.2

2

20.0

1

50.0

Upper-income

251

51.5

243

51.2

7

70.0

1

50.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


487

100.0

475

100.0

10

100.0

2

100.0


97.5

2.1

.4





274

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 2.7% $60 0.7% 3.5% 2 2.7% 1.3% $60 0.7% 0.5%

Moderate 5 6.8% $582 6.8% 8.8% 5 6.8% 5.2% $582 6.8% 4.3%

Middle 29 39.2% $2,593 30.1% 47.2% 29 39.2% 42.2% $2,593 30.1% 38.3%

Upper 38 51.4% $5,366 62.4% 40.6% 38 51.4% 51.3% $5,366 62.4% 56.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 74 100.0% $8,601 100.0% 100.0% 74 100.0% 100.0% $8,601 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.5% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 9 8.2% $705 5.5% 8.8% 9 8.2% 5.4% $705 5.5% 4.4%

Middle 32 29.1% $3,585 27.7% 47.2% 32 29.1% 41.8% $3,585 27.7% 38.2%

Upper 69 62.7% $8,630 66.8% 40.6% 69 62.7% 51.6% $8,630 66.8% 56.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 110 100.0% $12,920 100.0% 100.0% 110 100.0% 100.0% $12,920 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 8 10.5% $65 6.9% 8.8% 8 10.5% 8.2% $65 6.9% 5.1%

Middle 37 48.7% $452 48.2% 47.2% 37 48.7% 50.0% $452 48.2% 52.9%

Upper 31 40.8% $421 44.9% 40.6% 31 40.8% 41.8% $421 44.9% 42.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 76 100.0% $938 100.0% 100.0% 76 100.0% 100.0% $938 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 25.0% $0 0.0% 3.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 75.0% $0 0.0% 96.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 2 0.8% $60 0.3% 3.5% 2 0.8% 1.1% $60 0.3% 0.5%

Moderate 22 8.5% $1,352 6.0% 8.8% 22 8.5% 5.6% $1,352 6.0% 4.4%

Middle 98 37.7% $6,630 29.5% 47.2% 98 37.7% 42.8% $6,630 29.5% 38.0%

Upper 138 53.1% $14,417 64.2% 40.6% 138 53.1% 50.4% $14,417 64.2% 57.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 260 100.0% $22,459 100.0% 100.0% 260 100.0% 100.0% $22,459 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.5% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Moderate 7 8.6% $1,195 13.4% 9.2% 7 8.6% 6.8% $1,195 13.4% 7.0%

Middle 36 44.4% $4,144 46.6% 50.8% 36 44.4% 48.0% $4,144 46.6% 47.6%

Upper 38 46.9% $3,551 39.9% 37.5% 38 46.9% 39.7% $3,551 39.9% 42.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.3% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Total 81 100.0% $8,890 100.0% 100.0% 81 100.0% 100.0% $8,890 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 43.2% 0 0.0% 15.2% $0 0.0% 14.0%

Upper 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 51.2% 1 100.0% 73.9% $55 100.0% 80.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.9% $0 0.0% 5.3%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




275

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 2.7% $102 1.2% 23.5% 2 2.7% 3.5% $102 1.2% 1.5%

Moderate 7 9.5% $721 8.4% 14.7% 7 9.5% 15.5% $721 8.4% 10.7%

Middle 17 23.0% $1,863 21.7% 17.6% 17 23.0% 27.9% $1,863 21.7% 26.4%

Upper 35 47.3% $5,090 59.2% 44.2% 35 47.3% 40.9% $5,090 59.2% 51.7%

Unknown 13 17.6% $825 9.6% 0.0% 13 17.6% 12.1% $825 9.6% 9.6%

Total 74 100.0% $8,601 100.0% 100.0% 74 100.0% 100.0% $8,601 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 2.7% $175 1.4% 23.5% 3 2.7% 3.2% $175 1.4% 1.2%

Moderate 10 9.1% $545 4.2% 14.7% 10 9.1% 9.2% $545 4.2% 5.5%

Middle 19 17.3% $1,523 11.8% 17.6% 19 17.3% 16.9% $1,523 11.8% 13.4%

Upper 70 63.6% $9,606 74.3% 44.2% 70 63.6% 55.3% $9,606 74.3% 64.0%

Unknown 8 7.3% $1,071 8.3% 0.0% 8 7.3% 15.4% $1,071 8.3% 15.9%

Total 110 100.0% $12,920 100.0% 100.0% 110 100.0% 100.0% $12,920 100.0% 100.0%

Low 8 10.5% $65 6.9% 23.5% 8 10.5% 9.6% $65 6.9% 3.6%

Moderate 13 17.1% $156 16.6% 14.7% 13 17.1% 14.5% $156 16.6% 7.1%

Middle 21 27.6% $277 29.5% 17.6% 21 27.6% 20.8% $277 29.5% 14.4%

Upper 32 42.1% $420 44.8% 44.2% 32 42.1% 51.4% $420 44.8% 69.0%

Unknown 2 2.6% $20 2.1% 0.0% 2 2.6% 3.8% $20 2.1% 6.0%

Total 76 100.0% $938 100.0% 100.0% 76 100.0% 100.0% $938 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 14.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 44.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 13 5.0% $342 1.5% 23.5% 13 5.0% 4.0% $342 1.5% 1.4%

Moderate 30 11.5% $1,422 6.3% 14.7% 30 11.5% 12.4% $1,422 6.3% 7.6%

Middle 57 21.9% $3,663 16.3% 17.6% 57 21.9% 21.9% $3,663 16.3% 18.7%

Upper 137 52.7% $15,116 67.3% 44.2% 137 52.7% 48.9% $15,116 67.3% 57.9%

Unknown 23 8.8% $1,916 8.5% 0.0% 23 8.8% 12.9% $1,916 8.5% 14.4%

Total 260 100.0% $22,459 100.0% 100.0% 260 100.0% 100.0% $22,459 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 41 50.6% $2,278 25.6% 91.8% 41 50.6% 30.3% $2,278 25.6% 27.2%

Over $1 Million 22 27.2% $4,869 54.8% 4.7% 22 27.2%


Rev. Not Known 18 22.2% $1,743 19.6% 3.5% 18 22.2%

Total 81 100.0% $8,890 100.0% 100.0% 81 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 61 75.3% $2,672 30.1% 61 75.3% 93.4% $2,672 30.1% 34.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 11 13.6% $2,176 24.5% 11 13.6% 3.3% $2,176 24.5% 16.3%

$250,001 - $1 Million 9 11.1% $4,042 45.5% 9 11.1% 3.3% $4,042 45.5% 49.7%

Total 81 100.0% $8,890 100.0% 81 100.0% 100.0% $8,890 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 97.5% 1 100.0% 63.0% $55 100.0% 73.4%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.1% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.4% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 1 100.0% 67.4% $55 100.0% 24.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21.7% $0 0.0% 36.2%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.9% $0 0.0% 39.8%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




276


Assessment Area: LA Allen

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1,380

22.9

Moderate-income

1

20.0

915

15.2

252

27.5

939

15.6

Middle-income

3

60.0

3,486

57.9

598

17.2

1,172

19.5

Upper-income

1

20.0

1,624

27.0

229

14.1

2,534

42.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


5

100.0

6,025

100.0

1,079

17.9

6,025

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

1,551

833

13.5

53.7

536

34.6

182

11.7

Middle-income

5,131

3,700

60.1

72.1

884

17.2

547

10.7

Upper-income

2,475

1,627

26.4

65.7

522

21.1

326

13.2

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


9,157

6,160

100.0

67.3

1,942

21.2

1,055

11.5

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

167

18.0

155

18.1

6

23.1

6

14.0

Middle-income

472

51.0

441

51.5

8

30.8

23

53.5

Upper-income

287

31.0

261

30.5

12

46.2

14

32.6

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


926

100.0

857

100.0

26

100.0

43

100.0


92.5

2.8

4.6

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

3

6.3

3

6.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

30

62.5

28

62.2

2

66.7

0

0.0

Upper-income

15

31.3

14

31.1

1

33.3

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


48

100.0

45

100.0

3

100.0

0

.0


93.8

6.3

.0





277

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.5% 0 0.0% 4.3% $0 0.0% 3.5%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 60.1% 0 0.0% 55.4% $0 0.0% 60.1%

Upper 1 100.0% $52 100.0% 26.4% 1 100.0% 39.6% $52 100.0% 36.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Total 1 100.0% $52 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $52 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.5% 0 0.0% 4.1% $0 0.0% 3.2%

Middle 2 40.0% $174 72.2% 60.1% 2 40.0% 47.9% $174 72.2% 45.8%

Upper 3 60.0% $67 27.8% 26.4% 3 60.0% 47.9% $67 27.8% 50.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 5 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.5% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 5.3%

Middle 3 75.0% $15 83.3% 60.1% 3 75.0% 50.0% $15 83.3% 49.2%

Upper 1 25.0% $3 16.7% 26.4% 1 25.0% 33.3% $3 16.7% 45.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 4 100.0% $18 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $18 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.5% 0 0.0% 5.8% $0 0.0% 3.3%

Middle 5 50.0% $189 60.8% 60.1% 5 50.0% 51.2% $189 60.8% 50.0%

Upper 5 50.0% $122 39.2% 26.4% 5 50.0% 42.7% $122 39.2% 46.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 10 100.0% $311 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $311 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.1% 0 0.0% 11.6% $0 0.0% 13.3%

Middle 1 50.0% $23 67.6% 51.5% 1 50.0% 59.8% $23 67.6% 67.0%

Upper 1 50.0% $11 32.4% 30.5% 1 50.0% 25.9% $11 32.4% 19.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.7% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 2 100.0% $34 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $34 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 2 100.0% $53 100.0% 62.2% 2 100.0% 100.0% $53 100.0% 100.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 31.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $53 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $53 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




278

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.9% 0 0.0% 2.9% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.6% 0 0.0% 12.9% $0 0.0% 8.7%

Middle 1 100.0% $52 100.0% 19.5% 1 100.0% 25.9% $52 100.0% 18.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 42.1% 0 0.0% 51.8% $0 0.0% 67.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.5% $0 0.0% 4.8%

Total 1 100.0% $52 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $52 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.9% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.6% 0 0.0% 11.6% $0 0.0% 8.7%

Middle 1 20.0% $11 4.6% 19.5% 1 20.0% 17.1% $11 4.6% 16.2%

Upper 4 80.0% $230 95.4% 42.1% 4 80.0% 56.2% $230 95.4% 61.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 13.7% $0 0.0% 12.8%

Total 5 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $241 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 25.0% $3 16.7% 22.9% 1 25.0% 7.1% $3 16.7% 2.0%

Moderate 2 50.0% $4 22.2% 15.6% 2 50.0% 23.8% $4 22.2% 5.1%

Middle 1 25.0% $11 61.1% 19.5% 1 25.0% 11.9% $11 61.1% 8.1%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 42.1% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 80.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.1% $0 0.0% 4.6%

Total 4 100.0% $18 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $18 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 42.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 1 10.0% $3 1.0% 22.9% 1 10.0% 2.7% $3 1.0% 0.8%

Moderate 2 20.0% $4 1.3% 15.6% 2 20.0% 13.7% $4 1.3% 8.1%

Middle 3 30.0% $74 23.8% 19.5% 3 30.0% 20.1% $74 23.8% 16.0%

Upper 4 40.0% $230 74.0% 42.1% 4 40.0% 53.4% $230 74.0% 62.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.1% $0 0.0% 13.0%

Total 10 100.0% $311 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $311 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 2 100.0% $34 100.0% 92.5% 2 100.0% 40.2% $34 100.0% 27.5%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.8% 0 0.0%

Total Rev. available 2 100.0% $34 100.0% 95.3% 2 100.0%

Rev. Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.6% 0 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $34 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 2 100.0% $34 100.0% 2 100.0% 94.6% $34 100.0% 36.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.7% $0 0.0% 16.3%

$250,001 - $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.7% $0 0.0% 46.8%

Total 2 100.0% $34 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $34 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 50.0% $50 94.3% 93.8% 1 50.0% 83.3% $50 94.3% 99.4%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.3% 0 0.0%

Not Known 1 50.0% $3 5.7% 0.0% 1 50.0%

Total 2 100.0% $53 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 2 100.0% $53 100.0% 2 100.0% 66.7% $53 100.0% 15.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 21.5%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 63.2%

Total 2 100.0% $53 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $53 100.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




279


Assessment Area: LA Baton Rouge

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

14

13.7

10,423

8.1

4,134

39.7

28,933

22.4

Moderate-income

25

24.5

24,057

18.6

5,984

24.9

20,791

16.1

Middle-income

31

30.4

48,862

37.9

4,230

8.7

24,503

19.0

Upper-income

32

31.4

45,674

35.4

1,646

3.6

54,789

42.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


102

100.0

129,016

100.0

15,994

12.4

129,016

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

20,279

6,506

5.3

32.1

10,623

52.4

3,150

15.5

Moderate-income

39,233

19,698

15.9

50.2

16,079

41.0

3,456

8.8

Middle-income

73,482

48,974

39.6

66.6

18,683

25.4

5,825

7.9

Upper-income

72,291

48,464

39.2

67.0

19,968

27.6

3,859

5.3

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


205,285

123,642

100.0

60.2

65,353

31.8

16,290

7.9

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2,254

5.5

2,051

5.5

117

5.6

86

5.4

Moderate-income

6,716

16.3

6,041

16.1

382

18.4

293

18.5

Middle-income

15,203

37.0

14,035

37.5

636

30.6

532

33.6

Upper-income

16,942

41.2

15,325

40.9

943

45.4

674

42.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


41,115

100.0

37,452

100.0

2,078

100.0

1,585

100.0


91.1

5.1

3.9

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

5

1.8

5

1.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

19

6.9

18

6.6

1

33.3

0

0.0

Middle-income

130

47.1

129

47.4

1

33.3

0

0.0

Upper-income

122

44.2

120

44.1

1

33.3

1

100.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


276

100.0

272

100.0

3

100.0

1

100.0


98.6

1.1

.4





280

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 0.5% $58 0.2% 5.3% 1 0.5% 1.1% $58 0.2% 0.8%

Moderate 6 3.0% $554 1.4% 15.9% 6 3.0% 6.9% $554 1.4% 4.4%

Middle 86 42.8% $14,984 38.8% 39.6% 86 42.8% 48.1% $14,984 38.8% 44.8%

Upper 108 53.7% $23,058 59.7% 39.2% 108 53.7% 43.9% $23,058 59.7% 50.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 201 100.0% $38,654 100.0% 100.0% 201 100.0% 100.0% $38,654 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 0.8% $236 0.4% 5.3% 2 0.8% 1.2% $236 0.4% 1.0%

Moderate 9 3.4% $1,870 3.0% 15.9% 9 3.4% 5.9% $1,870 3.0% 4.5%

Middle 90 34.2% $17,727 28.7% 39.6% 90 34.2% 41.9% $17,727 28.7% 38.5%

Upper 162 61.6% $41,922 67.9% 39.2% 162 61.6% 51.0% $41,922 67.9% 55.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 263 100.0% $61,755 100.0% 100.0% 263 100.0% 100.0% $61,755 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.3% 0 0.0% 2.9% $0 0.0% 1.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.9% 0 0.0% 13.0% $0 0.0% 9.0%

Middle 3 42.9% $176 35.1% 39.6% 3 42.9% 43.1% $176 35.1% 38.8%

Upper 4 57.1% $325 64.9% 39.2% 4 57.1% 41.0% $325 64.9% 51.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 7 100.0% $501 100.0% 100.0% 7 100.0% 100.0% $501 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.5% $0 0.0% 4.1%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 22.0% $0 0.0% 4.8%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 35.6% $0 0.0% 34.9%

Upper 1 100.0% $4,292 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 33.9% $4,292 100.0% 56.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $4,292 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $4,292 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 0.6% $294 0.3% 5.3% 3 0.6% 1.2% $294 0.3% 1.1%

Moderate 15 3.2% $2,424 2.3% 15.9% 15 3.2% 6.7% $2,424 2.3% 4.6%

Middle 179 37.9% $32,887 31.3% 39.6% 179 37.9% 44.6% $32,887 31.3% 40.8%

Upper 275 58.3% $69,597 66.2% 39.2% 275 58.3% 47.5% $69,597 66.2% 53.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 472 100.0% $105,202 100.0% 100.0% 472 100.0% 100.0% $105,202 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 1.2% $151 0.2% 5.5% 3 1.2% 3.7% $151 0.2% 3.5%

Moderate 29 11.9% $4,977 7.8% 16.1% 29 11.9% 12.8% $4,977 7.8% 14.6%

Middle 71 29.1% $24,262 37.9% 37.5% 71 29.1% 34.6% $24,262 37.9% 32.2%

Upper 141 57.8% $34,605 54.1% 40.9% 141 57.8% 46.9% $34,605 54.1% 48.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.1% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Total 244 100.0% $63,995 100.0% 100.0% 244 100.0% 100.0% $63,995 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.6% 0 0.0% 12.9% $0 0.0% 32.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 47.4% 0 0.0% 38.7% $0 0.0% 17.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 44.1% 0 0.0% 41.9% $0 0.0% 49.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.5% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




281

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 15 7.5% $1,664 4.3% 22.4% 15 7.5% 9.8% $1,664 4.3% 5.5%

Moderate 36 17.9% $5,260 13.6% 16.1% 36 17.9% 23.8% $5,260 13.6% 18.6%

Middle 47 23.4% $7,442 19.3% 19.0% 47 23.4% 22.7% $7,442 19.3% 21.9%

Upper 100 49.8% $23,710 61.3% 42.5% 100 49.8% 33.2% $23,710 61.3% 43.9%

Unknown 3 1.5% $578 1.5% 0.0% 3 1.5% 10.5% $578 1.5% 10.0%

Total 201 100.0% $38,654 100.0% 100.0% 201 100.0% 100.0% $38,654 100.0% 100.0%

Low 6 2.3% $559 0.9% 22.4% 6 2.3% 4.4% $559 0.9% 2.3%

Moderate 25 9.5% $3,237 5.2% 16.1% 25 9.5% 11.4% $3,237 5.2% 7.5%

Middle 36 13.7% $5,316 8.6% 19.0% 36 13.7% 19.6% $5,316 8.6% 15.4%

Upper 189 71.9% $50,246 81.4% 42.5% 189 71.9% 47.2% $50,246 81.4% 58.2%

Unknown 7 2.7% $2,397 3.9% 0.0% 7 2.7% 17.4% $2,397 3.9% 16.5%

Total 263 100.0% $61,755 100.0% 100.0% 263 100.0% 100.0% $61,755 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.4% 0 0.0% 9.5% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.1% 0 0.0% 18.2% $0 0.0% 12.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.0% 0 0.0% 21.1% $0 0.0% 18.7%

Upper 7 100.0% $501 100.0% 42.5% 7 100.0% 43.6% $501 100.0% 59.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.6% $0 0.0% 6.7%

Total 7 100.0% $501 100.0% 100.0% 7 100.0% 100.0% $501 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 42.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $4,292 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $4,292 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $4,292 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $4,292 100.0% 100.0%

Low 21 4.4% $2,223 2.1% 22.4% 21 4.4% 6.9% $2,223 2.1% 3.5%

Moderate 61 12.9% $8,497 8.1% 16.1% 61 12.9% 17.0% $8,497 8.1% 11.5%

Middle 83 17.6% $12,758 12.1% 19.0% 83 17.6% 20.9% $12,758 12.1% 17.1%

Upper 296 62.7% $74,457 70.8% 42.5% 296 62.7% 40.9% $74,457 70.8% 49.0%

Unknown 11 2.3% $7,267 6.9% 0.0% 11 2.3% 14.3% $7,267 6.9% 18.9%

Total 472 100.0% $105,202 100.0% 100.0% 472 100.0% 100.0% $105,202 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 86 35.2% $19,686 30.8% 91.1% 86 35.2% 35.4% $19,686 30.8% 34.1%

Over $1 Million 86 35.2% $32,377 50.6% 5.1% 86 35.2%


Rev. Not Known 72 29.5% $11,932 18.6% 3.9% 72 29.5%

Total 244 100.0% $63,995 100.0% 100.0% 244 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 90 36.9% $4,621 7.2% 90 36.9% 89.0% $4,621 7.2% 22.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 70 28.7% $12,568 19.6% 70 28.7% 4.9% $12,568 19.6% 16.8%

$250,001 - $1 Million 84 34.4% $46,806 73.1% 84 34.4% 6.0% $46,806 73.1% 60.4%

Total 244 100.0% $63,995 100.0% 244 100.0% 100.0% $63,995 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 98.6% 0 0.0% 38.7% $0 0.0% 81.2%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.1% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.4% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 90.3% $0 0.0% 36.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.5% $0 0.0% 27.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.2% $0 0.0% 37.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




282


Assessment Area: LA Houma

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

6,635

24.2

Moderate-income

5

25.0

7,084

25.8

1,666

23.5

4,293

15.6

Middle-income

12

60.0

14,818

53.9

2,287

15.4

5,384

19.6

Upper-income

3

15.0

5,571

20.3

376

6.7

11,161

40.6

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


20

100.0

27,473

100.0

4,329

15.8

27,473

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

10,845

6,977

25.7

64.3

2,102

19.4

1,766

16.3

Middle-income

21,776

14,651

53.9

67.3

5,253

24.1

1,872

8.6

Upper-income

7,307

5,565

20.5

76.2

1,449

19.8

293

4.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


39,928

27,193

100.0

68.1

8,804

22.0

3,931

9.8

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

1,536

20.3

1,359

19.8

132

28.9

45

18.2

Middle-income

3,915

51.6

3,591

52.2

192

42.0

132

53.4

Upper-income

2,132

28.1

1,929

28.0

133

29.1

70

28.3

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


7,583

100.0

6,879

100.0

457

100.0

247

100.0


90.7

6.0

3.3

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

23

27.4

20

25.6

3

50.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

42

50.0

40

51.3

2

33.3

0

0.0

Upper-income

19

22.6

18

23.1

1

16.7

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


84

100.0

78

100.0

6

100.0

0

.0


92.9

7.1

.0





283

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 7 12.1% $801 8.9% 25.7% 7 12.1% 14.3% $801 8.9% 10.4%

Middle 27 46.6% $4,130 45.8% 53.9% 27 46.6% 49.4% $4,130 45.8% 43.6%

Upper 24 41.4% $4,081 45.3% 20.5% 24 41.4% 36.3% $4,081 45.3% 46.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 58 100.0% $9,012 100.0% 100.0% 58 100.0% 100.0% $9,012 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 3 16.7% $1,715 47.1% 25.7% 3 16.7% 11.9% $1,715 47.1% 9.2%

Middle 4 22.2% $413 11.3% 53.9% 4 22.2% 46.0% $413 11.3% 39.0%

Upper 11 61.1% $1,512 41.5% 20.5% 11 61.1% 42.1% $1,512 41.5% 51.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 18 100.0% $3,640 100.0% 100.0% 18 100.0% 100.0% $3,640 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.7% 0 0.0% 24.2% $0 0.0% 17.7%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 53.9% 0 0.0% 50.8% $0 0.0% 44.2%

Upper 1 100.0% $75 100.0% 20.5% 1 100.0% 25.0% $75 100.0% 38.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $75 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $75 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.0% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 40.0% $0 0.0% 95.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 10 13.0% $2,516 19.8% 25.7% 10 13.0% 13.8% $2,516 19.8% 9.4%

Middle 31 40.3% $4,543 35.7% 53.9% 31 40.3% 47.7% $4,543 35.7% 39.0%

Upper 36 46.8% $5,668 44.5% 20.5% 36 46.8% 38.5% $5,668 44.5% 51.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 77 100.0% $12,727 100.0% 100.0% 77 100.0% 100.0% $12,727 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.8% 0 0.0% 19.3% $0 0.0% 25.7%

Middle 3 60.0% $1,300 46.4% 52.2% 3 60.0% 46.0% $1,300 46.4% 40.6%

Upper 2 40.0% $1,500 53.6% 28.0% 2 40.0% 31.4% $1,500 53.6% 31.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.3% $0 0.0% 1.8%

Total 5 100.0% $2,800 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $2,800 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.6% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 7.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 51.3% 0 0.0% 37.5% $0 0.0% 28.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.1% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 63.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






284

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 3 5.2% $263 2.9% 24.2% 3 5.2% 5.0% $263 2.9% 2.5%

Moderate 16 27.6% $1,968 21.8% 15.6% 16 27.6% 21.9% $1,968 21.8% 16.5%

Middle 13 22.4% $1,892 21.0% 19.6% 13 22.4% 23.8% $1,892 21.0% 22.6%

Upper 26 44.8% $4,889 54.2% 40.6% 26 44.8% 37.3% $4,889 54.2% 48.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.0% $0 0.0% 9.9%

Total 58 100.0% $9,012 100.0% 100.0% 58 100.0% 100.0% $9,012 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.2% 0 0.0% 4.9% $0 0.0% 2.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.6% 0 0.0% 11.1% $0 0.0% 7.2%

Middle 7 38.9% $744 20.4% 19.6% 7 38.9% 17.4% $744 20.4% 13.7%

Upper 10 55.6% $1,531 42.1% 40.6% 10 55.6% 49.8% $1,531 42.1% 57.3%

Unknown 1 5.6% $1,365 37.5% 0.0% 1 5.6% 16.9% $1,365 37.5% 19.6%

Total 18 100.0% $3,640 100.0% 100.0% 18 100.0% 100.0% $3,640 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.2% 0 0.0% 6.0% $0 0.0% 1.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.6% 0 0.0% 14.1% $0 0.0% 12.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 17.3% $0 0.0% 18.0%

Upper 1 100.0% $75 100.0% 40.6% 1 100.0% 46.0% $75 100.0% 57.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 16.5% $0 0.0% 11.1%

Total 1 100.0% $75 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $75 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 3 3.9% $263 2.1% 24.2% 3 3.9% 5.0% $263 2.1% 2.2%

Moderate 16 20.8% $1,968 15.5% 15.6% 16 20.8% 15.5% $1,968 15.5% 10.5%

Middle 20 26.0% $2,636 20.7% 19.6% 20 26.0% 19.8% $2,636 20.7% 16.4%

Upper 37 48.1% $6,495 51.0% 40.6% 37 48.1% 44.5% $6,495 51.0% 50.8%

Unknown 1 1.3% $1,365 10.7% 0.0% 1 1.3% 15.2% $1,365 10.7% 20.1%

Total 77 100.0% $12,727 100.0% 100.0% 77 100.0% 100.0% $12,727 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 2 40.0% $550 19.6% 90.7% 2 40.0% 31.1% $550 19.6% 25.4%

Over $1 Million 2 40.0% $1,250 44.6% 6.0% 2 40.0%


Rev. Not Known 1 20.0% $1,000 35.7% 3.3% 1 20.0%

Total 5 100.0% $2,800 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 20.0% $50 1.8% 1 20.0% 91.3% $50 1.8% 28.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.3% $0 0.0% 11.5%

$250,001 - $1 Million 4 80.0% $2,750 98.2% 4 80.0% 5.4% $2,750 98.2% 60.5%

Total 5 100.0% $2,800 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $2,800 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 92.9% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.1% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







285


Assessment Area: LA Lake Charles

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2

4.7

1,064

2.0

429

40.3

11,596

22.3

Moderate-income

11

25.6

10,889

21.0

2,565

23.6

8,686

16.7

Middle-income

19

44.2

23,608

45.4

2,607

11.0

10,185

19.6

Upper-income

11

25.6

16,391

31.6

950

5.8

21,485

41.4

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


43

100.0

51,952

100.0

6,551

12.6

51,952

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,771

679

1.3

38.3

843

47.6

249

14.1

Moderate-income

19,650

9,197

17.6

46.8

7,988

40.7

2,465

12.5

Middle-income

36,590

25,011

48.0

68.4

7,058

19.3

4,521

12.4

Upper-income

23,320

17,259

33.1

74.0

4,170

17.9

1,891

8.1

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


81,331

52,146

100.0

64.1

20,059

24.7

9,126

11.2

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

165

1.3

149

1.2

8

1.4

8

2.0

Moderate-income

3,252

24.7

2,937

24.1

201

34.3

114

28.5

Middle-income

5,503

41.8

5,085

41.8

251

42.8

167

41.8

Upper-income

4,232

32.2

3,995

32.8

126

21.5

111

27.8

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


13,152

100.0

12,166

100.0

586

100.0

400

100.0


92.5

4.5

3.0

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

14

7.3

13

6.8

1

50.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

125

64.8

124

64.9

1

50.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

54

28.0

54

28.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


193

100.0

191

100.0

2

100.0

0

.0


99.0

1.0

.0





286

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 5 11.1% $279 4.2% 17.6% 5 11.1% 7.6% $279 4.2% 5.0%

Middle 17 37.8% $2,347 35.5% 48.0% 17 37.8% 42.3% $2,347 35.5% 35.1%

Upper 23 51.1% $3,988 60.3% 33.1% 23 51.1% 49.9% $3,988 60.3% 59.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 45 100.0% $6,614 100.0% 100.0% 45 100.0% 100.0% $6,614 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 0.7% $9 0.1% 1.3% 1 0.7% 0.4% $9 0.1% 0.2%

Moderate 22 15.6% $1,045 6.7% 17.6% 22 15.6% 8.7% $1,045 6.7% 5.7%

Middle 57 40.4% $5,831 37.2% 48.0% 57 40.4% 39.0% $5,831 37.2% 34.4%

Upper 61 43.3% $8,808 56.1% 33.1% 61 43.3% 51.9% $8,808 56.1% 59.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 141 100.0% $15,693 100.0% 100.0% 141 100.0% 100.0% $15,693 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 1.8% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Moderate 5 6.7% $25 2.3% 17.6% 5 6.7% 12.8% $25 2.3% 6.0%

Middle 58 77.3% $945 85.1% 48.0% 58 77.3% 51.5% $945 85.1% 37.0%

Upper 12 16.0% $141 12.7% 33.1% 12 16.0% 33.8% $141 12.7% 56.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 75 100.0% $1,111 100.0% 100.0% 75 100.0% 100.0% $1,111 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 45.5% $0 0.0% 27.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 27.3% $0 0.0% 6.0%

Upper 1 100.0% $417 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 27.3% $417 100.0% 66.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $417 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $417 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 0.4% $9 0.0% 1.3% 1 0.4% 0.4% $9 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 32 12.2% $1,349 5.7% 17.6% 32 12.2% 8.6% $1,349 5.7% 6.1%

Middle 132 50.4% $9,123 38.3% 48.0% 132 50.4% 41.2% $9,123 38.3% 33.9%

Upper 97 37.0% $13,354 56.0% 33.1% 97 37.0% 49.8% $13,354 56.0% 59.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 262 100.0% $23,835 100.0% 100.0% 262 100.0% 100.0% $23,835 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.2% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 26 22.2% $4,460 32.5% 24.1% 26 22.2% 26.7% $4,460 32.5% 29.5%

Middle 46 39.3% $4,002 29.1% 41.8% 46 39.3% 36.4% $4,002 29.1% 37.1%

Upper 45 38.5% $5,270 38.4% 32.8% 45 38.5% 33.0% $5,270 38.4% 29.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.5% $0 0.0% 3.5%

Total 117 100.0% $13,732 100.0% 100.0% 117 100.0% 100.0% $13,732 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.8% 0 0.0% 1.5% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Middle 10 100.0% $350 100.0% 64.9% 10 100.0% 80.3% $350 100.0% 77.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 28.3% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 22.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.5% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Total 10 100.0% $350 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $350 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






287

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 4.4% $121 1.8% 22.3% 2 4.4% 10.0% $121 1.8% 5.7%

Moderate 3 6.7% $230 3.5% 16.7% 3 6.7% 23.1% $230 3.5% 17.9%

Middle 10 22.2% $1,464 22.1% 19.6% 10 22.2% 25.2% $1,464 22.1% 25.6%

Upper 27 60.0% $4,370 66.1% 41.4% 27 60.0% 33.7% $4,370 66.1% 43.9%

Unknown 3 6.7% $429 6.5% 0.0% 3 6.7% 8.0% $429 6.5% 7.0%

Total 45 100.0% $6,614 100.0% 100.0% 45 100.0% 100.0% $6,614 100.0% 100.0%

Low 7 5.0% $226 1.4% 22.3% 7 5.0% 5.5% $226 1.4% 2.7%

Moderate 22 15.6% $1,160 7.4% 16.7% 22 15.6% 13.8% $1,160 7.4% 9.3%

Middle 28 19.9% $2,177 13.9% 19.6% 28 19.9% 19.4% $2,177 13.9% 16.7%

Upper 67 47.5% $9,225 58.8% 41.4% 67 47.5% 44.3% $9,225 58.8% 55.3%

Unknown 17 12.1% $2,905 18.5% 0.0% 17 12.1% 16.9% $2,905 18.5% 16.0%

Total 141 100.0% $15,693 100.0% 100.0% 141 100.0% 100.0% $15,693 100.0% 100.0%

Low 18 24.0% $102 9.2% 22.3% 18 24.0% 14.4% $102 9.2% 4.3%

Moderate 21 28.0% $199 17.9% 16.7% 21 28.0% 21.5% $199 17.9% 8.6%

Middle 16 21.3% $208 18.7% 19.6% 16 21.3% 25.4% $208 18.7% 25.6%

Upper 19 25.3% $596 53.6% 41.4% 19 25.3% 33.1% $596 53.6% 52.4%

Unknown 1 1.3% $6 0.5% 0.0% 1 1.3% 5.6% $6 0.5% 9.0%

Total 75 100.0% $1,111 100.0% 100.0% 75 100.0% 100.0% $1,111 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $417 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $417 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $417 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $417 100.0% 100.0%

Low 27 10.3% $449 1.9% 22.3% 27 10.3% 8.0% $449 1.9% 3.9%

Moderate 46 17.6% $1,589 6.7% 16.7% 46 17.6% 18.1% $1,589 6.7% 12.6%

Middle 54 20.6% $3,849 16.1% 19.6% 54 20.6% 22.2% $3,849 16.1% 20.1%

Upper 113 43.1% $14,191 59.5% 41.4% 113 43.1% 39.1% $14,191 59.5% 48.9%

Unknown 22 8.4% $3,757 15.8% 0.0% 22 8.4% 12.6% $3,757 15.8% 14.5%

Total 262 100.0% $23,835 100.0% 100.0% 262 100.0% 100.0% $23,835 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 48 41.0% $4,038 29.4% 92.5% 48 41.0% 34.6% $4,038 29.4% 37.0%

Over $1 Million 34 29.1% $7,146 52.0% 4.5% 34 29.1%


Rev. Not Known 35 29.9% $2,548 18.6% 3.0% 35 29.9%

Total 117 100.0% $13,732 100.0% 100.0% 117 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 89 76.1% $3,108 22.6% 89 76.1% 91.5% $3,108 22.6% 31.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 14 12.0% $2,250 16.4% 14 12.0% 4.7% $2,250 16.4% 20.7%

$250,001 - $1 Million 14 12.0% $8,374 61.0% 14 12.0% 3.7% $8,374 61.0% 47.7%

Total 117 100.0% $13,732 100.0% 117 100.0% 100.0% $13,732 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 5 50.0% $207 59.1% 99.0% 5 50.0% 78.8% $207 59.1% 89.4%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.0% 0 0.0%

Not Known 5 50.0% $143 40.9% 0.0% 5 50.0%

Total 10 100.0% $350 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 9 90.0% $210 60.0% 9 90.0% 69.7% $210 60.0% 20.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 10.0% $140 40.0% 1 10.0% 16.7% $140 40.0% 27.9%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13.6% $0 0.0% 51.8%

Total 10 100.0% $350 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $350 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







288


Assessment Area: LA Lincoln

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2,176

22.3

Moderate-income

2

20.0

1,540

15.8

649

42.1

1,182

12.1

Middle-income

4

40.0

3,879

39.8

718

18.5

1,532

15.7

Upper-income

4

40.0

4,319

44.4

404

9.4

4,848

49.8

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


10

100.0

9,738

100.0

1,771

18.2

9,738

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

2,877

1,058

11.6

36.8

1,470

51.1

349

12.1

Middle-income

7,085

3,594

39.4

50.7

2,649

37.4

842

11.9

Upper-income

7,038

4,479

49.1

63.6

1,985

28.2

574

8.2

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


17,000

9,131

100.0

53.7

6,104

35.9

1,765

10.4

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

448

15.6

399

15.1

28

21.7

21

20.4

Middle-income

869

30.3

801

30.4

34

26.4

34

33.0

Upper-income

1,550

54.1

1,435

54.5

67

51.9

48

46.6

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


2,867

100.0

2,635

100.0

129

100.0

103

100.0


91.9

4.5

3.6

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

3

3.8

2

2.6

1

25.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

27

33.8

26

34.2

1

25.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

50

62.5

48

63.2

2

50.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


80

100.0

76

100.0

4

100.0

0

.0


95.0

5.0

.0





289

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.6% 0 0.0% 3.9% $0 0.0% 3.1%

Middle 7 58.3% $858 55.5% 39.4% 7 58.3% 36.7% $858 55.5% 31.6%

Upper 5 41.7% $687 44.5% 49.1% 5 41.7% 59.4% $687 44.5% 65.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 12 100.0% $1,545 100.0% 100.0% 12 100.0% 100.0% $1,545 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.6% 0 0.0% 5.1% $0 0.0% 3.8%

Middle 3 60.0% $139 22.9% 39.4% 3 60.0% 29.4% $139 22.9% 24.2%

Upper 2 40.0% $468 77.1% 49.1% 2 40.0% 65.5% $468 77.1% 72.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 5 100.0% $607 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $607 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.6% 0 0.0% 7.2% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Middle 1 33.3% $7 10.9% 39.4% 1 33.3% 32.5% $7 10.9% 33.8%

Upper 2 66.7% $57 89.1% 49.1% 2 66.7% 60.2% $57 89.1% 65.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $64 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $64 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 27.3% $0 0.0% 10.2%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 45.5% $0 0.0% 43.5%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 27.3% $0 0.0% 46.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.6% 0 0.0% 5.0% $0 0.0% 3.7%

Middle 11 55.0% $1,004 45.3% 39.4% 11 55.0% 32.4% $1,004 45.3% 27.9%

Upper 9 45.0% $1,212 54.7% 49.1% 9 45.0% 62.6% $1,212 54.7% 68.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 20 100.0% $2,216 100.0% 100.0% 20 100.0% 100.0% $2,216 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 7.1% $150 9.7% 15.1% 1 7.1% 5.6% $150 9.7% 6.0%

Middle 5 35.7% $1,064 68.7% 30.4% 5 35.7% 28.1% $1,064 68.7% 32.2%

Upper 8 57.1% $334 21.6% 54.5% 8 57.1% 63.9% $334 21.6% 61.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.5% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Total 14 100.0% $1,548 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $1,548 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 34.2% 0 0.0% 20.0% $0 0.0% 6.1%

Upper 3 100.0% $408 100.0% 63.2% 3 100.0% 80.0% $408 100.0% 93.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $408 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $408 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






290

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.3% 0 0.0% 2.7% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 3 25.0% $339 21.9% 12.1% 3 25.0% 11.3% $339 21.9% 7.4%

Middle 4 33.3% $618 40.0% 15.7% 4 33.3% 20.5% $618 40.0% 18.6%

Upper 5 41.7% $588 38.1% 49.8% 5 41.7% 47.5% $588 38.1% 55.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.0% $0 0.0% 18.0%

Total 12 100.0% $1,545 100.0% 100.0% 12 100.0% 100.0% $1,545 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.3% 0 0.0% 2.6% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 1 20.0% $40 6.6% 12.1% 1 20.0% 6.0% $40 6.6% 3.7%

Middle 1 20.0% $35 5.8% 15.7% 1 20.0% 12.7% $35 5.8% 10.0%

Upper 3 60.0% $532 87.6% 49.8% 3 60.0% 56.4% $532 87.6% 59.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 22.3% $0 0.0% 25.4%

Total 5 100.0% $607 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $607 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.3% 0 0.0% 8.4% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.1% 0 0.0% 9.6% $0 0.0% 2.5%

Middle 2 66.7% $57 89.1% 15.7% 2 66.7% 21.7% $57 89.1% 11.0%

Upper 1 33.3% $7 10.9% 49.8% 1 33.3% 49.4% $7 10.9% 55.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.8% $0 0.0% 27.4%

Total 3 100.0% $64 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $64 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 49.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.3% 0 0.0% 3.0% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 4 20.0% $379 17.1% 12.1% 4 20.0% 8.1% $379 17.1% 4.9%

Middle 7 35.0% $710 32.0% 15.7% 7 35.0% 16.0% $710 32.0% 12.9%

Upper 9 45.0% $1,127 50.9% 49.8% 9 45.0% 52.3% $1,127 50.9% 55.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 20.7% $0 0.0% 25.4%

Total 20 100.0% $2,216 100.0% 100.0% 20 100.0% 100.0% $2,216 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 11 78.6% $948 61.2% 91.9% 11 78.6% 53.2% $948 61.2% 64.5%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.5% 0 0.0%


Rev. Not Known 3 21.4% $600 38.8% 3.6% 3 21.4%

Total 14 100.0% $1,548 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 11 78.6% $508 32.8% 11 78.6% 87.2% $508 32.8% 31.7%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 7.1% $150 9.7% 1 7.1% 7.4% $150 9.7% 22.3%

$250,001 - $1 Million 2 14.3% $890 57.5% 2 14.3% 5.4% $890 57.5% 46.0%

Total 14 100.0% $1,548 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $1,548 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 33.3% $225 55.1% 95.0% 1 33.3% 55.0% $225 55.1% 61.2%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.0% 0 0.0%

Not Known 2 66.7% $183 44.9% 0.0% 2 66.7%

Total 3 100.0% $408 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 2 66.7% $183 44.9% 2 66.7% 85.0% $183 44.9% 45.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 33.3% $225 55.1% 1 33.3% 15.0% $225 55.1% 54.1%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $408 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $408 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







291


Assessment Area: LA Monroe

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

7

17.1

4,089

10.6

1,941

47.5

8,939

23.2

Moderate-income

9

22.0

6,713

17.4

1,935

28.8

6,207

16.1

Middle-income

14

34.1

15,431

40.0

1,572

10.2

7,126

18.5

Upper-income

11

26.8

12,303

31.9

644

5.2

16,264

42.2

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


41

100.0

38,536

100.0

6,092

15.8

38,536

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6,755

2,467

7.0

36.5

3,549

52.5

739

10.9

Moderate-income

10,588

5,311

15.0

50.2

4,059

38.3

1,218

11.5

Middle-income

23,883

15,391

43.5

64.4

6,460

27.0

2,032

8.5

Upper-income

18,928

12,243

34.6

64.7

5,736

30.3

949

5.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


60,154

35,412

100.0

58.9

19,804

32.9

4,938

8.2

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,153

9.9

1,021

9.6

89

14.8

43

10.4

Moderate-income

2,007

17.1

1,754

16.4

174

29.0

79

19.1

Middle-income

4,407

37.7

4,108

38.4

152

25.3

147

35.6

Upper-income

4,136

35.3

3,807

35.6

185

30.8

144

34.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


11,703

100.0

10,690

100.0

600

100.0

413

100.0


91.3

5.1

3.5

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2

1.2

2

1.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

12

7.1

11

6.6

0

0.0

1

100.0

Middle-income

94

56.0

94

56.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

60

35.7

60

35.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


168

100.0

167

100.0

0

.0

1

100.0


99.4

.0

.6





292

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.0% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Moderate 7 2.8% $564 1.5% 15.0% 7 2.8% 4.3% $564 1.5% 2.5%

Middle 131 52.2% $18,743 50.3% 43.5% 131 52.2% 47.9% $18,743 50.3% 43.4%

Upper 113 45.0% $17,948 48.2% 34.6% 113 45.0% 46.5% $17,948 48.2% 53.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 251 100.0% $37,255 100.0% 100.0% 251 100.0% 100.0% $37,255 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 2.0% $41 0.3% 7.0% 2 2.0% 0.8% $41 0.3% 0.7%

Moderate 5 5.0% $340 2.4% 15.0% 5 5.0% 5.0% $340 2.4% 3.1%

Middle 46 46.0% $6,589 46.7% 43.5% 46 46.0% 42.6% $6,589 46.7% 39.3%

Upper 47 47.0% $7,144 50.6% 34.6% 47 47.0% 51.6% $7,144 50.6% 57.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100 100.0% $14,114 100.0% 100.0% 100 100.0% 100.0% $14,114 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.0% 0 0.0% 1.0% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Moderate 3 14.3% $83 21.6% 15.0% 3 14.3% 13.7% $83 21.6% 6.8%

Middle 10 47.6% $139 36.1% 43.5% 10 47.6% 48.7% $139 36.1% 52.6%

Upper 8 38.1% $163 42.3% 34.6% 8 38.1% 36.5% $163 42.3% 40.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 21 100.0% $385 100.0% 100.0% 21 100.0% 100.0% $385 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 33.3% $0 0.0% 21.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 27.8% $0 0.0% 34.8%

Upper 2 100.0% $2,387 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 38.9% $2,387 100.0% 44.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $2,387 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $2,387 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 0.5% $41 0.1% 7.0% 2 0.5% 1.0% $41 0.1% 0.7%

Moderate 15 4.0% $987 1.8% 15.0% 15 4.0% 5.2% $987 1.8% 3.3%

Middle 187 50.0% $25,471 47.0% 43.5% 187 50.0% 45.3% $25,471 47.0% 41.3%

Upper 170 45.5% $27,642 51.1% 34.6% 170 45.5% 48.5% $27,642 51.1% 54.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 374 100.0% $54,141 100.0% 100.0% 374 100.0% 100.0% $54,141 100.0% 100.0%

Low 52 51.5% $9,143 56.9% 9.6% 52 51.5% 10.3% $9,143 56.9% 17.8%

Moderate 15 14.9% $3,376 21.0% 16.4% 15 14.9% 16.4% $3,376 21.0% 17.1%

Middle 13 12.9% $672 4.2% 38.4% 13 12.9% 30.8% $672 4.2% 26.1%

Upper 21 20.8% $2,864 17.8% 35.6% 21 20.8% 40.4% $2,864 17.8% 37.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.0% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Total 101 100.0% $16,055 100.0% 100.0% 101 100.0% 100.0% $16,055 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.6% 0 0.0% 6.9% $0 0.0% 11.5%

Middle 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 56.3% 1 100.0% 69.0% $65 100.0% 73.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 35.9% 0 0.0% 20.7% $0 0.0% 10.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.4% $0 0.0% 4.3%

Total 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $65 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




293

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 21 8.4% $1,824 4.9% 23.2% 21 8.4% 6.0% $1,824 4.9% 3.1%

Moderate 33 13.1% $3,370 9.0% 16.1% 33 13.1% 14.7% $3,370 9.0% 10.6%

Middle 69 27.5% $9,281 24.9% 18.5% 69 27.5% 23.5% $9,281 24.9% 21.3%

Upper 126 50.2% $22,539 60.5% 42.2% 126 50.2% 42.5% $22,539 60.5% 53.3%

Unknown 2 0.8% $241 0.6% 0.0% 2 0.8% 13.2% $241 0.6% 11.6%

Total 251 100.0% $37,255 100.0% 100.0% 251 100.0% 100.0% $37,255 100.0% 100.0%

Low 5 5.0% $350 2.5% 23.2% 5 5.0% 2.6% $350 2.5% 1.0%

Moderate 10 10.0% $696 4.9% 16.1% 10 10.0% 8.2% $696 4.9% 4.9%

Middle 27 27.0% $3,091 21.9% 18.5% 27 27.0% 17.6% $3,091 21.9% 13.9%

Upper 51 51.0% $8,895 63.0% 42.2% 51 51.0% 50.5% $8,895 63.0% 59.4%

Unknown 7 7.0% $1,082 7.7% 0.0% 7 7.0% 21.1% $1,082 7.7% 20.8%

Total 100 100.0% $14,114 100.0% 100.0% 100 100.0% 100.0% $14,114 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 14.3% $24 6.2% 23.2% 3 14.3% 4.6% $24 6.2% 1.2%

Moderate 7 33.3% $43 11.2% 16.1% 7 33.3% 16.8% $43 11.2% 7.4%

Middle 5 23.8% $161 41.8% 18.5% 5 23.8% 19.3% $161 41.8% 17.6%

Upper 6 28.6% $157 40.8% 42.2% 6 28.6% 49.2% $157 40.8% 56.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.2% $0 0.0% 17.8%

Total 21 100.0% $385 100.0% 100.0% 21 100.0% 100.0% $385 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 42.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 2 100.0% $2,387 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $2,387 100.0% 100.0%

Total 2 100.0% $2,387 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $2,387 100.0% 100.0%

Low 29 7.8% $2,198 4.1% 23.2% 29 7.8% 4.3% $2,198 4.1% 2.0%

Moderate 50 13.4% $4,109 7.6% 16.1% 50 13.4% 11.6% $4,109 7.6% 7.5%

Middle 101 27.0% $12,533 23.1% 18.5% 101 27.0% 20.4% $12,533 23.1% 17.1%

Upper 183 48.9% $31,591 58.3% 42.2% 183 48.9% 46.5% $31,591 58.3% 55.0%

Unknown 11 2.9% $3,710 6.9% 0.0% 11 2.9% 17.2% $3,710 6.9% 18.5%

Total 374 100.0% $54,141 100.0% 100.0% 374 100.0% 100.0% $54,141 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 11 10.9% $1,485 9.2% 91.3% 11 10.9% 38.7% $1,485 9.2% 44.0%

Over $1 Million 68 67.3% $11,940 74.4% 5.1% 68 67.3%


Rev. Not Known 22 21.8% $2,630 16.4% 3.5% 22 21.8%

Total 101 100.0% $16,055 100.0% 100.0% 101 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 72 71.3% $3,662 22.8% 72 71.3% 87.9% $3,662 22.8% 27.5%

$100,001 - $250,000 11 10.9% $2,177 13.6% 11 10.9% 6.4% $2,177 13.6% 19.9%

$250,001 - $1 Million 18 17.8% $10,216 63.6% 18 17.8% 5.7% $10,216 63.6% 52.7%

Total 101 100.0% $16,055 100.0% 101 100.0% 100.0% $16,055 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 99.4% 1 100.0% 72.4% $65 100.0% 66.6%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.6% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 1 100.0% 58.6% $65 100.0% 17.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 27.6% $0 0.0% 41.3%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13.8% $0 0.0% 40.9%

Total 1 100.0% $65 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $65 100.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




294


Assessment Area: LA Morehouse

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2,239

26.7

Moderate-income

1

12.5

1,037

12.4

396

38.2

1,326

15.8

Middle-income

6

75.0

5,629

67.1

1,230

21.9

1,537

18.3

Upper-income

1

12.5

1,723

20.5

165

9.6

3,287

39.2

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


8

100.0

8,389

100.0

1,791

21.3

8,389

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

1,631

817

10.0

50.1

633

38.8

181

11.1

Middle-income

8,784

5,548

68.1

63.2

2,195

25.0

1,041

11.9

Upper-income

2,296

1,785

21.9

77.7

404

17.6

107

4.7

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


12,711

8,150

100.0

64.1

3,232

25.4

1,329

10.5

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

166

8.8

153

8.7

2

3.4

11

20.0

Middle-income

1,300

69.3

1,219

69.2

45

76.3

36

65.5

Upper-income

410

21.9

390

22.1

12

20.3

8

14.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


1,876

100.0

1,762

100.0

59

100.0

55

100.0


93.9

3.1

2.9

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

153

85.5

149

85.1

4

100.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

26

14.5

26

14.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


179

100.0

175

100.0

4

100.0

0

.0


97.8

2.2

.0





295

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 10.0% 0 0.0% 2.8% $0 0.0% 2.5%

Middle 21 77.8% $2,592 79.6% 68.1% 21 77.8% 69.8% $2,592 79.6% 69.5%

Upper 6 22.2% $666 20.4% 21.9% 6 22.2% 27.4% $666 20.4% 28.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 27 100.0% $3,258 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $3,258 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 11.1% $24 2.0% 10.0% 1 11.1% 6.8% $24 2.0% 4.3%

Middle 7 77.8% $946 79.0% 68.1% 7 77.8% 57.0% $946 79.0% 58.3%

Upper 1 11.1% $228 19.0% 21.9% 1 11.1% 36.2% $228 19.0% 37.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 9 100.0% $1,198 100.0% 100.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $1,198 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 10.0% 0 0.0% 14.0% $0 0.0% 6.1%

Middle 5 83.3% $353 99.2% 68.1% 5 83.3% 62.8% $353 99.2% 63.0%

Upper 1 16.7% $3 0.8% 21.9% 1 16.7% 23.3% $3 0.8% 30.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 6 100.0% $356 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $356 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 2.4% $24 0.5% 10.0% 1 2.4% 5.6% $24 0.5% 5.2%

Middle 33 78.6% $3,891 80.9% 68.1% 33 78.6% 63.7% $3,891 80.9% 62.9%

Upper 8 19.0% $897 18.6% 21.9% 8 19.0% 30.7% $897 18.6% 31.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 42 100.0% $4,812 100.0% 100.0% 42 100.0% 100.0% $4,812 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 8.7% 0 0.0% 6.1% $0 0.0% 7.3%

Middle 4 80.0% $506 79.2% 69.2% 4 80.0% 66.4% $506 79.2% 74.3%

Upper 1 20.0% $133 20.8% 22.1% 1 20.0% 22.7% $133 20.8% 17.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.9% $0 0.0% 1.3%

Total 5 100.0% $639 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $639 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.4% $0 0.0% 6.4%

Middle 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 85.1% 1 100.0% 64.3% $50 100.0% 69.5%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 14.9% 0 0.0% 19.6% $0 0.0% 15.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.7% $0 0.0% 8.1%

Total 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $50 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




296

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 5 18.5% $434 13.3% 26.7% 5 18.5% 10.9% $434 13.3% 7.3%

Moderate 4 14.8% $281 8.6% 15.8% 4 14.8% 19.8% $281 8.6% 15.3%

Middle 5 18.5% $588 18.0% 18.3% 5 18.5% 19.0% $588 18.0% 19.9%

Upper 13 48.1% $1,955 60.0% 39.2% 13 48.1% 38.3% $1,955 60.0% 49.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.1% $0 0.0% 7.6%

Total 27 100.0% $3,258 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $3,258 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 22.2% $47 3.9% 26.7% 2 22.2% 3.4% $47 3.9% 1.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.8% 0 0.0% 8.7% $0 0.0% 5.1%

Middle 2 22.2% $165 13.8% 18.3% 2 22.2% 17.4% $165 13.8% 13.9%

Upper 2 22.2% $510 42.6% 39.2% 2 22.2% 52.2% $510 42.6% 59.8%

Unknown 3 33.3% $476 39.7% 0.0% 3 33.3% 18.4% $476 39.7% 20.0%

Total 9 100.0% $1,198 100.0% 100.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $1,198 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 33.3% $7 2.0% 26.7% 2 33.3% 18.6% $7 2.0% 3.5%

Moderate 1 16.7% $55 15.4% 15.8% 1 16.7% 9.3% $55 15.4% 4.5%

Middle 2 33.3% $20 5.6% 18.3% 2 33.3% 20.9% $20 5.6% 13.4%

Upper 1 16.7% $274 77.0% 39.2% 1 16.7% 41.9% $274 77.0% 73.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.3% $0 0.0% 5.2%

Total 6 100.0% $356 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $356 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 26.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 9 21.4% $488 10.1% 26.7% 9 21.4% 8.4% $488 10.1% 4.2%

Moderate 5 11.9% $336 7.0% 15.8% 5 11.9% 14.2% $336 7.0% 10.0%

Middle 9 21.4% $773 16.1% 18.3% 9 21.4% 18.4% $773 16.1% 16.5%

Upper 16 38.1% $2,739 56.9% 39.2% 16 38.1% 44.3% $2,739 56.9% 54.3%

Unknown 3 7.1% $476 9.9% 0.0% 3 7.1% 14.6% $476 9.9% 14.9%

Total 42 100.0% $4,812 100.0% 100.0% 42 100.0% 100.0% $4,812 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 2 40.0% $225 35.2% 93.9% 2 40.0% 43.7% $225 35.2% 68.3%

Over $1 Million 1 20.0% $300 46.9% 3.1% 1 20.0%


Rev. Not Known 2 40.0% $114 17.8% 2.9% 2 40.0%

Total 5 100.0% $639 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 3 60.0% $206 32.2% 3 60.0% 94.3% $206 32.2% 39.1%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 20.0% $133 20.8% 1 20.0% 2.4% $133 20.8% 11.9%

$250,001 - $1 Million 1 20.0% $300 46.9% 1 20.0% 3.2% $300 46.9% 49.0%

Total 5 100.0% $639 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $639 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 97.8% 1 100.0% 62.5% $50 100.0% 63.2%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.2% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 1 100.0% 51.8% $50 100.0% 14.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21.4% $0 0.0% 22.3%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 26.8% $0 0.0% 63.3%

Total 1 100.0% $50 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $50 100.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011




297


Assessment Area: LA Shreveport

Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

8

12.5

5,380

8.2

2,438

45.3

16,875

25.8

Moderate-income

21

32.8

17,122

26.1

4,679

27.3

10,578

16.1

Middle-income

16

25.0

18,346

28.0

2,515

13.7

12,304

18.8

Upper-income

19

29.7

24,656

37.6

1,585

6.4

25,747

39.3

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


64

100.0

65,504

100.0

11,217

17.1

65,504

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

9,911

3,659

5.9

36.9

4,918

49.6

1,334

13.5

Moderate-income

29,426

14,533

23.2

49.4

11,121

37.8

3,772

12.8

Middle-income

29,877

17,313

27.7

57.9

10,001

33.5

2,563

8.6

Upper-income

39,082

27,041

43.2

69.2

9,388

24.0

2,653

6.8

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


108,296

62,546

100.0

57.8

35,428

32.7

10,322

9.5

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,096

5.9

995

5.9

71

7.5

30

5.2

Moderate-income

4,627

25.1

4,187

24.7

271

28.6

169

29.4

Middle-income

5,616

30.5

5,046

29.8

373

39.4

197

34.3

Upper-income

7,102

38.5

6,693

39.6

231

24.4

178

31.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


18,441

100.0

16,921

100.0

946

100.0

574

100.0


91.8

5.1

3.1

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3

1.5

3

1.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

23

11.9

21

11.4

2

28.6

0

0.0

Middle-income

64

33.0

63

34.1

1

14.3

0

0.0

Upper-income

104

53.6

98

53.0

4

57.1

2

100.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


194

100.0

185

100.0

7

100.0

2

100.0


95.4

3.6

1.0





298

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.9% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 1.1%

Moderate 12 8.1% $1,316 5.0% 23.2% 12 8.1% 8.1% $1,316 5.0% 4.4%

Middle 35 23.5% $4,559 17.5% 27.7% 35 23.5% 25.3% $4,559 17.5% 20.6%

Upper 102 68.5% $20,206 77.5% 43.2% 102 68.5% 65.2% $20,206 77.5% 74.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 149 100.0% $26,081 100.0% 100.0% 149 100.0% 100.0% $26,081 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.9% 0 0.0% 1.7% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.2% 0 0.0% 5.8% $0 0.0% 2.6%

Middle 11 22.4% $2,014 20.7% 27.7% 11 22.4% 22.9% $2,014 20.7% 18.7%

Upper 38 77.6% $7,712 79.3% 43.2% 38 77.6% 69.6% $7,712 79.3% 77.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 49 100.0% $9,726 100.0% 100.0% 49 100.0% 100.0% $9,726 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.9% 0 0.0% 2.4% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.2% 0 0.0% 22.8% $0 0.0% 10.4%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 27.7% 0 0.0% 31.7% $0 0.0% 22.5%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 43.2% 0 0.0% 43.1% $0 0.0% 66.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 10.3%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 25.0% $0 0.0% 8.8%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 79.2%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 1.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.9% 0 0.0% 1.7% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Moderate 12 6.1% $1,316 3.7% 23.2% 12 6.1% 7.9% $1,316 3.7% 3.7%

Middle 46 23.2% $6,573 18.4% 27.7% 46 23.2% 24.5% $6,573 18.4% 20.6%

Upper 140 70.7% $27,918 78.0% 43.2% 140 70.7% 65.9% $27,918 78.0% 74.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 198 100.0% $35,807 100.0% 100.0% 198 100.0% 100.0% $35,807 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 5.9% 0 0.0% 4.5% $0 0.0% 4.6%

Moderate 6 7.8% $1,581 7.2% 24.7% 6 7.8% 19.4% $1,581 7.2% 18.3%

Middle 32 41.6% $11,071 50.5% 29.8% 32 41.6% 28.3% $11,071 50.5% 37.6%

Upper 39 50.6% $9,287 42.3% 39.6% 39 50.6% 46.2% $9,287 42.3% 38.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Total 77 100.0% $21,939 100.0% 100.0% 77 100.0% 100.0% $21,939 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.4% 0 0.0% 18.8% $0 0.0% 5.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 34.1% 0 0.0% 43.8% $0 0.0% 70.7%

Upper 1 100.0% $100 100.0% 53.0% 1 100.0% 37.5% $100 100.0% 24.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $100 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $100 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2011 2011

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




299

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 10 6.7% $765 2.9% 25.8% 10 6.7% 5.9% $765 2.9% 2.9%

Moderate 33 22.1% $3,872 14.8% 16.1% 33 22.1% 19.1% $3,872 14.8% 13.5%

Middle 46 30.9% $7,198 27.6% 18.8% 46 30.9% 24.0% $7,198 27.6% 22.0%

Upper 60 40.3% $14,246 54.6% 39.3% 60 40.3% 38.1% $14,246 54.6% 49.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.9% $0 0.0% 11.7%

Total 149 100.0% $26,081 100.0% 100.0% 149 100.0% 100.0% $26,081 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 2.0% $75 0.8% 25.8% 1 2.0% 4.2% $75 0.8% 1.8%

Moderate 5 10.2% $636 6.5% 16.1% 5 10.2% 10.1% $636 6.5% 5.9%

Middle 10 20.4% $1,333 13.7% 18.8% 10 20.4% 18.3% $1,333 13.7% 13.7%

Upper 33 67.3% $7,682 79.0% 39.3% 33 67.3% 49.1% $7,682 79.0% 61.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.4% $0 0.0% 16.7%

Total 49 100.0% $9,726 100.0% 100.0% 49 100.0% 100.0% $9,726 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.8% 0 0.0% 11.1% $0 0.0% 2.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.1% 0 0.0% 20.6% $0 0.0% 8.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.8% 0 0.0% 22.2% $0 0.0% 14.3%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.3% 0 0.0% 40.1% $0 0.0% 65.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.0% $0 0.0% 8.9%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 11 5.6% $840 2.3% 25.8% 11 5.6% 5.4% $840 2.3% 2.3%

Moderate 38 19.2% $4,508 12.6% 16.1% 38 19.2% 15.0% $4,508 12.6% 9.6%

Middle 56 28.3% $8,531 23.8% 18.8% 56 28.3% 21.2% $8,531 23.8% 17.5%

Upper 93 47.0% $21,928 61.2% 39.3% 93 47.0% 43.2% $21,928 61.2% 55.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.1% $0 0.0% 15.3%

Total 198 100.0% $35,807 100.0% 100.0% 198 100.0% 100.0% $35,807 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 30 39.0% $8,190 37.3% 91.8% 30 39.0% 37.1% $8,190 37.3% 36.2%

Over $1 Million 29 37.7% $10,192 46.5% 5.1% 29 37.7%


Rev. Not Known 18 23.4% $3,557 16.2% 3.1% 18 23.4%

Total 77 100.0% $21,939 100.0% 100.0% 77 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 25 32.5% $1,653 7.5% 25 32.5% 90.3% $1,653 7.5% 29.7%

$100,001 - $250,000 20 26.0% $4,081 18.6% 20 26.0% 4.9% $4,081 18.6% 17.4%

$250,001 - $1 Million 32 41.6% $16,205 73.9% 32 41.6% 4.8% $16,205 73.9% 52.9%

Total 77 100.0% $21,939 100.0% 77 100.0% 100.0% $21,939 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $100 100.0% 95.4% 1 100.0% 62.5% $100 100.0% 72.0%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.6% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $100 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $100 100.0% 1 100.0% 62.5% $100 100.0% 20.1%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.8% $0 0.0% 24.3%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.8% $0 0.0% 55.6%

Total 1 100.0% $100 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $100 100.0% 100.0%





2011

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2011



Appendix J: 2012 Limited Scope Tables

300



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

6,711

13.4

Moderate-income

1

3.2

838

1.7

179

21.4

6,800

13.5

Middle-income

12

38.7

20,264

40.4

2,467

12.2

9,734

19.4

Upper-income

18

58.1

29,093

58.0

1,937

6.7

26,950

53.7

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


31

100.0

50,195

100.0

4,583

9.1

50,195

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

1,440

688

1.3

47.8

459

31.9

293

20.3

Middle-income

38,115

20,854

39.1

54.7

6,472

17.0

10,789

28.3

Upper-income

61,538

31,767

59.6

51.6

9,236

15.0

20,535

33.4

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


101,093

53,309

100.0

52.7

16,167

16.0

31,617

31.3

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

150

1.2

128

1.1

11

2.0

11

2.0

Middle-income

4,693

36.7

4,326

37.1

177

32.7

190

33.7

Upper-income

7,937

62.1

7,222

61.9

353

65.2

362

64.3

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


12,780

100.0

11,676

100.0

541

100.0

563

100.0


91.4

4.2

4.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

3

1.2

3

1.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

148

57.4

141

56.6

7

77.8

0

0.0

Upper-income

107

41.5

105

42.2

2

22.2

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


258

100.0

249

100.0

9

100.0

0

.0


96.5

3.5

.0





301

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Middle 1 4.0% $120 1.3% 39.1% 1 4.0% 27.9% $120 1.3% 20.0%

Upper 24 96.0% $8,795 98.7% 59.6% 24 96.0% 71.7% $8,795 98.7% 79.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 25 100.0% $8,915 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% $8,915 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Middle 9 17.3% $2,508 15.6% 39.1% 9 17.3% 29.7% $2,508 15.6% 24.5%

Upper 43 82.7% $13,525 84.4% 59.6% 43 82.7% 69.7% $13,525 84.4% 75.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 52 100.0% $16,033 100.0% 100.0% 52 100.0% 100.0% $16,033 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 2.4% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.1% 0 0.0% 40.5% $0 0.0% 31.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 59.6% 0 0.0% 57.1% $0 0.0% 68.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 33.3% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 66.7% $0 0.0% 97.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Middle 10 13.0% $2,628 10.5% 39.1% 10 13.0% 29.2% $2,628 10.5% 22.2%

Upper 67 87.0% $22,320 89.5% 59.6% 67 87.0% 70.2% $22,320 89.5% 77.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 77 100.0% $24,948 100.0% 100.0% 77 100.0% 100.0% $24,948 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.1% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 2.2%

Middle 10 18.5% $4,011 22.1% 37.1% 10 18.5% 27.6% $4,011 22.1% 23.0%

Upper 44 81.5% $14,127 77.9% 61.9% 44 81.5% 63.7% $14,127 77.9% 73.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.3% $0 0.0% 1.3%

Total 54 100.0% $18,138 100.0% 100.0% 54 100.0% 100.0% $18,138 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 56.6% 0 0.0% 72.7% $0 0.0% 54.3%

Upper 1 100.0% $125 100.0% 42.2% 1 100.0% 23.4% $125 100.0% 45.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.9% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Total 1 100.0% $125 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $125 100.0% 100.0%


Based on 2012 D&B information and 2010 ACS Data.

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






302

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 4.0% $50 0.6% 13.4% 1 4.0% 1.9% $50 0.6% 0.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.5% 0 0.0% 11.8% $0 0.0% 6.9%

Middle 2 8.0% $374 4.2% 19.4% 2 8.0% 18.8% $374 4.2% 13.6%

Upper 20 80.0% $8,071 90.5% 53.7% 20 80.0% 56.4% $8,071 90.5% 67.7%

Unknown 2 8.0% $420 4.7% 0.0% 2 8.0% 11.2% $420 4.7% 11.1%

Total 25 100.0% $8,915 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% $8,915 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.4% 0 0.0% 2.3% $0 0.0% 1.4%

Moderate 1 1.9% $61 0.4% 13.5% 1 1.9% 6.9% $61 0.4% 4.0%

Middle 2 3.8% $458 2.9% 19.4% 2 3.8% 13.7% $458 2.9% 9.4%

Upper 46 88.5% $14,551 90.8% 53.7% 46 88.5% 58.5% $14,551 90.8% 66.3%

Unknown 3 5.8% $963 6.0% 0.0% 3 5.8% 18.5% $963 6.0% 18.9%

Total 52 100.0% $16,033 100.0% 100.0% 52 100.0% 100.0% $16,033 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.4% 0 0.0% 9.8% $0 0.0% 3.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.5% 0 0.0% 14.6% $0 0.0% 9.3%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.4% 0 0.0% 20.5% $0 0.0% 16.1%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 53.7% 0 0.0% 51.7% $0 0.0% 66.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.4% $0 0.0% 4.7%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 53.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 1 1.3% $50 0.2% 13.4% 1 1.3% 2.3% $50 0.2% 1.1%

Moderate 1 1.3% $61 0.2% 13.5% 1 1.3% 9.1% $61 0.2% 5.1%

Middle 4 5.2% $832 3.3% 19.4% 4 5.2% 16.0% $832 3.3% 11.0%

Upper 66 85.7% $22,622 90.7% 53.7% 66 85.7% 57.4% $22,622 90.7% 65.6%

Unknown 5 6.5% $1,383 5.5% 0.0% 5 6.5% 15.2% $1,383 5.5% 17.2%

Total 77 100.0% $24,948 100.0% 100.0% 77 100.0% 100.0% $24,948 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 23 42.6% $7,779 42.9% 91.4% 23 42.6% 42.4% $7,779 42.9% 50.3%

Over $1 Million 29 53.7% $10,345 57.0% 4.2% 29 53.7%


Rev. Not Known 2 3.7% $14 0.1% 4.4% 2 3.7%

Total 54 100.0% $18,138 100.0% 100.0% 54 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 18 33.3% $1,028 5.7% 18 33.3% 90.2% $1,028 5.7% 26.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 14 25.9% $2,891 15.9% 14 25.9% 4.6% $2,891 15.9% 17.1%

$250,001 - $1 Million 22 40.7% $14,219 78.4% 22 40.7% 5.2% $14,219 78.4% 56.0%

Total 54 100.0% $18,138 100.0% 54 100.0% 100.0% $18,138 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $125 100.0% 96.5% 1 100.0% 18.2% $125 100.0% 42.0%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.5% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $125 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 89.6% $0 0.0% 24.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 100.0% $125 100.0% 1 100.0% 3.9% $125 100.0% 14.6%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.5% $0 0.0% 61.2%

Total 1 100.0% $125 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $125 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







303



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

10

13.7

6,300

7.5

2,141

34.0

18,180

21.7

Moderate-income

17

23.3

14,686

17.5

2,197

15.0

13,012

15.5

Middle-income

23

31.5

29,890

35.6

2,100

7.0

15,353

18.3

Upper-income

23

31.5

33,011

39.4

814

2.5

37,342

44.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


73

100.0

83,887

100.0

7,252

8.6

83,887

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

15,844

3,771

4.2

23.8

8,901

56.2

3,172

20.0

Moderate-income

30,113

14,429

16.2

47.9

11,573

38.4

4,111

13.7

Middle-income

48,379

33,478

37.5

69.2

10,484

21.7

4,417

9.1

Upper-income

47,147

37,484

42.0

79.5

6,444

13.7

3,219

6.8

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


141,483

89,162

100.0

63.0

37,402

26.4

14,919

10.5

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2,465

11.7

2,117

11.1

248

21.4

100

13.5

Moderate-income

4,111

19.6

3,618

18.9

326

28.1

167

22.6

Middle-income

6,776

32.3

6,313

33.0

247

21.3

216

29.2

Upper-income

7,656

36.4

7,060

36.9

339

29.2

257

34.7

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


21,008

100.0

19,108

100.0

1,160

100.0

740

100.0


91.0

5.5

3.5

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

7

2.2

7

2.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

50

15.4

49

15.5

1

14.3

0

0.0

Middle-income

166

51.2

160

50.6

5

71.4

1

100.0

Upper-income

101

31.2

100

31.6

1

14.3

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


324

100.0

316

100.0

7

100.0

1

100.0


97.5

2.2

.3





304

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.2% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.2% 0 0.0% 9.7% $0 0.0% 6.1%

Middle 1 16.7% $138 11.2% 37.5% 1 16.7% 39.1% $138 11.2% 34.2%

Upper 5 83.3% $1,090 88.8% 42.0% 5 83.3% 49.6% $1,090 88.8% 59.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 6 100.0% $1,228 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $1,228 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.2% 0 0.0% 1.3% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 3 11.1% $487 6.2% 16.2% 3 11.1% 8.3% $487 6.2% 5.4%

Middle 7 25.9% $2,610 33.3% 37.5% 7 25.9% 34.8% $2,610 33.3% 30.5%

Upper 17 63.0% $4,733 60.4% 42.0% 17 63.0% 55.6% $4,733 60.4% 63.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 27 100.0% $7,830 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $7,830 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 25.0% $19 22.6% 4.2% 2 25.0% 3.3% $19 22.6% 1.0%

Moderate 5 62.5% $45 53.6% 16.2% 5 62.5% 17.9% $45 53.6% 10.7%

Middle 1 12.5% $20 23.8% 37.5% 1 12.5% 47.0% $20 23.8% 44.5%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 42.0% 0 0.0% 31.8% $0 0.0% 43.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 8 100.0% $84 100.0% 100.0% 8 100.0% 100.0% $84 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.2% $0 0.0% 49.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 63.6% $0 0.0% 36.7%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.2% $0 0.0% 13.7%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 2 4.9% $19 0.2% 4.2% 2 4.9% 1.6% $19 0.2% 0.8%

Moderate 8 19.5% $532 5.8% 16.2% 8 19.5% 9.4% $532 5.8% 5.9%

Middle 9 22.0% $2,768 30.3% 37.5% 9 22.0% 37.0% $2,768 30.3% 31.8%

Upper 22 53.7% $5,823 63.7% 42.0% 22 53.7% 52.0% $5,823 63.7% 61.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 41 100.0% $9,142 100.0% 100.0% 41 100.0% 100.0% $9,142 100.0% 100.0%

Low 5 10.2% $1,506 9.9% 11.1% 5 10.2% 14.4% $1,506 9.9% 18.4%

Moderate 7 14.3% $1,576 10.3% 18.9% 7 14.3% 15.1% $1,576 10.3% 16.9%

Middle 17 34.7% $3,736 24.5% 33.0% 17 34.7% 29.7% $3,736 24.5% 24.9%

Upper 20 40.8% $8,446 55.3% 36.9% 20 40.8% 39.2% $8,446 55.3% 39.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.7% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Total 49 100.0% $15,264 100.0% 100.0% 49 100.0% 100.0% $15,264 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.2% 0 0.0% 1.1% $0 0.0% 1.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.5% 0 0.0% 14.9% $0 0.0% 37.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 50.6% 0 0.0% 64.4% $0 0.0% 37.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 31.6% 0 0.0% 19.5% $0 0.0% 22.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






305

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.7% 0 0.0% 13.6% $0 0.0% 7.5%

Moderate 1 16.7% $103 8.4% 15.5% 1 16.7% 21.5% $103 8.4% 16.7%

Middle 2 33.3% $271 22.1% 18.3% 2 33.3% 20.0% $271 22.1% 19.6%

Upper 2 33.3% $575 46.8% 44.5% 2 33.3% 32.3% $575 46.8% 45.2%

Unknown 1 16.7% $279 22.7% 0.0% 1 16.7% 12.6% $279 22.7% 10.9%

Total 6 100.0% $1,228 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $1,228 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 7.4% $361 4.6% 21.7% 2 7.4% 6.2% $361 4.6% 3.1%

Moderate 6 22.2% $696 8.9% 15.5% 6 22.2% 11.5% $696 8.9% 7.3%

Middle 1 3.7% $201 2.6% 18.3% 1 3.7% 16.8% $201 2.6% 13.7%

Upper 18 66.7% $6,572 83.9% 44.5% 18 66.7% 42.6% $6,572 83.9% 49.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 22.9% $0 0.0% 26.0%

Total 27 100.0% $7,830 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $7,830 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 12.5% $8 9.5% 21.7% 1 12.5% 19.2% $8 9.5% 7.7%

Moderate 2 25.0% $19 22.6% 15.5% 2 25.0% 27.5% $19 22.6% 18.0%

Middle 4 50.0% $37 44.0% 18.3% 4 50.0% 22.7% $37 44.0% 23.3%

Upper 1 12.5% $20 23.8% 44.5% 1 12.5% 29.0% $20 23.8% 44.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.5% $0 0.0% 6.4%

Total 8 100.0% $84 100.0% 100.0% 8 100.0% 100.0% $84 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 44.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 3 7.3% $369 4.0% 21.7% 3 7.3% 9.5% $369 4.0% 4.6%

Moderate 9 22.0% $818 8.9% 15.5% 9 22.0% 15.9% $818 8.9% 10.6%

Middle 7 17.1% $509 5.6% 18.3% 7 17.1% 18.2% $509 5.6% 15.7%

Upper 21 51.2% $7,167 78.4% 44.5% 21 51.2% 38.3% $7,167 78.4% 47.9%

Unknown 1 2.4% $279 3.1% 0.0% 1 2.4% 18.1% $279 3.1% 21.1%

Total 41 100.0% $9,142 100.0% 100.0% 41 100.0% 100.0% $9,142 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 20 40.8% $5,335 35.0% 91.0% 20 40.8% 41.3% $5,335 35.0% 41.8%

Over $1 Million 17 34.7% $6,998 45.8% 5.5% 17 34.7%


Rev. Not Known 12 24.5% $2,931 19.2% 3.5% 12 24.5%

Total 49 100.0% $15,264 100.0% 100.0% 49 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 17 34.7% $836 5.5% 17 34.7% 86.6% $836 5.5% 21.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 6 12.2% $1,042 6.8% 6 12.2% 6.0% $1,042 6.8% 17.4%

$250,001 - $1 Million 26 53.1% $13,386 87.7% 26 53.1% 7.4% $13,386 87.7% 61.4%

Total 49 100.0% $15,264 100.0% 49 100.0% 100.0% $15,264 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 97.5% 0 0.0% 14.9% $0 0.0% 13.1%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.2% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 93.1% $0 0.0% 34.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.1% $0 0.0% 4.6%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.7% $0 0.0% 60.5%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







306



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

12

10.5

6,085

5.8

3,072

50.5

24,250

23.2

Moderate-income

34

29.8

23,905

22.9

5,968

25.0

17,428

16.7

Middle-income

41

36.0

40,554

38.9

4,982

12.3

20,338

19.5

Upper-income

26

22.8

33,780

32.4

2,317

6.9

42,308

40.6

Unknown-income

1

0.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


114

100.0

104,324

100.0

16,339

15.7

104,324

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

12,220

4,212

4.0

34.5

5,310

43.5

2,698

22.1

Moderate-income

43,854

20,571

19.6

46.9

16,198

36.9

7,085

16.2

Middle-income

67,433

42,685

40.7

63.3

16,370

24.3

8,378

12.4

Upper-income

52,246

37,347

35.6

71.5

10,609

20.3

4,290

8.2

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


175,753

104,815

100.0

59.6

48,487

27.6

22,451

12.8

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,487

6.8

1,262

6.5

158

11.2

67

8.4

Moderate-income

4,488

20.7

3,948

20.2

370

26.2

170

21.4

Middle-income

7,592

34.9

6,940

35.6

389

27.6

263

33.1

Upper-income

8,128

37.4

7,350

37.7

485

34.4

293

36.9

Unknown-income

29

0.1

19

0.1

9

0.6

1

0.1


21,724

100.0

19,519

100.0

1,411

100.0

794

100.0


89.8

6.5

3.7

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6

2.4

5

2.1

1

6.3

0

0.0

Moderate-income

20

7.9

17

7.2

3

18.8

0

0.0

Middle-income

133

52.6

127

53.6

6

37.5

0

0.0

Upper-income

94

37.2

88

37.1

6

37.5

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


253

100.0

237

100.0

16

100.0

0

.0


93.7

6.3

.0





307

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.0% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.6% 0 0.0% 10.7% $0 0.0% 7.4%

Middle 4 21.1% $829 14.6% 40.7% 4 21.1% 39.8% $829 14.6% 35.8%

Upper 15 78.9% $4,848 85.4% 35.6% 15 78.9% 49.0% $4,848 85.4% 56.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 19 100.0% $5,677 100.0% 100.0% 19 100.0% 100.0% $5,677 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.0% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 6 12.2% $1,169 8.6% 19.6% 6 12.2% 8.9% $1,169 8.6% 6.0%

Middle 9 18.4% $2,043 15.0% 40.7% 9 18.4% 37.5% $2,043 15.0% 34.5%

Upper 34 69.4% $10,383 76.4% 35.6% 34 69.4% 53.0% $10,383 76.4% 59.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 49 100.0% $13,595 100.0% 100.0% 49 100.0% 100.0% $13,595 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.0% 0 0.0% 3.1% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Moderate 1 33.3% $10 5.5% 19.6% 1 33.3% 17.8% $10 5.5% 6.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.7% 0 0.0% 41.4% $0 0.0% 40.2%

Upper 2 66.7% $173 94.5% 35.6% 2 66.7% 37.8% $173 94.5% 52.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $183 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $183 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 46.7% $0 0.0% 12.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 46.7% $0 0.0% 47.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.7% $0 0.0% 40.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.0% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 7 9.9% $1,179 6.1% 19.6% 7 9.9% 10.0% $1,179 6.1% 6.7%

Middle 13 18.3% $2,872 14.8% 40.7% 13 18.3% 38.6% $2,872 14.8% 35.4%

Upper 51 71.8% $15,404 79.2% 35.6% 51 71.8% 50.9% $15,404 79.2% 57.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 71 100.0% $19,455 100.0% 100.0% 71 100.0% 100.0% $19,455 100.0% 100.0%

Low 7 10.4% $3,133 17.6% 6.5% 7 10.4% 5.9% $3,133 17.6% 8.4%

Moderate 10 14.9% $2,358 13.3% 20.2% 10 14.9% 18.5% $2,358 13.3% 21.8%

Middle 14 20.9% $3,198 18.0% 35.6% 14 20.9% 29.6% $3,198 18.0% 22.4%

Upper 36 53.7% $9,072 51.1% 37.7% 36 53.7% 40.7% $9,072 51.1% 46.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.2% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Total 67 100.0% $17,761 100.0% 100.0% 67 100.0% 100.0% $17,761 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.1% 0 0.0% 4.7% $0 0.0% 10.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.2% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 53.6% 0 0.0% 46.9% $0 0.0% 36.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 37.1% 0 0.0% 45.3% $0 0.0% 53.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






308

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 5.3% $57 1.0% 23.2% 1 5.3% 5.3% $57 1.0% 2.7%

Moderate 3 15.8% $339 6.0% 16.7% 3 15.8% 23.0% $339 6.0% 17.2%

Middle 1 5.3% $133 2.3% 19.5% 1 5.3% 25.4% $133 2.3% 24.4%

Upper 14 73.7% $5,148 90.7% 40.6% 14 73.7% 29.2% $5,148 90.7% 40.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 17.1% $0 0.0% 15.1%

Total 19 100.0% $5,677 100.0% 100.0% 19 100.0% 100.0% $5,677 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 4.1% $243 1.8% 23.2% 2 4.1% 3.8% $243 1.8% 2.2%

Moderate 3 6.1% $337 2.5% 16.7% 3 6.1% 10.1% $337 2.5% 6.3%

Middle 3 6.1% $245 1.8% 19.5% 3 6.1% 16.7% $245 1.8% 13.0%

Upper 41 83.7% $12,770 93.9% 40.6% 41 83.7% 44.6% $12,770 93.9% 53.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 24.8% $0 0.0% 25.5%

Total 49 100.0% $13,595 100.0% 100.0% 49 100.0% 100.0% $13,595 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.2% 0 0.0% 10.0% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Moderate 1 33.3% $140 76.5% 16.7% 1 33.3% 19.4% $140 76.5% 14.1%

Middle 1 33.3% $10 5.5% 19.5% 1 33.3% 27.2% $10 5.5% 15.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.6% 0 0.0% 38.9% $0 0.0% 58.6%

Unknown 1 33.3% $33 18.0% 0.0% 1 33.3% 4.4% $33 18.0% 9.4%

Total 3 100.0% $183 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $183 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 3 4.2% $300 1.5% 23.2% 3 4.2% 4.6% $300 1.5% 2.3%

Moderate 7 9.9% $816 4.2% 16.7% 7 9.9% 15.4% $816 4.2% 10.2%

Middle 5 7.0% $388 2.0% 19.5% 5 7.0% 20.4% $388 2.0% 16.8%

Upper 55 77.5% $17,918 92.1% 40.6% 55 77.5% 38.3% $17,918 92.1% 47.0%

Unknown 1 1.4% $33 0.2% 0.0% 1 1.4% 21.2% $33 0.2% 23.6%

Total 71 100.0% $19,455 100.0% 100.0% 71 100.0% 100.0% $19,455 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 32 47.8% $6,834 38.5% 89.8% 32 47.8% 38.5% $6,834 38.5% 39.3%

Over $1 Million 27 40.3% $8,901 50.1% 6.5% 27 40.3%


Rev. Not Known 8 11.9% $2,026 11.4% 3.7% 8 11.9%

Total 67 100.0% $17,761 100.0% 100.0% 67 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 26 38.8% $1,576 8.9% 26 38.8% 87.0% $1,576 8.9% 23.7%

$100,001 - $250,000 18 26.9% $2,760 15.5% 18 26.9% 6.7% $2,760 15.5% 20.1%

$250,001 - $1 Million 23 34.3% $13,425 75.6% 23 34.3% 6.3% $13,425 75.6% 56.2%

Total 67 100.0% $17,761 100.0% 67 100.0% 100.0% $17,761 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 93.7% 0 0.0% 35.9% $0 0.0% 45.2%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.3% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 65.6% $0 0.0% 13.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21.9% $0 0.0% 35.2%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 50.9%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







309



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

15

15.6

8,479

8.9

3,904

46.0

22,555

23.6

Moderate-income

18

18.8

18,460

19.3

3,805

20.6

15,751

16.5

Middle-income

34

35.4

37,568

39.3

3,641

9.7

17,747

18.6

Upper-income

29

30.2

31,133

32.6

1,316

4.2

39,587

41.4

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


96

100.0

95,640

100.0

12,666

13.2

95,640

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

17,504

5,908

6.1

33.8

8,090

46.2

3,506

20.0

Moderate-income

31,587

16,877

17.6

53.4

10,482

33.2

4,228

13.4

Middle-income

61,042

38,907

40.5

63.7

14,540

23.8

7,595

12.4

Upper-income

49,687

34,391

35.8

69.2

11,262

22.7

4,034

8.1

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


159,820

96,083

100.0

60.1

44,374

27.8

19,363

12.1

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3,008

14.7

2,516

13.6

303

25.3

189

23.0

Moderate-income

3,388

16.5

3,042

16.4

214

17.8

132

16.0

Middle-income

6,753

32.9

6,222

33.6

300

25.0

231

28.1

Upper-income

7,371

35.9

6,717

36.3

383

31.9

271

32.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


20,520

100.0

18,497

100.0

1,200

100.0

823

100.0


90.1

5.8

4.0

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

15

3.5

11

2.7

3

23.1

1

50.0

Moderate-income

72

16.9

69

16.8

2

15.4

1

50.0

Middle-income

244

57.4

238

58.0

6

46.2

0

0.0

Upper-income

94

22.1

92

22.4

2

15.4

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


425

100.0

410

100.0

13

100.0

2

100.0


96.5

3.1

.5





310

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 3 1.0% $393 0.8% 6.1% 3 1.0% 1.4% $393 0.8% 0.6%

Moderate 19 6.5% $1,816 3.9% 17.6% 19 6.5% 8.7% $1,816 3.9% 5.0%

Middle 120 41.0% $17,328 37.4% 40.5% 120 41.0% 39.6% $17,328 37.4% 36.1%

Upper 151 51.5% $26,799 57.8% 35.8% 151 51.5% 50.3% $26,799 57.8% 58.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 293 100.0% $46,336 100.0% 100.0% 293 100.0% 100.0% $46,336 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 1.2% $517 1.1% 6.1% 3 1.2% 1.3% $517 1.1% 0.7%

Moderate 8 3.2% $1,215 2.6% 17.6% 8 3.2% 7.2% $1,215 2.6% 4.0%

Middle 89 35.5% $14,472 30.5% 40.5% 89 35.5% 36.2% $14,472 30.5% 34.2%

Upper 151 60.2% $31,274 65.9% 35.8% 151 60.2% 55.3% $31,274 65.9% 61.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 251 100.0% $47,478 100.0% 100.0% 251 100.0% 100.0% $47,478 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.1% 0 0.0% 4.9% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.6% 0 0.0% 18.2% $0 0.0% 7.9%

Middle 5 83.3% $56 69.1% 40.5% 5 83.3% 46.1% $56 69.1% 36.6%

Upper 1 16.7% $25 30.9% 35.8% 1 16.7% 30.8% $25 30.9% 54.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 6 100.0% $81 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $81 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.3% $0 0.0% 3.5%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.3% $0 0.0% 12.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 33.3% $0 0.0% 18.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 50.0% $0 0.0% 66.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 6 1.1% $910 1.0% 6.1% 6 1.1% 1.5% $910 1.0% 0.7%

Moderate 27 4.9% $3,031 3.2% 17.6% 27 4.9% 8.1% $3,031 3.2% 4.5%

Middle 214 38.9% $31,856 33.9% 40.5% 214 38.9% 37.7% $31,856 33.9% 34.6%

Upper 303 55.1% $58,098 61.9% 35.8% 303 55.1% 52.7% $58,098 61.9% 60.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 550 100.0% $93,895 100.0% 100.0% 550 100.0% 100.0% $93,895 100.0% 100.0%

Low 6 20.0% $827 14.0% 13.6% 6 20.0% 14.8% $827 14.0% 20.7%

Moderate 4 13.3% $632 10.7% 16.4% 4 13.3% 14.0% $632 10.7% 15.6%

Middle 3 10.0% $940 15.9% 33.6% 3 10.0% 28.8% $940 15.9% 17.1%

Upper 17 56.7% $3,509 59.4% 36.3% 17 56.7% 39.1% $3,509 59.4% 46.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.3% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Total 30 100.0% $5,908 100.0% 100.0% 30 100.0% 100.0% $5,908 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.7% 0 0.0% 1.0% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.8% 0 0.0% 26.0% $0 0.0% 21.9%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 58.0% 0 0.0% 41.0% $0 0.0% 35.2%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.4% 0 0.0% 30.0% $0 0.0% 42.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.0% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




311

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 36 12.3% $3,353 7.2% 23.6% 36 12.3% 11.9% $3,353 7.2% 6.1%

Moderate 83 28.3% $10,722 23.1% 16.5% 83 28.3% 23.5% $10,722 23.1% 18.2%

Middle 77 26.3% $12,161 26.2% 18.6% 77 26.3% 22.7% $12,161 26.2% 22.6%

Upper 96 32.8% $19,953 43.1% 41.4% 96 32.8% 27.6% $19,953 43.1% 39.2%

Unknown 1 0.3% $147 0.3% 0.0% 1 0.3% 14.3% $147 0.3% 13.9%

Total 293 100.0% $46,336 100.0% 100.0% 293 100.0% 100.0% $46,336 100.0% 100.0%

Low 12 4.8% $1,876 4.0% 23.6% 12 4.8% 5.2% $1,876 4.0% 2.9%

Moderate 50 19.9% $7,031 14.8% 16.5% 50 19.9% 12.1% $7,031 14.8% 8.1%

Middle 49 19.5% $7,891 16.6% 18.6% 49 19.5% 16.7% $7,891 16.6% 13.8%

Upper 109 43.4% $24,526 51.7% 41.4% 109 43.4% 37.4% $24,526 51.7% 44.6%

Unknown 31 12.4% $6,154 13.0% 0.0% 31 12.4% 28.6% $6,154 13.0% 30.6%

Total 251 100.0% $47,478 100.0% 100.0% 251 100.0% 100.0% $47,478 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.6% 0 0.0% 18.8% $0 0.0% 7.1%

Moderate 1 16.7% $9 11.1% 16.5% 1 16.7% 19.6% $9 11.1% 10.5%

Middle 1 16.7% $7 8.6% 18.6% 1 16.7% 22.0% $7 8.6% 12.5%

Upper 3 50.0% $45 55.6% 41.4% 3 50.0% 34.7% $45 55.6% 55.8%

Unknown 1 16.7% $20 24.7% 0.0% 1 16.7% 4.9% $20 24.7% 14.1%

Total 6 100.0% $81 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $81 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 48 8.7% $5,229 5.6% 23.6% 48 8.7% 7.9% $5,229 5.6% 3.9%

Moderate 134 24.4% $17,762 18.9% 16.5% 134 24.4% 16.2% $17,762 18.9% 11.3%

Middle 127 23.1% $20,059 21.4% 18.6% 127 23.1% 18.9% $20,059 21.4% 16.4%

Upper 208 37.8% $44,524 47.4% 41.4% 208 37.8% 34.0% $44,524 47.4% 42.3%

Unknown 33 6.0% $6,321 6.7% 0.0% 33 6.0% 23.0% $6,321 6.7% 26.0%

Total 550 100.0% $93,895 100.0% 100.0% 550 100.0% 100.0% $93,895 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 12 40.0% $817 13.8% 90.1% 12 40.0% 39.9% $817 13.8% 41.5%

Over $1 Million 13 43.3% $4,485 75.9% 5.8% 13 43.3%


Rev. Not Known 5 16.7% $606 10.3% 4.0% 5 16.7%

Total 30 100.0% $5,908 100.0% 100.0% 30 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 16 53.3% $726 12.3% 16 53.3% 87.6% $726 12.3% 23.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 6 20.0% $1,089 18.4% 6 20.0% 6.0% $1,089 18.4% 18.9%

$250,001 - $1 Million 8 26.7% $4,093 69.3% 8 26.7% 6.4% $4,093 69.3% 57.2%

Total 30 100.0% $5,908 100.0% 30 100.0% 100.0% $5,908 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 96.5% 0 0.0% 57.0% $0 0.0% 70.9%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.1% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.5% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 81.0% $0 0.0% 24.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.0% $0 0.0% 35.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.0% $0 0.0% 40.1%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%





2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012




312



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2

8.3

1,845

6.0

909

49.3

7,496

24.2

Moderate-income

7

29.2

8,515

27.5

2,170

25.5

5,258

17.0

Middle-income

10

41.7

12,598

40.6

1,587

12.6

5,860

18.9

Upper-income

5

20.8

8,037

25.9

413

5.1

12,381

39.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


24

100.0

30,995

100.0

5,079

16.4

30,995

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3,830

765

2.7

20.0

2,392

62.5

673

17.6

Moderate-income

15,541

7,207

25.5

46.4

6,434

41.4

1,900

12.2

Middle-income

19,558

12,206

43.1

62.4

5,284

27.0

2,068

10.6

Upper-income

11,755

8,126

28.7

69.1

2,995

25.5

634

5.4

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


50,684

28,304

100.0

55.8

17,105

33.7

5,275

10.4

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

236

3.9

207

3.8

16

4.2

13

5.0

Moderate-income

2,218

36.2

1,938

35.3

175

46.1

105

40.7

Middle-income

1,730

28.3

1,565

28.5

95

25.0

70

27.1

Upper-income

1,938

31.7

1,774

32.3

94

24.7

70

27.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


6,122

100.0

5,484

100.0

380

100.0

258

100.0


89.6

6.2

4.2

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

14

2.1

12

1.8

2

13.3

0

0.0

Moderate-income

183

27.2

180

27.4

1

6.7

2

66.7

Middle-income

309

45.8

299

45.6

10

66.7

0

0.0

Upper-income

168

24.9

165

25.2

2

13.3

1

33.3

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


674

100.0

656

100.0

15

100.0

3

100.0


97.3

2.2

.4





313

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 4 8.5% $410 5.1% 2.7% 4 8.5% 2.4% $410 5.1% 1.5%

Moderate 10 21.3% $1,099 13.8% 25.5% 10 21.3% 19.9% $1,099 13.8% 16.1%

Middle 9 19.1% $1,950 24.5% 43.1% 9 19.1% 35.7% $1,950 24.5% 30.6%

Upper 24 51.1% $4,511 56.6% 28.7% 24 51.1% 42.0% $4,511 56.6% 51.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 47 100.0% $7,970 100.0% 100.0% 47 100.0% 100.0% $7,970 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.7% 0 0.0% 1.9% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 19 29.2% $1,667 16.9% 25.5% 19 29.2% 18.2% $1,667 16.9% 12.5%

Middle 13 20.0% $1,027 10.4% 43.1% 13 20.0% 29.8% $1,027 10.4% 24.3%

Upper 33 50.8% $7,198 72.8% 28.7% 33 50.8% 50.1% $7,198 72.8% 62.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 65 100.0% $9,892 100.0% 100.0% 65 100.0% 100.0% $9,892 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.7% 0 0.0% 4.7% $0 0.0% 3.5%

Moderate 15 44.1% $125 36.8% 25.5% 15 44.1% 32.4% $125 36.8% 21.1%

Middle 7 20.6% $102 30.0% 43.1% 7 20.6% 29.7% $102 30.0% 26.3%

Upper 12 35.3% $113 33.2% 28.7% 12 35.3% 33.1% $113 33.2% 49.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 34 100.0% $340 100.0% 100.0% 34 100.0% 100.0% $340 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.7% $0 0.0% 4.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 25.0% $0 0.0% 19.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 32.1% $0 0.0% 19.5%

Upper 1 100.0% $298 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 32.1% $298 100.0% 57.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $298 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $298 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 2.7% $410 2.2% 2.7% 4 2.7% 2.3% $410 2.2% 1.4%

Moderate 44 29.9% $2,891 15.6% 25.5% 44 29.9% 19.7% $2,891 15.6% 14.5%

Middle 29 19.7% $3,079 16.6% 43.1% 29 19.7% 32.3% $3,079 16.6% 26.5%

Upper 70 47.6% $12,120 65.5% 28.7% 70 47.6% 45.7% $12,120 65.5% 57.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 147 100.0% $18,500 100.0% 100.0% 147 100.0% 100.0% $18,500 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.8% 0 0.0% 2.1% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Moderate 43 38.4% $7,821 39.0% 35.3% 43 38.4% 31.7% $7,821 39.0% 36.1%

Middle 31 27.7% $5,513 27.5% 28.5% 31 27.7% 27.5% $5,513 27.5% 24.6%

Upper 38 33.9% $6,722 33.5% 32.3% 38 33.9% 30.8% $6,722 33.5% 36.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.9% $0 0.0% 1.3%

Total 112 100.0% $20,056 100.0% 100.0% 112 100.0% 100.0% $20,056 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.8% 0 0.0% 2.2% $0 0.0% 1.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 27.4% 0 0.0% 15.2% $0 0.0% 8.8%

Middle 14 73.7% $2,083 72.9% 45.6% 14 73.7% 56.0% $2,083 72.9% 60.2%

Upper 5 26.3% $775 27.1% 25.2% 5 26.3% 26.3% $775 27.1% 29.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 19 100.0% $2,858 100.0% 100.0% 19 100.0% 100.0% $2,858 100.0% 100.0%





Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar

Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E




314

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 4.3% $184 2.3% 24.2% 2 4.3% 6.8% $184 2.3% 3.8%

Moderate 10 21.3% $970 12.2% 17.0% 10 21.3% 17.4% $970 12.2% 12.5%

Middle 13 27.7% $1,796 22.5% 18.9% 13 27.7% 19.2% $1,796 22.5% 17.2%

Upper 21 44.7% $4,885 61.3% 39.9% 21 44.7% 34.4% $4,885 61.3% 44.3%

Unknown 1 2.1% $135 1.7% 0.0% 1 2.1% 22.2% $135 1.7% 22.2%

Total 47 100.0% $7,970 100.0% 100.0% 47 100.0% 100.0% $7,970 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 3.1% $72 0.7% 24.2% 2 3.1% 4.3% $72 0.7% 2.1%

Moderate 12 18.5% $894 9.0% 17.0% 12 18.5% 12.9% $894 9.0% 7.3%

Middle 17 26.2% $1,306 13.2% 18.9% 17 26.2% 16.2% $1,306 13.2% 11.9%

Upper 29 44.6% $6,905 69.8% 39.9% 29 44.6% 45.8% $6,905 69.8% 56.8%

Unknown 5 7.7% $715 7.2% 0.0% 5 7.7% 20.7% $715 7.2% 21.9%

Total 65 100.0% $9,892 100.0% 100.0% 65 100.0% 100.0% $9,892 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 11.8% $22 6.5% 24.2% 4 11.8% 11.5% $22 6.5% 5.0%

Moderate 13 38.2% $139 40.9% 17.0% 13 38.2% 20.3% $139 40.9% 9.8%

Middle 5 14.7% $58 17.1% 18.9% 5 14.7% 16.2% $58 17.1% 11.8%

Upper 7 20.6% $80 23.5% 39.9% 7 20.6% 41.6% $80 23.5% 61.4%

Unknown 5 14.7% $41 12.1% 0.0% 5 14.7% 10.5% $41 12.1% 12.1%

Total 34 100.0% $340 100.0% 100.0% 34 100.0% 100.0% $340 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $298 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $298 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $298 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $298 100.0% 100.0%

Low 8 5.4% $278 1.5% 24.2% 8 5.4% 5.7% $278 1.5% 2.7%

Moderate 35 23.8% $2,003 10.8% 17.0% 35 23.8% 15.1% $2,003 10.8% 9.0%

Middle 35 23.8% $3,160 17.1% 18.9% 35 23.8% 17.4% $3,160 17.1% 13.3%

Upper 57 38.8% $11,870 64.2% 39.9% 57 38.8% 40.6% $11,870 64.2% 48.5%

Unknown 12 8.2% $1,189 6.4% 0.0% 12 8.2% 21.2% $1,189 6.4% 26.5%

Total 147 100.0% $18,500 100.0% 100.0% 147 100.0% 100.0% $18,500 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 59 52.7% $7,778 38.8% 89.6% 59 52.7% 33.5% $7,778 38.8% 37.7%

Over $1 Million 39 34.8% $10,206 50.9% 6.2% 39 34.8%


Rev. Not Known 14 12.5% $2,072 10.3% 4.2% 14 12.5%

Total 112 100.0% $20,056 100.0% 100.0% 112 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 68 60.7% $3,089 15.4% 68 60.7% 91.5% $3,089 15.4% 27.7%

$100,001 - $250,000 12 10.7% $2,126 10.6% 12 10.7% 4.3% $2,126 10.6% 18.4%

$250,001 - $1 Million 32 28.6% $14,841 74.0% 32 28.6% 4.3% $14,841 74.0% 53.9%

Total 112 100.0% $20,056 100.0% 112 100.0% 100.0% $20,056 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 14 73.7% $2,353 82.3% 97.3% 14 73.7% 43.0% $2,353 82.3% 53.5%

Over $1 Million 2 10.5% $30 1.0% 2.2% 2 10.5%

Not Known 3 15.8% $475 16.6% 0.4% 3 15.8%

Total 19 100.0% $2,858 100.0% 100.0% 19 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 8 42.1% $388 13.6% 8 42.1% 69.0% $388 13.6% 18.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 8 42.1% $1,600 56.0% 8 42.1% 18.4% $1,600 56.0% 33.8%

$250,001 - $500,000 3 15.8% $870 30.4% 3 15.8% 12.7% $870 30.4% 47.9%

Total 19 100.0% $2,858 100.0% 19 100.0% 100.0% $2,858 100.0% 100.0%





2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012




315



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

7,369

21.3

Moderate-income

4

11.8

3,515

10.2

699

19.9

6,205

18.0

Middle-income

28

82.4

28,401

82.2

4,453

15.7

7,469

21.6

Upper-income

2

5.9

2,637

7.6

104

3.9

13,510

39.1

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


34

100.0

34,553

100.0

5,256

15.2

34,553

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

6,457

3,727

10.4

57.7

1,501

23.2

1,229

19.0

Middle-income

49,518

29,384

81.6

59.3

12,389

25.0

7,745

15.6

Upper-income

3,930

2,898

8.0

73.7

645

16.4

387

9.8

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


59,905

36,009

100.0

60.1

14,535

24.3

9,361

15.6

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

518

9.1

460

8.9

31

12.8

27

9.2

Middle-income

4,878

85.6

4,420

85.6

200

82.6

258

88.1

Upper-income

304

5.3

285

5.5

11

4.5

8

2.7

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


5,700

100.0

5,165

100.0

242

100.0

293

100.0


90.6

4.2

5.1

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

117

13.2

115

13.1

2

28.6

0

0.0

Middle-income

754

85.2

749

85.3

5

71.4

0

0.0

Upper-income

14

1.6

14

1.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


885

100.0

878

100.0

7

100.0

0

.0


99.2

.8

.0





316

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 5 10.6% $323 7.1% 10.4% 5 10.6% 7.0% $323 7.1% 5.6%

Middle 41 87.2% $4,159 91.6% 81.6% 41 87.2% 80.1% $4,159 91.6% 78.8%

Upper 1 2.1% $58 1.3% 8.0% 1 2.1% 11.7% $58 1.3% 14.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.2% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Total 47 100.0% $4,540 100.0% 100.0% 47 100.0% 100.0% $4,540 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 15 15.0% $1,799 21.2% 10.4% 15 15.0% 7.1% $1,799 21.2% 6.7%

Middle 85 85.0% $6,668 78.8% 81.6% 85 85.0% 81.5% $6,668 78.8% 81.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 8.0% 0 0.0% 10.8% $0 0.0% 11.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Total 100 100.0% $8,467 100.0% 100.0% 100 100.0% 100.0% $8,467 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 7 12.7% $65 11.1% 10.4% 7 12.7% 9.8% $65 11.1% 7.5%

Middle 46 83.6% $511 87.5% 81.6% 46 83.6% 79.9% $511 87.5% 77.9%

Upper 2 3.6% $8 1.4% 8.0% 2 3.6% 9.8% $8 1.4% 14.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 55 100.0% $584 100.0% 100.0% 55 100.0% 100.0% $584 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 1 100.0% $398 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 75.0% $398 100.0% 79.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 25.0% $0 0.0% 20.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $398 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $398 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 27 13.3% $2,187 15.6% 10.4% 27 13.3% 7.3% $2,187 15.6% 6.2%

Middle 173 85.2% $11,736 83.9% 81.6% 173 85.2% 80.8% $11,736 83.9% 80.3%

Upper 3 1.5% $66 0.5% 8.0% 3 1.5% 11.1% $66 0.5% 12.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.8% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Total 203 100.0% $13,989 100.0% 100.0% 203 100.0% 100.0% $13,989 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 6 12.8% $711 13.1% 8.9% 6 12.8% 9.0% $711 13.1% 11.5%

Middle 40 85.1% $4,687 86.3% 85.6% 40 85.1% 75.2% $4,687 86.3% 83.4%

Upper 1 2.1% $30 0.6% 5.5% 1 2.1% 5.4% $30 0.6% 1.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.4% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Total 47 100.0% $5,428 100.0% 100.0% 47 100.0% 100.0% $5,428 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 5 5.1% $498 4.7% 13.1% 5 5.1% 10.2% $498 4.7% 11.4%

Middle 93 94.9% $10,019 95.3% 85.3% 93 94.9% 87.1% $10,019 95.3% 84.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.6% 0 0.0% 2.3% $0 0.0% 3.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.4% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 98 100.0% $10,517 100.0% 100.0% 98 100.0% 100.0% $10,517 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






317

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 2.1% $58 1.3% 21.3% 1 2.1% 5.4% $58 1.3% 3.4%

Moderate 13 27.7% $845 18.6% 18.0% 13 27.7% 21.9% $845 18.6% 17.3%

Middle 10 21.3% $858 18.9% 21.6% 10 21.3% 21.1% $858 18.9% 19.3%

Upper 21 44.7% $2,682 59.1% 39.1% 21 44.7% 35.6% $2,682 59.1% 44.6%

Unknown 2 4.3% $97 2.1% 0.0% 2 4.3% 15.9% $97 2.1% 15.3%

Total 47 100.0% $4,540 100.0% 100.0% 47 100.0% 100.0% $4,540 100.0% 100.0%

Low 9 9.0% $225 2.7% 21.3% 9 9.0% 5.7% $225 2.7% 3.3%

Moderate 15 15.0% $447 5.3% 18.0% 15 15.0% 14.0% $447 5.3% 9.3%

Middle 22 22.0% $960 11.3% 21.6% 22 22.0% 18.5% $960 11.3% 14.7%

Upper 49 49.0% $6,403 75.6% 39.1% 49 49.0% 48.6% $6,403 75.6% 58.3%

Unknown 5 5.0% $432 5.1% 0.0% 5 5.0% 13.2% $432 5.1% 14.3%

Total 100 100.0% $8,467 100.0% 100.0% 100 100.0% 100.0% $8,467 100.0% 100.0%

Low 9 16.4% $47 8.0% 21.3% 9 16.4% 11.1% $47 8.0% 4.9%

Moderate 12 21.8% $160 27.4% 18.0% 12 21.8% 21.8% $160 27.4% 13.0%

Middle 18 32.7% $151 25.9% 21.6% 18 32.7% 24.8% $151 25.9% 18.8%

Upper 14 25.5% $199 34.1% 39.1% 14 25.5% 37.6% $199 34.1% 56.7%

Unknown 2 3.6% $27 4.6% 0.0% 2 3.6% 4.7% $27 4.6% 6.6%

Total 55 100.0% $584 100.0% 100.0% 55 100.0% 100.0% $584 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $398 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $398 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $398 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $398 100.0% 100.0%

Low 19 9.4% $330 2.4% 21.3% 19 9.4% 6.0% $330 2.4% 3.4%

Moderate 40 19.7% $1,452 10.4% 18.0% 40 19.7% 17.8% $1,452 10.4% 12.8%

Middle 50 24.6% $1,969 14.1% 21.6% 50 24.6% 20.1% $1,969 14.1% 16.7%

Upper 84 41.4% $9,284 66.4% 39.1% 84 41.4% 42.4% $9,284 66.4% 52.3%

Unknown 10 4.9% $954 6.8% 0.0% 10 4.9% 13.8% $954 6.8% 14.8%

Total 203 100.0% $13,989 100.0% 100.0% 203 100.0% 100.0% $13,989 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 29 61.7% $1,990 36.7% 90.6% 29 61.7% 30.3% $1,990 36.7% 40.7%

Over $1 Million 11 23.4% $2,674 49.3% 4.2% 11 23.4%


Rev. Not Known 7 14.9% $764 14.1% 5.1% 7 14.9%

Total 47 100.0% $5,428 100.0% 100.0% 47 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 32 68.1% $1,245 22.9% 32 68.1% 95.3% $1,245 22.9% 45.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 8 17.0% $1,538 28.3% 8 17.0% 2.7% $1,538 28.3% 18.4%

$250,001 - $1 Million 7 14.9% $2,645 48.7% 7 14.9% 2.0% $2,645 48.7% 36.3%

Total 47 100.0% $5,428 100.0% 47 100.0% 100.0% $5,428 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 83 84.7% $8,996 85.5% 99.2% 83 84.7% 46.4% $8,996 85.5% 60.4%

Over $1 Million 6 6.1% $555 5.3% 0.8% 6 6.1%

Not Known 9 9.2% $966 9.2% 0.0% 9 9.2%

Total 98 100.0% $10,517 100.0% 100.0% 98 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 62 63.3% $2,540 24.2% 62 63.3% 73.2% $2,540 24.2% 20.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 29 29.6% $5,177 49.2% 29 29.6% 15.0% $5,177 49.2% 31.3%

$250,001 - $500,000 7 7.1% $2,800 26.6% 7 7.1% 11.8% $2,800 26.6% 48.1%

Total 98 100.0% $10,517 100.0% 98 100.0% 100.0% $10,517 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







318



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

5

3.0

4,411

2.7

1,344

30.5

30,892

19.0

Moderate-income

32

19.3

27,458

16.9

4,214

15.3

30,886

19.0

Middle-income

80

48.2

86,515

53.1

5,796

6.7

34,898

21.4

Upper-income

48

28.9

44,541

27.3

1,390

3.1

66,249

40.7

Unknown-income

1

0.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


166

100.0

162,925

100.0

12,744

7.8

162,925

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

10,760

2,430

1.3

22.6

5,440

50.6

2,890

26.9

Moderate-income

61,029

26,066

14.2

42.7

16,593

27.2

18,370

30.1

Middle-income

185,990

102,292

55.6

55.0

29,224

15.7

54,474

29.3

Upper-income

106,113

53,140

28.9

50.1

10,566

10.0

42,407

40.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


363,892

183,928

100.0

50.5

61,823

17.0

118,141

32.5

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,880

3.4

1,619

3.2

161

8.0

100

5.5

Moderate-income

8,071

14.8

7,435

14.6

328

16.2

308

16.9

Middle-income

28,505

52.1

26,719

52.6

871

43.1

915

50.1

Upper-income

16,176

29.6

15,022

29.5

655

32.4

499

27.3

Unknown-income

52

0.1

42

0.1

5

0.2

5

0.3


54,684

100.0

50,837

100.0

2,020

100.0

1,827

100.0


93.0

3.7

3.3

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

5

1.3

4

1.1

1

8.3

0

0.0

Moderate-income

48

12.6

46

12.5

2

16.7

0

0.0

Middle-income

175

45.9

171

46.3

4

33.3

0

0.0

Upper-income

153

40.2

148

40.1

5

41.7

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


381

100.0

369

100.0

12

100.0

0

.0


96.9

3.1

.0





319

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 2 0.9% $77 0.3% 1.3% 2 0.9% 0.4% $77 0.3% 0.2%

Moderate 55 25.1% $4,312 16.1% 14.2% 55 25.1% 10.5% $4,312 16.1% 6.9%

Middle 128 58.4% $14,860 55.5% 55.6% 128 58.4% 53.0% $14,860 55.5% 42.7%

Upper 34 15.5% $7,539 28.1% 28.9% 34 15.5% 36.1% $7,539 28.1% 50.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Total 219 100.0% $26,788 100.0% 100.0% 219 100.0% 100.0% $26,788 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 0.5% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 5 8.2% $813 5.4% 14.2% 5 8.2% 8.5% $813 5.4% 6.6%

Middle 22 36.1% $3,852 25.7% 55.6% 22 36.1% 50.3% $3,852 25.7% 43.3%

Upper 34 55.7% $10,311 68.9% 28.9% 34 55.7% 40.8% $10,311 68.9% 49.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 61 100.0% $14,976 100.0% 100.0% 61 100.0% 100.0% $14,976 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.3% 0 0.0% 0.8% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Moderate 6 42.9% $79 17.6% 14.2% 6 42.9% 12.0% $79 17.6% 3.8%

Middle 4 28.6% $85 18.9% 55.6% 4 28.6% 58.2% $85 18.9% 48.7%

Upper 4 28.6% $285 63.5% 28.9% 4 28.6% 29.0% $285 63.5% 46.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 14 100.0% $449 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $449 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.2% $0 0.0% 66.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.2% $0 0.0% 7.6%

Middle 1 100.0% $210 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 36.4% $210 100.0% 17.9%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 30.3% $0 0.0% 7.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $210 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $210 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 0.7% $77 0.2% 1.3% 2 0.7% 0.5% $77 0.2% 1.2%

Moderate 66 22.4% $5,204 12.3% 14.2% 66 22.4% 9.4% $5,204 12.3% 6.7%

Middle 155 52.5% $19,007 44.8% 55.6% 155 52.5% 51.5% $19,007 44.8% 42.7%

Upper 72 24.4% $18,135 42.7% 28.9% 72 24.4% 38.7% $18,135 42.7% 49.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 295 100.0% $42,423 100.0% 100.0% 295 100.0% 100.0% $42,423 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 4.8% $221 3.9% 3.2% 2 4.8% 3.8% $221 3.9% 6.5%

Moderate 6 14.3% $770 13.6% 14.6% 6 14.3% 12.4% $770 13.6% 16.7%

Middle 22 52.4% $3,302 58.4% 52.6% 22 52.4% 46.9% $3,302 58.4% 44.2%

Upper 12 28.6% $1,362 24.1% 29.5% 12 28.6% 33.8% $1,362 24.1% 31.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.0% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Total 42 100.0% $5,655 100.0% 100.0% 42 100.0% 100.0% $5,655 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.5% 0 0.0% 11.4% $0 0.0% 6.5%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 46.3% 0 0.0% 40.0% $0 0.0% 33.3%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.1% 0 0.0% 45.7% $0 0.0% 54.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.9% $0 0.0% 5.9%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






320

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 42 19.2% $3,189 11.9% 19.0% 42 19.2% 6.7% $3,189 11.9% 3.0%

Moderate 63 28.8% $5,591 20.9% 19.0% 63 28.8% 14.6% $5,591 20.9% 8.9%

Middle 43 19.6% $5,092 19.0% 21.4% 43 19.6% 16.9% $5,092 19.0% 13.0%

Upper 59 26.9% $12,461 46.5% 40.7% 59 26.9% 50.1% $12,461 46.5% 64.8%

Unknown 12 5.5% $455 1.7% 0.0% 12 5.5% 11.6% $455 1.7% 10.3%

Total 219 100.0% $26,788 100.0% 100.0% 219 100.0% 100.0% $26,788 100.0% 100.0%

Low 6 9.8% $713 4.8% 19.0% 6 9.8% 6.0% $713 4.8% 3.8%

Moderate 9 14.8% $1,225 8.2% 19.0% 9 14.8% 11.2% $1,225 8.2% 7.1%

Middle 6 9.8% $1,214 8.1% 21.4% 6 9.8% 17.5% $1,214 8.1% 13.4%

Upper 37 60.7% $11,035 73.7% 40.7% 37 60.7% 54.1% $11,035 73.7% 63.7%

Unknown 3 4.9% $789 5.3% 0.0% 3 4.9% 11.2% $789 5.3% 12.0%

Total 61 100.0% $14,976 100.0% 100.0% 61 100.0% 100.0% $14,976 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.0% 0 0.0% 10.4% $0 0.0% 2.8%

Moderate 3 21.4% $28 6.2% 19.0% 3 21.4% 21.6% $28 6.2% 13.5%

Middle 2 14.3% $15 3.3% 21.4% 2 14.3% 24.3% $15 3.3% 18.4%

Upper 8 57.1% $386 86.0% 40.7% 8 57.1% 39.1% $386 86.0% 54.6%

Unknown 1 7.1% $20 4.5% 0.0% 1 7.1% 4.6% $20 4.5% 10.7%

Total 14 100.0% $449 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $449 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $210 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $210 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $210 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $210 100.0% 100.0%

Low 48 16.3% $3,902 9.2% 19.0% 48 16.3% 6.4% $3,902 9.2% 3.4%

Moderate 75 25.4% $6,844 16.1% 19.0% 75 25.4% 12.7% $6,844 16.1% 7.7%

Middle 51 17.3% $6,321 14.9% 21.4% 51 17.3% 17.4% $6,321 14.9% 13.1%

Upper 104 35.3% $23,882 56.3% 40.7% 104 35.3% 52.2% $23,882 56.3% 63.2%

Unknown 17 5.8% $1,474 3.5% 0.0% 17 5.8% 11.4% $1,474 3.5% 12.6%

Total 295 100.0% $42,423 100.0% 100.0% 295 100.0% 100.0% $42,423 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 23 54.8% $2,589 45.8% 93.0% 23 54.8% 39.3% $2,589 45.8% 36.1%

Over $1 Million 13 31.0% $2,433 43.0% 3.7% 13 31.0%


Rev. Not Known 6 14.3% $633 11.2% 3.3% 6 14.3%

Total 42 100.0% $5,655 100.0% 100.0% 42 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 26 61.9% $1,161 20.5% 26 61.9% 95.6% $1,161 20.5% 38.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 10 23.8% $1,807 32.0% 10 23.8% 2.0% $1,807 32.0% 13.8%

$250,001 - $1 Million 6 14.3% $2,687 47.5% 6 14.3% 2.4% $2,687 47.5% 47.4%

Total 42 100.0% $5,655 100.0% 42 100.0% 100.0% $5,655 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 96.9% 0 0.0% 42.9% $0 0.0% 42.3%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.1% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 91.4% $0 0.0% 50.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.7% $0 0.0% 27.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.9% $0 0.0% 22.2%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







321



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2,067

11.9

Moderate-income

1

3.3

381

2.2

48

12.6

2,186

12.6

Middle-income

5

16.7

4,392

25.3

461

10.5

3,000

17.3

Upper-income

22

73.3

12,596

72.5

693

5.5

10,116

58.2

Unknown-income

2

6.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


30

100.0

17,369

100.0

1,202

6.9

17,369

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

1,371

472

2.5

34.4

347

25.3

552

40.3

Middle-income

10,561

3,411

17.8

32.3

3,956

37.5

3,194

30.2

Upper-income

40,897

15,327

79.8

37.5

6,278

15.4

19,292

47.2

Unknown-income

18

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

18

100.0


52,847

19,210

100.0

36.4

10,581

20.0

23,056

43.6

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

220

2.4

200

2.4

12

3.4

8

2.3

Middle-income

1,973

21.6

1,793

21.3

94

26.5

86

25.1

Upper-income

6,917

75.9

6,420

76.3

248

69.9

249

72.6

Unknown-income

4

0.0

3

0.0

1

0.3

0

0.0


9,114

100.0

8,416

100.0

355

100.0

343

100.0


92.3

3.9

3.8

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

4

6.0

4

6.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

7

10.4

7

10.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

56

83.6

56

83.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


67

100.0

67

100.0

0

.0

0

.0


100.0

.0

.0





322

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.5% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Middle 20 28.2% $6,056 29.6% 17.8% 20 28.2% 16.3% $6,056 29.6% 14.1%

Upper 51 71.8% $14,418 70.4% 79.8% 51 71.8% 83.0% $14,418 70.4% 85.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 71 100.0% $20,474 100.0% 100.0% 71 100.0% 100.0% $20,474 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.5% 0 0.0% 0.8% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Middle 13 43.3% $4,051 45.7% 17.8% 13 43.3% 16.7% $4,051 45.7% 14.5%

Upper 17 56.7% $4,820 54.3% 79.8% 17 56.7% 82.5% $4,820 54.3% 84.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 30 100.0% $8,871 100.0% 100.0% 30 100.0% 100.0% $8,871 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 1 20.0% $20 14.6% 17.8% 1 20.0% 28.6% $20 14.6% 35.5%

Upper 4 80.0% $117 85.4% 79.8% 4 80.0% 71.4% $117 85.4% 64.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 5 100.0% $137 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $137 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 1 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.5% 0 0.0% 0.8% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Middle 34 31.8% $10,127 26.9% 17.8% 34 31.8% 16.7% $10,127 26.9% 14.1%

Upper 73 68.2% $27,555 73.1% 79.8% 73 68.2% 82.5% $27,555 73.1% 85.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 107 100.0% $37,682 100.0% 100.0% 107 100.0% 100.0% $37,682 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 4 16.0% $372 8.5% 2.4% 4 16.0% 2.0% $372 8.5% 1.7%

Middle 5 20.0% $727 16.5% 21.3% 5 20.0% 21.4% $727 16.5% 25.1%

Upper 16 64.0% $3,301 75.0% 76.3% 16 64.0% 69.7% $3,301 75.0% 70.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.9% $0 0.0% 2.6%

Total 25 100.0% $4,400 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% $4,400 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 10.4% 0 0.0% 11.1% $0 0.0% 7.2%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 83.6% 0 0.0% 88.9% $0 0.0% 92.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






323

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.9% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 1.4% $144 0.7% 12.6% 1 1.4% 0.9% $144 0.7% 0.4%

Middle 11 15.5% $2,370 11.6% 17.3% 11 15.5% 7.2% $2,370 11.6% 4.2%

Upper 59 83.1% $17,960 87.7% 58.2% 59 83.1% 82.0% $17,960 87.7% 83.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.8% $0 0.0% 11.7%

Total 71 100.0% $20,474 100.0% 100.0% 71 100.0% 100.0% $20,474 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.9% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 1 3.3% $104 1.2% 12.6% 1 3.3% 1.9% $104 1.2% 0.8%

Middle 4 13.3% $839 9.5% 17.3% 4 13.3% 7.8% $839 9.5% 4.0%

Upper 25 83.3% $7,928 89.4% 58.2% 25 83.3% 77.9% $7,928 89.4% 82.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 11.0% $0 0.0% 11.6%

Total 30 100.0% $8,871 100.0% 100.0% 30 100.0% 100.0% $8,871 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.6% 0 0.0% 9.5% $0 0.0% 4.7%

Middle 1 20.0% $4 2.9% 17.3% 1 20.0% 14.3% $4 2.9% 4.6%

Upper 4 80.0% $133 97.1% 58.2% 4 80.0% 69.0% $133 97.1% 85.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.1% $0 0.0% 5.8%

Total 5 100.0% $137 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $137 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 12.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 58.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 1 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 0.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0%

Total 1 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.9% 0 0.0% 0.9% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 2 1.9% $248 0.7% 12.6% 2 1.9% 1.6% $248 0.7% 0.7%

Middle 16 15.0% $3,213 8.5% 17.3% 16 15.0% 7.7% $3,213 8.5% 4.0%

Upper 88 82.2% $26,021 69.1% 58.2% 88 82.2% 79.3% $26,021 69.1% 80.2%

Unknown 1 0.9% $8,200 21.8% 0.0% 1 0.9% 10.6% $8,200 21.8% 14.7%

Total 107 100.0% $37,682 100.0% 100.0% 107 100.0% 100.0% $37,682 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 22 88.0% $3,420 77.7% 92.3% 22 88.0% 42.6% $3,420 77.7% 41.1%

Over $1 Million 2 8.0% $704 16.0% 3.9% 2 8.0%


Rev. Not Known 1 4.0% $276 6.3% 3.8% 1 4.0%

Total 25 100.0% $4,400 100.0% 100.0% 25 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 11 44.0% $559 12.7% 11 44.0% 96.1% $559 12.7% 38.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 9 36.0% $1,579 35.9% 9 36.0% 1.9% $1,579 35.9% 15.1%

$250,001 - $1 Million 5 20.0% $2,262 51.4% 5 20.0% 1.9% $2,262 51.4% 46.5%

Total 25 100.0% $4,400 100.0% 25 100.0% 100.0% $4,400 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 66.7% $0 0.0% 70.1%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







324



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

40

5.7

29,972

4.0

9,304

31.0

162,530

21.8

Moderate-income

183

26.2

190,974

25.6

28,300

14.8

131,313

17.6

Middle-income

239

34.2

260,728

35.0

18,502

7.1

144,751

19.4

Upper-income

227

32.5

263,797

35.4

9,887

3.7

306,894

41.2

Unknown-income

9

1.3

17

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


698

100.0

745,488

100.0

65,993

8.9

745,488

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

65,334

19,412

2.3

29.7

30,611

46.9

15,311

23.4

Moderate-income

412,193

211,622

24.9

51.3

121,881

29.6

78,690

19.1

Middle-income

531,297

311,097

36.7

58.6

123,127

23.2

97,073

18.3

Upper-income

455,123

306,366

36.1

67.3

67,915

14.9

80,842

17.8

Unknown-income

17

9

0.0

52.9

8

47.1

0

0.0


1,463,964

848,506

100.0

58.0

343,542

23.5

271,916

18.6

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

10,944

3.8

9,663

3.6

852

6.6

429

4.6

Moderate-income

66,040

22.7

60,067

22.3

3,708

28.7

2,265

24.2

Middle-income

96,199

33.0

88,949

33.0

4,110

31.8

3,140

33.6

Upper-income

118,007

40.5

110,309

41.0

4,205

32.5

3,493

37.4

Unknown-income

288

0.1

219

0.1

48

0.4

21

0.2


291,478

100.0

269,207

100.0

12,923

100.0

9,348

100.0


92.4

4.4

3.2

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

58

4.5

49

4.0

9

16.1

0

0.0

Moderate-income

178

13.7

165

13.3

12

21.4

1

100.0

Middle-income

316

24.4

307

24.8

9

16.1

0

0.0

Upper-income

742

57.3

716

57.8

26

46.4

0

0.0

Unknown-income

1

0.1

1

0.1

0

0.0

0

0.0


1,295

100.0

1,238

100.0

56

100.0

1

100.0


95.6

4.3

.1





325

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 5 2.9% $387 1.4% 2.3% 5 2.9% 0.9% $387 1.4% 0.6%

Moderate 47 27.0% $5,244 19.5% 24.9% 47 27.0% 16.2% $5,244 19.5% 9.8%

Middle 72 41.4% $10,633 39.5% 36.7% 72 41.4% 37.0% $10,633 39.5% 29.9%

Upper 50 28.7% $10,665 39.6% 36.1% 50 28.7% 45.9% $10,665 39.6% 59.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 174 100.0% $26,929 100.0% 100.0% 174 100.0% 100.0% $26,929 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0% 0.7% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 9 12.5% $1,229 7.0% 24.9% 9 12.5% 12.6% $1,229 7.0% 8.5%

Middle 19 26.4% $3,245 18.4% 36.7% 19 26.4% 33.8% $3,245 18.4% 28.0%

Upper 44 61.1% $13,143 74.6% 36.1% 44 61.1% 52.9% $13,143 74.6% 63.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 72 100.0% $17,617 100.0% 100.0% 72 100.0% 100.0% $17,617 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.3% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Moderate 3 37.5% $85 39.5% 24.9% 3 37.5% 17.1% $85 39.5% 6.9%

Middle 1 12.5% $25 11.6% 36.7% 1 12.5% 33.9% $25 11.6% 23.2%

Upper 4 50.0% $105 48.8% 36.1% 4 50.0% 47.4% $105 48.8% 69.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 8 100.0% $215 100.0% 100.0% 8 100.0% 100.0% $215 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.2% $0 0.0% 2.3%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 37.7% $0 0.0% 31.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 33.1% $0 0.0% 25.3%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 24.0% $0 0.0% 40.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 5 2.0% $387 0.9% 2.3% 5 2.0% 0.8% $387 0.9% 0.6%

Moderate 59 23.2% $6,558 14.7% 24.9% 59 23.2% 14.1% $6,558 14.7% 9.7%

Middle 92 36.2% $13,903 31.1% 36.7% 92 36.2% 35.1% $13,903 31.1% 28.6%

Upper 98 38.6% $23,913 53.4% 36.1% 98 38.6% 50.0% $23,913 53.4% 61.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 254 100.0% $44,761 100.0% 100.0% 254 100.0% 100.0% $44,761 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.6% 0 0.0% 3.6% $0 0.0% 5.1%

Moderate 5 12.2% $508 11.1% 22.3% 5 12.2% 19.9% $508 11.1% 23.3%

Middle 15 36.6% $604 13.1% 33.0% 15 36.6% 30.4% $604 13.1% 31.0%

Upper 21 51.2% $3,483 75.8% 41.0% 21 51.2% 44.4% $3,483 75.8% 39.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.1% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.6% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Total 41 100.0% $4,595 100.0% 100.0% 41 100.0% 100.0% $4,595 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.0% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.3% 0 0.0% 7.1% $0 0.0% 14.7%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 24.8% 0 0.0% 25.7% $0 0.0% 8.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 57.8% 0 0.0% 62.1% $0 0.0% 73.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.6% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






326

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 34 19.5% $2,883 10.7% 21.8% 34 19.5% 6.5% $2,883 10.7% 2.6%

Moderate 73 42.0% $8,373 31.1% 17.6% 73 42.0% 17.5% $8,373 31.1% 10.0%

Middle 20 11.5% $3,310 12.3% 19.4% 20 11.5% 19.5% $3,310 12.3% 15.3%

Upper 45 25.9% $12,069 44.8% 41.2% 45 25.9% 45.9% $12,069 44.8% 62.2%

Unknown 2 1.1% $294 1.1% 0.0% 2 1.1% 10.6% $294 1.1% 9.8%

Total 174 100.0% $26,929 100.0% 100.0% 174 100.0% 100.0% $26,929 100.0% 100.0%

Low 10 13.9% $1,228 7.0% 21.8% 10 13.9% 6.2% $1,228 7.0% 3.5%

Moderate 12 16.7% $1,376 7.8% 17.6% 12 16.7% 10.9% $1,376 7.8% 6.7%

Middle 7 9.7% $1,068 6.1% 19.4% 7 9.7% 16.6% $1,068 6.1% 12.5%

Upper 42 58.3% $13,697 77.7% 41.2% 42 58.3% 54.0% $13,697 77.7% 64.6%

Unknown 1 1.4% $248 1.4% 0.0% 1 1.4% 12.3% $248 1.4% 12.7%

Total 72 100.0% $17,617 100.0% 100.0% 72 100.0% 100.0% $17,617 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 12.5% $14 6.5% 21.8% 1 12.5% 8.9% $14 6.5% 1.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.6% 0 0.0% 16.3% $0 0.0% 5.8%

Middle 1 12.5% $10 4.7% 19.4% 1 12.5% 22.0% $10 4.7% 13.2%

Upper 6 75.0% $191 88.8% 41.2% 6 75.0% 49.5% $191 88.8% 75.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.3% $0 0.0% 4.4%

Total 8 100.0% $215 100.0% 100.0% 8 100.0% 100.0% $215 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 45 17.7% $4,125 9.2% 21.8% 45 17.7% 6.4% $4,125 9.2% 3.0%

Moderate 85 33.5% $9,749 21.8% 17.6% 85 33.5% 13.6% $9,749 21.8% 7.8%

Middle 28 11.0% $4,388 9.8% 19.4% 28 11.0% 17.8% $4,388 9.8% 13.2%

Upper 93 36.6% $25,957 58.0% 41.2% 93 36.6% 50.6% $25,957 58.0% 61.8%

Unknown 3 1.2% $542 1.2% 0.0% 3 1.2% 11.6% $542 1.2% 14.2%

Total 254 100.0% $44,761 100.0% 100.0% 254 100.0% 100.0% $44,761 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 22 53.7% $2,373 51.6% 92.4% 22 53.7% 42.7% $2,373 51.6% 31.0%

Over $1 Million 12 29.3% $2,079 45.2% 4.4% 12 29.3%


Rev. Not Known 7 17.1% $143 3.1% 3.2% 7 17.1%

Total 41 100.0% $4,595 100.0% 100.0% 41 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 34 82.9% $1,207 26.3% 34 82.9% 96.3% $1,207 26.3% 44.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 2.4% $225 4.9% 1 2.4% 1.8% $225 4.9% 13.0%

$250,001 - $1 Million 6 14.6% $3,163 68.8% 6 14.6% 1.9% $3,163 68.8% 43.0%

Total 41 100.0% $4,595 100.0% 41 100.0% 100.0% $4,595 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 95.6% 0 0.0% 47.9% $0 0.0% 46.6%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.3% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 93.6% $0 0.0% 42.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.9% $0 0.0% 10.6%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.6% $0 0.0% 47.2%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







327



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

2.6

497

1.0

224

45.1

11,327

22.2

Moderate-income

5

12.8

6,209

12.2

2,024

32.6

7,655

15.0

Middle-income

19

48.7

25,750

50.4

4,251

16.5

9,188

18.0

Upper-income

14

35.9

18,627

36.5

1,869

10.0

22,913

44.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


39

100.0

51,083

100.0

8,368

16.4

51,083

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,184

508

1.0

42.9

447

37.8

229

19.3

Moderate-income

10,458

4,767

9.5

45.6

4,284

41.0

1,407

13.5

Middle-income

40,302

24,379

48.6

60.5

10,805

26.8

5,118

12.7

Upper-income

27,224

20,530

40.9

75.4

4,244

15.6

2,450

9.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


79,168

50,184

100.0

63.4

19,780

25.0

9,204

11.6

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

82

0.8

76

0.8

1

0.2

5

1.4

Moderate-income

979

10.0

888

9.9

41

8.8

50

14.0

Middle-income

5,549

56.7

5,049

56.3

304

65.4

196

55.1

Upper-income

3,184

32.5

2,960

33.0

119

25.6

105

29.5

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


9,794

100.0

8,973

100.0

465

100.0

356

100.0


91.6

4.7

3.6

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

15

2.8

15

2.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

244

46.1

236

45.6

8

72.7

0

0.0

Upper-income

270

51.0

267

51.5

3

27.3

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


529

100.0

518

100.0

11

100.0

0

.0


97.9

2.1

.0





328

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 1.0% $65 0.5% 1.0% 1 1.0% 0.1% $65 0.5% 0.1%

Moderate 8 7.6% $698 5.8% 9.5% 8 7.6% 7.1% $698 5.8% 4.5%

Middle 49 46.7% $5,035 42.1% 48.6% 49 46.7% 44.9% $5,035 42.1% 43.1%

Upper 47 44.8% $6,172 51.6% 40.9% 47 44.8% 47.9% $6,172 51.6% 52.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 105 100.0% $11,970 100.0% 100.0% 105 100.0% 100.0% $11,970 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.0% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 4 3.4% $280 2.0% 9.5% 4 3.4% 6.6% $280 2.0% 5.0%

Middle 63 54.3% $6,893 49.6% 48.6% 63 54.3% 48.0% $6,893 49.6% 42.9%

Upper 49 42.2% $6,720 48.4% 40.9% 49 42.2% 45.2% $6,720 48.4% 52.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 116 100.0% $13,893 100.0% 100.0% 116 100.0% 100.0% $13,893 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 7 8.0% $53 4.6% 9.5% 7 8.0% 10.1% $53 4.6% 5.6%

Middle 46 52.9% $608 52.7% 48.6% 46 52.9% 49.0% $608 52.7% 42.8%

Upper 34 39.1% $492 42.7% 40.9% 34 39.1% 40.9% $492 42.7% 51.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 87 100.0% $1,153 100.0% 100.0% 87 100.0% 100.0% $1,153 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 66.7% $0 0.0% 28.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 33.3% $0 0.0% 71.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 1 0.3% $65 0.2% 1.0% 1 0.3% 0.1% $65 0.2% 0.0%

Moderate 19 6.2% $1,031 3.8% 9.5% 19 6.2% 7.1% $1,031 3.8% 4.8%

Middle 158 51.3% $12,536 46.4% 48.6% 158 51.3% 46.9% $12,536 46.4% 42.9%

Upper 130 42.2% $13,384 49.5% 40.9% 130 42.2% 45.8% $13,384 49.5% 52.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 308 100.0% $27,016 100.0% 100.0% 308 100.0% 100.0% $27,016 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.8% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Moderate 11 11.7% $1,501 11.2% 9.9% 11 11.7% 8.8% $1,501 11.2% 6.4%

Middle 53 56.4% $8,407 62.8% 56.3% 53 56.4% 50.0% $8,407 62.8% 56.4%

Upper 30 31.9% $3,470 25.9% 33.0% 30 31.9% 35.3% $3,470 25.9% 34.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.6% $0 0.0% 3.0%

Total 94 100.0% $13,378 100.0% 100.0% 94 100.0% 100.0% $13,378 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.9% 0 0.0% 1.3% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 45.6% 0 0.0% 52.7% $0 0.0% 49.2%

Upper 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 51.5% 1 100.0% 44.7% $55 100.0% 47.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.3% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






329

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 4 3.8% $185 1.5% 22.2% 4 3.8% 2.9% $185 1.5% 1.3%

Moderate 22 21.0% $1,660 13.9% 15.0% 22 21.0% 15.0% $1,660 13.9% 10.6%

Middle 26 24.8% $2,923 24.4% 18.0% 26 24.8% 24.4% $2,923 24.4% 21.9%

Upper 52 49.5% $6,965 58.2% 44.9% 52 49.5% 49.4% $6,965 58.2% 58.7%

Unknown 1 1.0% $237 2.0% 0.0% 1 1.0% 8.3% $237 2.0% 7.6%

Total 105 100.0% $11,970 100.0% 100.0% 105 100.0% 100.0% $11,970 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 3.4% $140 1.0% 22.2% 4 3.4% 3.2% $140 1.0% 1.5%

Moderate 12 10.3% $885 6.4% 15.0% 12 10.3% 7.8% $885 6.4% 4.8%

Middle 18 15.5% $1,525 11.0% 18.0% 18 15.5% 17.0% $1,525 11.0% 12.8%

Upper 78 67.2% $10,853 78.1% 44.9% 78 67.2% 59.9% $10,853 78.1% 68.9%

Unknown 4 3.4% $490 3.5% 0.0% 4 3.4% 12.1% $490 3.5% 12.1%

Total 116 100.0% $13,893 100.0% 100.0% 116 100.0% 100.0% $13,893 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 4.6% $52 4.5% 22.2% 4 4.6% 8.1% $52 4.5% 2.6%

Moderate 14 16.1% $130 11.3% 15.0% 14 16.1% 12.3% $130 11.3% 6.3%

Middle 24 27.6% $295 25.6% 18.0% 24 27.6% 21.3% $295 25.6% 14.5%

Upper 33 37.9% $560 48.6% 44.9% 33 37.9% 49.6% $560 48.6% 65.5%

Unknown 12 13.8% $116 10.1% 0.0% 12 13.8% 8.7% $116 10.1% 11.1%

Total 87 100.0% $1,153 100.0% 100.0% 87 100.0% 100.0% $1,153 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 15.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 44.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 12 3.9% $377 1.4% 22.2% 12 3.9% 3.6% $377 1.4% 1.4%

Moderate 48 15.6% $2,675 9.9% 15.0% 48 15.6% 11.0% $2,675 9.9% 7.2%

Middle 68 22.1% $4,743 17.6% 18.0% 68 22.1% 20.3% $4,743 17.6% 16.5%

Upper 163 52.9% $18,378 68.0% 44.9% 163 52.9% 54.8% $18,378 68.0% 64.4%

Unknown 17 5.5% $843 3.1% 0.0% 17 5.5% 10.4% $843 3.1% 10.6%

Total 308 100.0% $27,016 100.0% 100.0% 308 100.0% 100.0% $27,016 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 55 58.5% $4,419 33.0% 91.6% 55 58.5% 25.2% $4,419 33.0% 27.7%

Over $1 Million 35 37.2% $7,764 58.0% 4.7% 35 37.2%


Rev. Not Known 4 4.3% $1,195 8.9% 3.6% 4 4.3%

Total 94 100.0% $13,378 100.0% 100.0% 94 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 67 71.3% $2,666 19.9% 67 71.3% 94.6% $2,666 19.9% 31.1%

$100,001 - $250,000 13 13.8% $2,289 17.1% 13 13.8% 2.6% $2,289 17.1% 14.7%

$250,001 - $1 Million 14 14.9% $8,423 63.0% 14 14.9% 2.8% $8,423 63.0% 54.2%

Total 94 100.0% $13,378 100.0% 94 100.0% 100.0% $13,378 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 97.9% 1 100.0% 22.0% $55 100.0% 42.8%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.1% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 1 100.0% 86.7% $55 100.0% 25.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.3% $0 0.0% 40.1%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.0% $0 0.0% 34.5%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







330



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1,374

22.9

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1,089

18.1

Middle-income

5

100.0

6,012

100.0

976

16.2

1,089

18.1

Upper-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2,460

40.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


5

100.0

6,012

100.0

976

16.2

6,012

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

9,659

6,043

100.0

62.6

2,345

24.3

1,271

13.2

Upper-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


9,659

6,043

100.0

62.6

2,345

24.3

1,271

13.2

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

804

100.0

746

100.0

22

100.0

36

100.0

Upper-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


804

100.0

746

100.0

22

100.0

36

100.0


92.8

2.7

4.5

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

52

100.0

52

100.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


52

100.0

52

100.0

0

.0

0

.0


100.0

.0

.0





331

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 3 100.0% $246 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 95.6% $246 100.0% 97.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.4% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Total 3 100.0% $246 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $246 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 14 100.0% $1,328 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $1,328 100.0% 100.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 14 100.0% $1,328 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $1,328 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 10 100.0% $96 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $96 100.0% 100.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 10 100.0% $96 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $96 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 27 100.0% $1,670 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 98.3% $1,670 100.0% 99.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.7% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Total 27 100.0% $1,670 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $1,670 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 22 100.0% $1,390 100.0% 100.0% 22 100.0% 93.4% $1,390 100.0% 94.3%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.6% $0 0.0% 5.7%

Total 22 100.0% $1,390 100.0% 100.0% 22 100.0% 100.0% $1,390 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 5 100.0% $581 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $581 100.0% 100.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 5 100.0% $581 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $581 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






332

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.9% 0 0.0% 3.0% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.1% 0 0.0% 11.1% $0 0.0% 7.8%

Middle 1 33.3% $68 27.6% 18.1% 1 33.3% 27.4% $68 27.6% 24.3%

Upper 2 66.7% $178 72.4% 40.9% 2 66.7% 51.1% $178 72.4% 60.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.4% $0 0.0% 6.5%

Total 3 100.0% $246 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $246 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 7.1% $86 6.5% 22.9% 1 7.1% 4.7% $86 6.5% 2.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.1% 0 0.0% 6.5% $0 0.0% 4.5%

Middle 2 14.3% $102 7.7% 18.1% 2 14.3% 17.8% $102 7.7% 14.7%

Upper 9 64.3% $903 68.0% 40.9% 9 64.3% 63.3% $903 68.0% 69.5%

Unknown 2 14.3% $237 17.8% 0.0% 2 14.3% 7.7% $237 17.8% 9.2%

Total 14 100.0% $1,328 100.0% 100.0% 14 100.0% 100.0% $1,328 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 10.0% $5 5.2% 22.9% 1 10.0% 2.4% $5 5.2% 0.2%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.1% 0 0.0% 7.3% $0 0.0% 3.7%

Middle 2 20.0% $13 13.5% 18.1% 2 20.0% 17.1% $13 13.5% 17.7%

Upper 7 70.0% $78 81.3% 40.9% 7 70.0% 73.2% $78 81.3% 78.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 10 100.0% $96 100.0% 100.0% 10 100.0% 100.0% $96 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Low 2 7.4% $91 5.4% 22.9% 2 7.4% 3.8% $91 5.4% 1.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.1% 0 0.0% 8.4% $0 0.0% 5.8%

Middle 5 18.5% $183 11.0% 18.1% 5 18.5% 21.4% $183 11.0% 18.8%

Upper 18 66.7% $1,159 69.4% 40.9% 18 66.7% 59.7% $1,159 69.4% 66.5%

Unknown 2 7.4% $237 14.2% 0.0% 2 7.4% 6.7% $237 14.2% 7.5%

Total 27 100.0% $1,670 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $1,670 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 16 72.7% $494 35.5% 92.8% 16 72.7% 34.4% $494 35.5% 28.6%

Over $1 Million 1 4.5% $400 28.8% 2.7% 1 4.5%


Rev. Not Known 5 22.7% $496 35.7% 4.5% 5 22.7%

Total 22 100.0% $1,390 100.0% 100.0% 22 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 20 90.9% $607 43.7% 20 90.9% 97.2% $607 43.7% 48.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.9% $0 0.0% 9.0%

$250,001 - $1 Million 2 9.1% $783 56.3% 2 9.1% 1.9% $783 56.3% 42.1%

Total 22 100.0% $1,390 100.0% 22 100.0% 100.0% $1,390 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 4 80.0% $565 97.2% 100.0% 4 80.0% 70.0% $565 97.2% 97.5%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Not Known 1 20.0% $16 2.8% 0.0% 1 20.0%

Total 5 100.0% $581 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 4 80.0% $181 31.2% 4 80.0% 80.0% $181 31.2% 24.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 1 20.0% $400 68.8% 1 20.0% 20.0% $400 68.8% 75.1%

Total 5 100.0% $581 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $581 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







333



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

19

17.4

14,341

10.5

5,369

37.4

31,040

22.8

Moderate-income

23

21.1

20,598

15.1

3,801

18.5

23,051

16.9

Middle-income

32

29.4

50,237

36.9

4,501

9.0

25,266

18.6

Upper-income

34

31.2

50,841

37.4

1,872

3.7

56,660

41.7

Unknown-income

1

0.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


109

100.0

136,017

100.0

15,543

11.4

136,017

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

29,928

9,118

6.7

30.5

16,106

53.8

4,704

15.7

Moderate-income

38,477

17,281

12.6

44.9

16,422

42.7

4,774

12.4

Middle-income

78,975

52,590

38.4

66.6

19,108

24.2

7,277

9.2

Upper-income

85,014

58,080

42.4

68.3

20,800

24.5

6,134

7.2

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


232,394

137,069

100.0

59.0

72,436

31.2

22,889

9.8

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3,225

8.6

2,935

8.6

155

8.3

135

9.4

Moderate-income

6,003

16.0

5,380

15.7

364

19.4

259

18.1

Middle-income

11,526

30.7

10,669

31.1

461

24.6

396

27.7

Upper-income

16,788

44.7

15,257

44.5

891

47.6

640

44.7

Unknown-income

20

0.1

17

0.0

2

0.1

1

0.1


37,562

100.0

34,258

100.0

1,873

100.0

1,431

100.0


91.2

5.0

3.8

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

9

3.2

9

3.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

18

6.4

18

6.5

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

112

40.0

109

39.5

3

75.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

141

50.4

140

50.7

1

25.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


280

100.0

276

100.0

4

100.0

0

.0


98.6

1.4

.0





334

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 4 1.7% $630 1.4% 6.7% 4 1.7% 2.0% $630 1.4% 1.1%

Moderate 17 7.3% $2,915 6.5% 12.6% 17 7.3% 7.2% $2,915 6.5% 5.1%

Middle 71 30.5% $10,994 24.7% 38.4% 71 30.5% 41.8% $10,994 24.7% 36.5%

Upper 141 60.5% $30,011 67.4% 42.4% 141 60.5% 49.1% $30,011 67.4% 57.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 233 100.0% $44,550 100.0% 100.0% 233 100.0% 100.0% $44,550 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 0.5% $274 0.3% 6.7% 2 0.5% 1.8% $274 0.3% 1.1%

Moderate 17 4.0% $3,023 3.1% 12.6% 17 4.0% 5.8% $3,023 3.1% 4.0%

Middle 126 29.7% $24,293 25.2% 38.4% 126 29.7% 35.1% $24,293 25.2% 29.9%

Upper 279 65.8% $68,736 71.4% 42.4% 279 65.8% 57.4% $68,736 71.4% 65.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 424 100.0% $96,326 100.0% 100.0% 424 100.0% 100.0% $96,326 100.0% 100.0%

Low 4 18.2% $33 7.2% 6.7% 4 18.2% 4.1% $33 7.2% 2.3%

Moderate 5 22.7% $39 8.5% 12.6% 5 22.7% 8.9% $39 8.5% 4.2%

Middle 3 13.6% $58 12.6% 38.4% 3 13.6% 37.8% $58 12.6% 30.5%

Upper 10 45.5% $330 71.7% 42.4% 10 45.5% 49.2% $330 71.7% 63.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 22 100.0% $460 100.0% 100.0% 22 100.0% 100.0% $460 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 33.3% $260 28.3% 0.0% 1 33.3% 23.4% $260 28.3% 4.2%

Moderate 1 33.3% $160 17.4% 0.0% 1 33.3% 25.5% $160 17.4% 11.5%

Middle 1 33.3% $500 54.3% 0.0% 1 33.3% 19.1% $500 54.3% 13.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 31.9% $0 0.0% 70.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $920 100.0% 0.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $920 100.0% 100.0%

Low 11 1.6% $1,197 0.8% 6.7% 11 1.6% 2.0% $1,197 0.8% 1.2%

Moderate 40 5.9% $6,137 4.3% 12.6% 40 5.9% 6.5% $6,137 4.3% 4.6%

Middle 201 29.5% $35,845 25.2% 38.4% 201 29.5% 37.8% $35,845 25.2% 32.0%

Upper 430 63.0% $99,077 69.6% 42.4% 430 63.0% 53.7% $99,077 69.6% 62.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 682 100.0% $142,256 100.0% 100.0% 682 100.0% 100.0% $142,256 100.0% 100.0%

Low 12 4.4% $2,358 3.2% 8.6% 12 4.4% 6.6% $2,358 3.2% 5.9%

Moderate 32 11.7% $8,413 11.5% 15.7% 32 11.7% 12.7% $8,413 11.5% 14.6%

Middle 37 13.5% $14,095 19.3% 31.1% 37 13.5% 28.8% $14,095 19.3% 25.2%

Upper 192 70.1% $48,039 65.9% 44.5% 192 70.1% 49.0% $48,039 65.9% 53.1%

Unknown 1 0.4% $20 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.4% 0.1% $20 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.8% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Total 274 100.0% $72,925 100.0% 100.0% 274 100.0% 100.0% $72,925 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.5% 0 0.0% 4.8% $0 0.0% 1.2%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 39.5% 0 0.0% 57.1% $0 0.0% 52.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 50.7% 0 0.0% 38.1% $0 0.0% 46.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






335

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 20 8.6% $2,018 4.5% 22.8% 20 8.6% 8.0% $2,018 4.5% 4.5%

Moderate 49 21.0% $6,456 14.5% 16.9% 49 21.0% 23.5% $6,456 14.5% 18.5%

Middle 34 14.6% $5,639 12.7% 18.6% 34 14.6% 22.3% $5,639 12.7% 21.2%

Upper 123 52.8% $29,274 65.7% 41.7% 123 52.8% 34.4% $29,274 65.7% 45.1%

Unknown 7 3.0% $1,163 2.6% 0.0% 7 3.0% 11.8% $1,163 2.6% 10.7%

Total 233 100.0% $44,550 100.0% 100.0% 233 100.0% 100.0% $44,550 100.0% 100.0%

Low 16 3.8% $1,501 1.6% 22.8% 16 3.8% 5.2% $1,501 1.6% 2.9%

Moderate 48 11.3% $6,454 6.7% 16.9% 48 11.3% 12.8% $6,454 6.7% 8.3%

Middle 65 15.3% $9,535 9.9% 18.6% 65 15.3% 19.8% $9,535 9.9% 15.7%

Upper 275 64.9% $74,239 77.1% 41.7% 275 64.9% 49.9% $74,239 77.1% 59.4%

Unknown 20 4.7% $4,597 4.8% 0.0% 20 4.7% 12.3% $4,597 4.8% 13.8%

Total 424 100.0% $96,326 100.0% 100.0% 424 100.0% 100.0% $96,326 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 4.5% $5 1.1% 22.8% 1 4.5% 9.6% $5 1.1% 3.7%

Moderate 5 22.7% $35 7.6% 16.9% 5 22.7% 17.1% $35 7.6% 7.8%

Middle 4 18.2% $32 7.0% 18.6% 4 18.2% 21.3% $32 7.0% 17.3%

Upper 12 54.5% $388 84.3% 41.7% 12 54.5% 45.5% $388 84.3% 63.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 6.6% $0 0.0% 8.1%

Total 22 100.0% $460 100.0% 100.0% 22 100.0% 100.0% $460 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 22.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.7% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 3 100.0% $920 100.0% 0.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $920 100.0% 100.0%

Total 3 100.0% $920 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $920 100.0% 100.0%

Low 37 5.4% $3,524 2.5% 22.8% 37 5.4% 6.5% $3,524 2.5% 3.5%

Moderate 102 15.0% $12,945 9.1% 16.9% 102 15.0% 17.2% $12,945 9.1% 12.0%

Middle 103 15.1% $15,206 10.7% 18.6% 103 15.1% 20.8% $15,206 10.7% 17.4%

Upper 410 60.1% $103,901 73.0% 41.7% 410 60.1% 43.4% $103,901 73.0% 52.1%

Unknown 30 4.4% $6,680 4.7% 0.0% 30 4.4% 12.1% $6,680 4.7% 15.0%

Total 682 100.0% $142,256 100.0% 100.0% 682 100.0% 100.0% $142,256 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 105 38.3% $20,536 28.2% 91.2% 105 38.3% 35.2% $20,536 28.2% 35.1%

Over $1 Million 130 47.4% $45,125 61.9% 5.0% 130 47.4%


Rev. Not Known 39 14.2% $7,264 10.0% 3.8% 39 14.2%

Total 274 100.0% $72,925 100.0% 100.0% 274 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 107 39.1% $5,950 8.2% 107 39.1% 89.6% $5,950 8.2% 22.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 67 24.5% $12,495 17.1% 67 24.5% 4.5% $12,495 17.1% 16.3%

$250,001 - $1 Million 100 36.5% $54,480 74.7% 100 36.5% 5.9% $54,480 74.7% 61.5%

Total 274 100.0% $72,925 100.0% 274 100.0% 100.0% $72,925 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 98.6% 0 0.0% 47.6% $0 0.0% 42.3%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.4% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 90.5% $0 0.0% 30.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.5% $0 0.0% 69.4%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







336



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

6,912

25.0

Moderate-income

7

33.3

8,445

30.5

2,073

24.5

4,120

14.9

Middle-income

11

52.4

13,294

48.0

1,602

12.1

5,311

19.2

Upper-income

3

14.3

5,960

21.5

185

3.1

11,356

41.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


21

100.0

27,699

100.0

3,860

13.9

27,699

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

14,671

8,231

29.2

56.1

3,912

26.7

2,528

17.2

Middle-income

21,244

13,363

47.4

62.9

5,331

25.1

2,550

12.0

Upper-income

7,598

6,590

23.4

86.7

651

8.6

357

4.7

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


43,513

28,184

100.0

64.8

9,894

22.7

5,435

12.5

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

1,846

28.6

1,611

27.8

168

37.8

67

30.3

Middle-income

2,980

46.1

2,714

46.8

160

36.0

106

48.0

Upper-income

1,639

25.4

1,474

25.4

117

26.3

48

21.7

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


6,465

100.0

5,799

100.0

445

100.0

221

100.0


89.7

6.9

3.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

21

25.9

19

25.0

2

40.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

32

39.5

31

40.8

1

20.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

28

34.6

26

34.2

2

40.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


81

100.0

76

100.0

5

100.0

0

.0


93.8

6.2

.0





337

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 22 27.5% $2,942 22.2% 29.2% 22 27.5% 23.8% $2,942 22.2% 18.5%

Middle 28 35.0% $3,865 29.2% 47.4% 28 35.0% 44.2% $3,865 29.2% 38.8%

Upper 30 37.5% $6,429 48.6% 23.4% 30 37.5% 32.0% $6,429 48.6% 42.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 80 100.0% $13,236 100.0% 100.0% 80 100.0% 100.0% $13,236 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 12 25.5% $1,617 19.7% 29.2% 12 25.5% 20.8% $1,617 19.7% 15.6%

Middle 11 23.4% $1,719 21.0% 47.4% 11 23.4% 39.1% $1,719 21.0% 31.3%

Upper 24 51.1% $4,864 59.3% 23.4% 24 51.1% 40.2% $4,864 59.3% 53.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 47 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0% 47 100.0% 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 20.0% $114 55.9% 29.2% 1 20.0% 23.3% $114 55.9% 13.5%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 47.4% 0 0.0% 43.6% $0 0.0% 35.9%

Upper 4 80.0% $90 44.1% 23.4% 4 80.0% 33.1% $90 44.1% 50.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 5 100.0% $204 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $204 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 0.8%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 62.5% $0 0.0% 10.3%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 25.0% $0 0.0% 88.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 35 26.5% $4,673 21.6% 29.2% 35 26.5% 22.1% $4,673 21.6% 15.9%

Middle 39 29.5% $5,584 25.8% 47.4% 39 29.5% 41.4% $5,584 25.8% 33.2%

Upper 58 43.9% $11,383 52.6% 23.4% 58 43.9% 36.5% $11,383 52.6% 50.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 132 100.0% $21,640 100.0% 100.0% 132 100.0% 100.0% $21,640 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 2 25.0% $616 51.2% 27.8% 2 25.0% 28.7% $616 51.2% 30.6%

Middle 3 37.5% $509 42.3% 46.8% 3 37.5% 38.8% $509 42.3% 29.8%

Upper 3 37.5% $77 6.4% 25.4% 3 37.5% 27.8% $77 6.4% 36.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.7% $0 0.0% 3.1%

Total 8 100.0% $1,202 100.0% 100.0% 8 100.0% 100.0% $1,202 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 7.7% $0 0.0% 2.7%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.8% 0 0.0% 61.5% $0 0.0% 61.6%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 34.2% 0 0.0% 23.1% $0 0.0% 19.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.7% $0 0.0% 16.2%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






338

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 6 7.5% $482 3.6% 25.0% 6 7.5% 7.2% $482 3.6% 3.8%

Moderate 25 31.3% $2,976 22.5% 14.9% 25 31.3% 19.5% $2,976 22.5% 15.3%

Middle 19 23.8% $2,957 22.3% 19.2% 19 23.8% 25.5% $2,957 22.3% 23.7%

Upper 30 37.5% $6,821 51.5% 41.0% 30 37.5% 38.5% $6,821 51.5% 49.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.4% $0 0.0% 7.7%

Total 80 100.0% $13,236 100.0% 100.0% 80 100.0% 100.0% $13,236 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 4.5% $0 0.0% 2.3%

Moderate 6 12.8% $745 9.1% 14.9% 6 12.8% 11.3% $745 9.1% 7.3%

Middle 9 19.1% $1,314 16.0% 19.2% 9 19.1% 19.1% $1,314 16.0% 15.2%

Upper 32 68.1% $6,141 74.9% 41.0% 32 68.1% 50.9% $6,141 74.9% 59.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 14.2% $0 0.0% 16.1%

Total 47 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0% 47 100.0% 100.0% $8,200 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 8.5% $0 0.0% 3.4%

Moderate 1 20.0% $114 55.9% 14.9% 1 20.0% 9.7% $114 55.9% 10.4%

Middle 1 20.0% $10 4.9% 19.2% 1 20.0% 19.9% $10 4.9% 17.0%

Upper 3 60.0% $80 39.2% 41.0% 3 60.0% 51.7% $80 39.2% 62.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 10.2% $0 0.0% 6.3%

Total 5 100.0% $204 100.0% 100.0% 5 100.0% 100.0% $204 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 14.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 19.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 6 4.5% $482 2.2% 25.0% 6 4.5% 5.8% $482 2.2% 2.8%

Moderate 32 24.2% $3,835 17.7% 14.9% 32 24.2% 14.4% $3,835 17.7% 10.1%

Middle 29 22.0% $4,281 19.8% 19.2% 29 22.0% 21.6% $4,281 19.8% 17.7%

Upper 65 49.2% $13,042 60.3% 41.0% 65 49.2% 46.0% $13,042 60.3% 52.1%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.2% $0 0.0% 17.3%

Total 132 100.0% $21,640 100.0% 100.0% 132 100.0% 100.0% $21,640 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 7 87.5% $1,192 99.2% 89.7% 7 87.5% 28.5% $1,192 99.2% 25.3%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.9% 0 0.0%


Rev. Not Known 1 12.5% $10 0.8% 3.4% 1 12.5%

Total 8 100.0% $1,202 100.0% 100.0% 8 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 5 62.5% $92 7.7% 5 62.5% 92.1% $92 7.7% 27.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 1 12.5% $196 16.3% 1 12.5% 3.5% $196 16.3% 14.3%

$250,001 - $1 Million 2 25.0% $914 76.0% 2 25.0% 4.5% $914 76.0% 58.4%

Total 8 100.0% $1,202 100.0% 8 100.0% 100.0% $1,202 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 93.8% 0 0.0% 61.5% $0 0.0% 82.6%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.2% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 92.3% $0 0.0% 68.6%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.7% $0 0.0% 31.4%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







339



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

5

10.9

3,700

7.2

1,373

37.1

12,005

23.3

Moderate-income

10

21.7

10,211

19.8

1,812

17.7

9,020

17.5

Middle-income

19

41.3

23,422

45.5

2,409

10.3

9,065

17.6

Upper-income

10

21.7

14,150

27.5

672

4.7

21,393

41.6

Unknown-income

2

4.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


46

100.0

51,483

100.0

6,266

12.2

51,483

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

7,047

2,638

4.9

37.4

3,003

42.6

1,406

20.0

Moderate-income

19,437

9,378

17.5

48.2

7,087

36.5

2,972

15.3

Middle-income

36,977

26,014

48.4

70.4

7,160

19.4

3,803

10.3

Upper-income

21,264

15,674

29.2

73.7

3,310

15.6

2,280

10.7

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


84,725

53,704

100.0

63.4

20,560

24.3

10,461

12.3

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

613

5.3

556

5.3

33

6.2

24

6.3

Moderate-income

2,915

25.4

2,627

24.9

180

34.0

108

28.4

Middle-income

4,974

43.4

4,593

43.5

214

40.5

167

43.9

Upper-income

2,944

25.7

2,767

26.2

97

18.3

80

21.1

Unknown-income

16

0.1

10

0.1

5

0.9

1

0.3


11,462

100.0

10,553

100.0

529

100.0

380

100.0


92.1

4.6

3.3

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2

0.9

2

0.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

17

7.9

16

7.5

1

33.3

0

0.0

Middle-income

136

63.0

135

63.4

1

33.3

0

0.0

Upper-income

61

28.2

60

28.2

1

33.3

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


216

100.0

213

100.0

3

100.0

0

.0


98.6

1.4

.0





340

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 2.6% $75 1.4% 4.9% 1 2.6% 1.5% $75 1.4% 0.7%

Moderate 7 18.4% $610 11.6% 17.5% 7 18.4% 15.0% $610 11.6% 11.4%

Middle 17 44.7% $1,994 38.0% 48.4% 17 44.7% 47.9% $1,994 38.0% 45.1%

Upper 13 34.2% $2,567 48.9% 29.2% 13 34.2% 35.5% $2,567 48.9% 42.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 38 100.0% $5,246 100.0% 100.0% 38 100.0% 100.0% $5,246 100.0% 100.0%

Low 7 4.4% $478 3.0% 4.9% 7 4.4% 1.5% $478 3.0% 0.7%

Moderate 23 14.5% $1,301 8.2% 17.5% 23 14.5% 10.8% $1,301 8.2% 7.4%

Middle 78 49.1% $7,036 44.6% 48.4% 78 49.1% 46.1% $7,036 44.6% 45.1%

Upper 51 32.1% $6,967 44.1% 29.2% 51 32.1% 41.6% $6,967 44.1% 46.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 159 100.0% $15,782 100.0% 100.0% 159 100.0% 100.0% $15,782 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 2.9% $23 3.4% 4.9% 2 2.9% 4.4% $23 3.4% 1.9%

Moderate 17 25.0% $162 23.8% 17.5% 17 25.0% 17.6% $162 23.8% 8.4%

Middle 34 50.0% $341 50.1% 48.4% 34 50.0% 47.0% $341 50.1% 46.2%

Upper 15 22.1% $155 22.8% 29.2% 15 22.1% 31.0% $155 22.8% 43.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 68 100.0% $681 100.0% 100.0% 68 100.0% 100.0% $681 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.7% $0 0.0% 0.2%

Moderate 2 50.0% $1,192 19.3% 0.0% 2 50.0% 33.3% $1,192 19.3% 11.2%

Middle 2 50.0% $4,989 80.7% 0.0% 2 50.0% 44.4% $4,989 80.7% 51.1%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 18.5% $0 0.0% 37.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 4 100.0% $6,181 100.0% 0.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $6,181 100.0% 100.0%

Low 10 3.7% $576 2.1% 4.9% 10 3.7% 1.7% $576 2.1% 0.7%

Moderate 49 18.2% $3,265 11.7% 17.5% 49 18.2% 13.0% $3,265 11.7% 9.2%

Middle 131 48.7% $14,360 51.5% 48.4% 131 48.7% 46.9% $14,360 51.5% 45.3%

Upper 79 29.4% $9,689 34.7% 29.2% 79 29.4% 38.4% $9,689 34.7% 44.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 269 100.0% $27,890 100.0% 100.0% 269 100.0% 100.0% $27,890 100.0% 100.0%

Low 10 3.5% $1,844 6.4% 5.3% 10 3.5% 4.8% $1,844 6.4% 5.2%

Moderate 65 22.8% $5,616 19.5% 24.9% 65 22.8% 23.0% $5,616 19.5% 25.1%

Middle 128 44.9% $13,763 47.8% 43.5% 128 44.9% 39.5% $13,763 47.8% 44.6%

Upper 82 28.8% $7,554 26.3% 26.2% 82 28.8% 28.0% $7,554 26.3% 22.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.2% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.5% $0 0.0% 2.8%

Total 285 100.0% $28,777 100.0% 100.0% 285 100.0% 100.0% $28,777 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 5.9% $45 10.3% 0.9% 1 5.9% 1.3% $45 10.3% 0.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 7.5% 0 0.0% 4.0% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Middle 6 35.3% $169 38.8% 63.4% 6 35.3% 56.0% $169 38.8% 59.8%

Upper 10 58.8% $222 50.9% 28.2% 10 58.8% 34.7% $222 50.9% 38.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.0% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Total 17 100.0% $436 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $436 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






341

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 5 13.2% $419 8.0% 23.3% 5 13.2% 9.2% $419 8.0% 5.1%

Moderate 7 18.4% $616 11.7% 17.5% 7 18.4% 22.6% $616 11.7% 17.3%

Middle 10 26.3% $1,363 26.0% 17.6% 10 26.3% 27.4% $1,363 26.0% 27.4%

Upper 15 39.5% $2,635 50.2% 41.6% 15 39.5% 34.1% $2,635 50.2% 44.3%

Unknown 1 2.6% $213 4.1% 0.0% 1 2.6% 6.7% $213 4.1% 5.9%

Total 38 100.0% $5,246 100.0% 100.0% 38 100.0% 100.0% $5,246 100.0% 100.0%

Low 22 13.8% $1,100 7.0% 23.3% 22 13.8% 6.3% $1,100 7.0% 3.3%

Moderate 29 18.2% $2,298 14.6% 17.5% 29 18.2% 13.7% $2,298 14.6% 9.4%

Middle 30 18.9% $2,114 13.4% 17.6% 30 18.9% 21.7% $2,114 13.4% 18.4%

Upper 65 40.9% $8,575 54.3% 41.6% 65 40.9% 47.3% $8,575 54.3% 57.1%

Unknown 13 8.2% $1,695 10.7% 0.0% 13 8.2% 11.0% $1,695 10.7% 11.8%

Total 159 100.0% $15,782 100.0% 100.0% 159 100.0% 100.0% $15,782 100.0% 100.0%

Low 13 19.1% $56 8.2% 23.3% 13 19.1% 14.4% $56 8.2% 4.7%

Moderate 16 23.5% $148 21.7% 17.5% 16 23.5% 17.9% $148 21.7% 7.8%

Middle 12 17.6% $120 17.6% 17.6% 12 17.6% 21.6% $120 17.6% 21.1%

Upper 20 29.4% $299 43.9% 41.6% 20 29.4% 41.7% $299 43.9% 64.7%

Unknown 7 10.3% $58 8.5% 0.0% 7 10.3% 4.4% $58 8.5% 1.7%

Total 68 100.0% $681 100.0% 100.0% 68 100.0% 100.0% $681 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 4 100.0% $6,181 100.0% 0.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $6,181 100.0% 100.0%

Total 4 100.0% $6,181 100.0% 100.0% 4 100.0% 100.0% $6,181 100.0% 100.0%

Low 40 14.9% $1,575 5.6% 23.3% 40 14.9% 7.9% $1,575 5.6% 4.0%

Moderate 52 19.3% $3,062 11.0% 17.5% 52 19.3% 17.6% $3,062 11.0% 12.5%

Middle 52 19.3% $3,597 12.9% 17.6% 52 19.3% 24.0% $3,597 12.9% 21.8%

Upper 100 37.2% $11,509 41.3% 41.6% 100 37.2% 41.2% $11,509 41.3% 50.1%

Unknown 25 9.3% $8,147 29.2% 0.0% 25 9.3% 9.2% $8,147 29.2% 11.6%

Total 269 100.0% $27,890 100.0% 100.0% 269 100.0% 100.0% $27,890 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 176 61.8% $14,085 48.9% 92.1% 176 61.8% 34.1% $14,085 48.9% 36.2%

Over $1 Million 77 27.0% $11,804 41.0% 4.6% 77 27.0%


Rev. Not Known 32 11.2% $2,888 10.0% 3.3% 32 11.2%

Total 285 100.0% $28,777 100.0% 100.0% 285 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 211 74.0% $6,822 23.7% 211 74.0% 92.5% $6,822 23.7% 33.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 43 15.1% $7,250 25.2% 43 15.1% 4.3% $7,250 25.2% 20.9%

$250,001 - $1 Million 31 10.9% $14,705 51.1% 31 10.9% 3.2% $14,705 51.1% 46.1%

Total 285 100.0% $28,777 100.0% 285 100.0% 100.0% $28,777 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 16 94.1% $426 97.7% 98.6% 16 94.1% 80.0% $426 97.7% 86.2%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.4% 0 0.0%

Not Known 1 5.9% $10 2.3% 0.0% 1 5.9%

Total 17 100.0% $436 100.0% 100.0% 17 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 17 100.0% $436 100.0% 17 100.0% 73.3% $436 100.0% 18.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12.0% $0 0.0% 19.9%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14.7% $0 0.0% 61.8%

Total 17 100.0% $436 100.0% 17 100.0% 100.0% $436 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







342



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

10.0

820

8.3

346

42.2

2,456

25.0

Moderate-income

3

30.0

2,580

26.2

902

35.0

1,339

13.6

Middle-income

2

20.0

2,072

21.1

203

9.8

1,824

18.5

Upper-income

4

40.0

4,371

44.4

373

8.5

4,224

42.9

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


10

100.0

9,843

100.0

1,824

18.5

9,843

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,637

449

4.7

27.4

859

52.5

329

20.1

Moderate-income

5,598

1,914

20.1

34.2

2,615

46.7

1,069

19.1

Middle-income

3,831

2,244

23.6

58.6

1,121

29.3

466

12.2

Upper-income

8,053

4,901

51.5

60.9

2,145

26.6

1,007

12.5

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


19,119

9,508

100.0

49.7

6,740

35.3

2,871

15.0

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

207

8.0

191

8.0

7

5.9

9

8.7

Moderate-income

503

19.3

457

19.2

16

13.4

30

29.1

Middle-income

515

19.8

467

19.6

32

26.9

16

15.5

Upper-income

1,377

52.9

1,265

53.2

64

53.8

48

46.6

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


2,602

100.0

2,380

100.0

119

100.0

103

100.0


91.5

4.6

4.0

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

4

4.8

4

4.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

5

6.0

5

6.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

23

27.4

21

25.9

2

66.7

0

0.0

Upper-income

52

61.9

51

63.0

1

33.3

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


84

100.0

81

100.0

3

100.0

0

.0


96.4

3.6

.0





343

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.7% 0 0.0% 2.7% $0 0.0% 2.4%

Moderate 6 46.2% $722 38.7% 20.1% 6 46.2% 20.2% $722 38.7% 17.9%

Middle 2 15.4% $220 11.8% 23.6% 2 15.4% 19.6% $220 11.8% 16.0%

Upper 5 38.5% $924 49.5% 51.5% 5 38.5% 57.5% $924 49.5% 63.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 13 100.0% $1,866 100.0% 100.0% 13 100.0% 100.0% $1,866 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 7.7% $30 1.6% 4.7% 1 7.7% 3.0% $30 1.6% 1.8%

Moderate 4 30.8% $533 28.2% 20.1% 4 30.8% 14.3% $533 28.2% 12.4%

Middle 3 23.1% $204 10.8% 23.6% 3 23.1% 15.6% $204 10.8% 10.9%

Upper 5 38.5% $1,123 59.4% 51.5% 5 38.5% 67.1% $1,123 59.4% 74.9%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 13 100.0% $1,890 100.0% 100.0% 13 100.0% 100.0% $1,890 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.7% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 1.3%

Moderate 2 22.2% $29 24.2% 20.1% 2 22.2% 19.4% $29 24.2% 9.4%

Middle 2 22.2% $8 6.7% 23.6% 2 22.2% 23.6% $8 6.7% 18.2%

Upper 5 55.6% $83 69.2% 51.5% 5 55.6% 55.6% $83 69.2% 71.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 9 100.0% $120 100.0% 100.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $120 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 66.7% $0 0.0% 18.2%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 1.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 16.7% $0 0.0% 80.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 1 2.9% $30 0.8% 4.7% 1 2.9% 2.8% $30 0.8% 1.9%

Moderate 12 34.3% $1,284 33.1% 20.1% 12 34.3% 16.6% $1,284 33.1% 14.2%

Middle 7 20.0% $432 11.1% 23.6% 7 20.0% 17.2% $432 11.1% 12.5%

Upper 15 42.9% $2,130 55.0% 51.5% 15 42.9% 63.3% $2,130 55.0% 71.4%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 35 100.0% $3,876 100.0% 100.0% 35 100.0% 100.0% $3,876 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 8.0% 0 0.0% 3.0% $0 0.0% 3.8%

Moderate 3 18.8% $188 8.1% 19.2% 3 18.8% 12.4% $188 8.1% 8.6%

Middle 3 18.8% $905 39.2% 19.6% 3 18.8% 18.6% $905 39.2% 19.1%

Upper 10 62.5% $1,217 52.7% 53.2% 10 62.5% 62.2% $1,217 52.7% 67.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.8% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Total 16 100.0% $2,310 100.0% 100.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $2,310 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.2% 0 0.0% 12.5% $0 0.0% 24.1%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.9% 0 0.0% 25.0% $0 0.0% 23.9%

Upper 3 100.0% $486 100.0% 63.0% 3 100.0% 62.5% $486 100.0% 52.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $486 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $486 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






344

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 2.9% $0 0.0% 1.4%

Moderate 3 23.1% $329 17.6% 13.6% 3 23.1% 10.3% $329 17.6% 7.3%

Middle 3 23.1% $348 18.6% 18.5% 3 23.1% 21.1% $348 18.6% 19.5%

Upper 6 46.2% $1,102 59.1% 42.9% 6 46.2% 48.0% $1,102 59.1% 55.9%

Unknown 1 7.7% $87 4.7% 0.0% 1 7.7% 17.7% $87 4.7% 15.9%

Total 13 100.0% $1,866 100.0% 100.0% 13 100.0% 100.0% $1,866 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 2.1% $0 0.0% 1.6%

Moderate 1 7.7% $38 2.0% 13.6% 1 7.7% 7.3% $38 2.0% 4.0%

Middle 2 15.4% $107 5.7% 18.5% 2 15.4% 12.9% $107 5.7% 9.0%

Upper 10 76.9% $1,745 92.3% 42.9% 10 76.9% 63.1% $1,745 92.3% 68.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 14.6% $0 0.0% 16.6%

Total 13 100.0% $1,890 100.0% 100.0% 13 100.0% 100.0% $1,890 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 6.9% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 1 11.1% $5 4.2% 13.6% 1 11.1% 20.8% $5 4.2% 13.0%

Middle 1 11.1% $10 8.3% 18.5% 1 11.1% 9.7% $10 8.3% 11.0%

Upper 5 55.6% $99 82.5% 42.9% 5 55.6% 55.6% $99 82.5% 74.8%

Unknown 2 22.2% $6 5.0% 0.0% 2 22.2% 6.9% $6 5.0% 0.8%

Total 9 100.0% $120 100.0% 100.0% 9 100.0% 100.0% $120 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 13.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 42.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 25.0% 0 0.0% 2.6% $0 0.0% 1.5%

Moderate 5 14.3% $372 9.6% 13.6% 5 14.3% 8.9% $372 9.6% 5.2%

Middle 6 17.1% $465 12.0% 18.5% 6 17.1% 15.2% $465 12.0% 12.2%

Upper 21 60.0% $2,946 76.0% 42.9% 21 60.0% 57.7% $2,946 76.0% 63.8%

Unknown 3 8.6% $93 2.4% 0.0% 3 8.6% 15.6% $93 2.4% 17.3%

Total 35 100.0% $3,876 100.0% 100.0% 35 100.0% 100.0% $3,876 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 7 43.8% $1,026 44.4% 91.5% 7 43.8% 49.2% $1,026 44.4% 59.4%

Over $1 Million 6 37.5% $749 32.4% 4.6% 6 37.5%


Rev. Not Known 3 18.8% $535 23.2% 4.0% 3 18.8%

Total 16 100.0% $2,310 100.0% 100.0% 16 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 11 68.8% $535 23.2% 11 68.8% 88.5% $535 23.2% 27.8%

$100,001 - $250,000 2 12.5% $330 14.3% 2 12.5% 5.9% $330 14.3% 19.9%

$250,001 - $1 Million 3 18.8% $1,445 62.6% 3 18.8% 5.6% $1,445 62.6% 52.3%

Total 16 100.0% $2,310 100.0% 16 100.0% 100.0% $2,310 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 96.4% 0 0.0% 70.8% $0 0.0% 66.7%

Over $1 Million 3 100.0% $486 100.0% 3.6% 3 100.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $486 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 33.3% $76 15.6% 1 33.3% 75.0% $76 15.6% 28.0%

$100,001 - $250,000 2 66.7% $410 84.4% 2 66.7% 20.8% $410 84.4% 52.9%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.2% $0 0.0% 19.1%

Total 3 100.0% $486 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $486 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







345



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

5

12.5

3,476

9.2

1,618

46.5

9,018

23.9

Moderate-income

11

27.5

7,536

20.0

2,248

29.8

6,049

16.0

Middle-income

13

32.5

14,623

38.8

1,647

11.3

6,975

18.5

Upper-income

10

25.0

12,056

32.0

956

7.9

15,649

41.5

Unknown-income

1

2.5

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


40

100.0

37,691

100.0

6,469

17.2

37,691

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

6,347

2,247

6.3

35.4

2,928

46.1

1,172

18.5

Moderate-income

14,378

5,518

15.6

38.4

6,148

42.8

2,712

18.9

Middle-income

24,073

14,987

42.2

62.3

6,581

27.3

2,505

10.4

Upper-income

19,145

12,723

35.9

66.5

5,060

26.4

1,362

7.1

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


63,943

35,475

100.0

55.5

20,717

32.4

7,751

12.1

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,339

12.6

1,182

12.2

106

20.0

51

13.0

Moderate-income

2,139

20.2

1,939

20.0

114

21.5

86

21.9

Middle-income

3,634

34.3

3,353

34.6

172

32.4

109

27.8

Upper-income

3,480

32.8

3,199

33.0

136

25.6

145

37.0

Unknown-income

17

0.2

13

0.1

3

0.6

1

0.3


10,609

100.0

9,686

100.0

531

100.0

392

100.0


91.3

5.0

3.7

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

3

1.7

3

1.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

12

6.7

12

6.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

89

50.0

89

50.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

73

41.0

72

40.7

1

100.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

1

0.6

1

0.6

0

0.0

0

0.0


178

100.0

177

100.0

1

100.0

0

.0


99.4

.6

.0





346

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.3% 0 0.0% 0.6% $0 0.0% 0.4%

Moderate 7 2.3% $798 1.7% 15.6% 7 2.3% 5.5% $798 1.7% 3.6%

Middle 143 47.8% $22,626 48.3% 42.2% 143 47.8% 46.3% $22,626 48.3% 43.5%

Upper 149 49.8% $23,425 50.0% 35.9% 149 49.8% 47.5% $23,425 50.0% 52.5%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 299 100.0% $46,849 100.0% 100.0% 299 100.0% 100.0% $46,849 100.0% 100.0%

Low 1 0.9% $53 0.3% 6.3% 1 0.9% 0.7% $53 0.3% 0.4%

Moderate 7 6.0% $1,465 7.5% 15.6% 7 6.0% 7.3% $1,465 7.5% 5.2%

Middle 44 37.6% $6,763 34.5% 42.2% 44 37.6% 41.4% $6,763 34.5% 37.8%

Upper 65 55.6% $11,308 57.7% 35.9% 65 55.6% 50.6% $11,308 57.7% 56.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 117 100.0% $19,589 100.0% 100.0% 117 100.0% 100.0% $19,589 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 7.4% $132 24.1% 6.3% 2 7.4% 3.2% $132 24.1% 1.7%

Moderate 6 22.2% $52 9.5% 15.6% 6 22.2% 12.8% $52 9.5% 5.2%

Middle 17 63.0% $343 62.6% 42.2% 17 63.0% 52.5% $343 62.6% 49.9%

Upper 2 7.4% $21 3.8% 35.9% 2 7.4% 31.5% $21 3.8% 43.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 27 100.0% $548 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $548 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 1 33.3% $338 10.9% 0.0% 1 33.3% 23.1% $338 10.9% 7.2%

Middle 1 33.3% $295 9.5% 0.0% 1 33.3% 46.2% $295 9.5% 57.5%

Upper 1 33.3% $2,475 79.6% 0.0% 1 33.3% 30.8% $2,475 79.6% 35.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $3,108 100.0% 0.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $3,108 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 0.7% $185 0.3% 6.3% 3 0.7% 0.8% $185 0.3% 0.4%

Moderate 21 4.7% $2,653 3.8% 15.6% 21 4.7% 6.8% $2,653 3.8% 4.6%

Middle 205 46.0% $30,027 42.8% 42.2% 205 46.0% 44.0% $30,027 42.8% 40.8%

Upper 217 48.7% $37,229 53.1% 35.9% 217 48.7% 48.5% $37,229 53.1% 54.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 446 100.0% $70,094 100.0% 100.0% 446 100.0% 100.0% $70,094 100.0% 100.0%

Low 38 29.0% $7,685 36.8% 12.2% 38 29.0% 14.2% $7,685 36.8% 25.2%

Moderate 11 8.4% $1,520 7.3% 20.0% 11 8.4% 14.9% $1,520 7.3% 9.7%

Middle 47 35.9% $6,290 30.1% 34.6% 47 35.9% 33.3% $6,290 30.1% 31.4%

Upper 35 26.7% $5,369 25.7% 33.0% 35 26.7% 33.7% $5,369 25.7% 32.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.3% $0 0.0% 0.3%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.5% $0 0.0% 1.4%

Total 131 100.0% $20,864 100.0% 100.0% 131 100.0% 100.0% $20,864 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 1.7% 0 0.0% 2.8% $0 0.0% 10.7%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.8% 0 0.0% 2.8% $0 0.0% 0.1%

Middle 2 100.0% $90 100.0% 50.3% 2 100.0% 52.8% $90 100.0% 28.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 40.7% 0 0.0% 36.1% $0 0.0% 46.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.6% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.6% $0 0.0% 13.7%

Total 2 100.0% $90 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $90 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






347

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 25 8.4% $2,314 4.9% 23.9% 25 8.4% 4.6% $2,314 4.9% 2.7%

Moderate 64 21.4% $7,493 16.0% 16.0% 64 21.4% 18.6% $7,493 16.0% 13.6%

Middle 80 26.8% $11,033 23.6% 18.5% 80 26.8% 22.1% $11,033 23.6% 20.0%

Upper 129 43.1% $25,769 55.0% 41.5% 129 43.1% 42.3% $25,769 55.0% 52.9%

Unknown 1 0.3% $240 0.5% 0.0% 1 0.3% 12.4% $240 0.5% 10.9%

Total 299 100.0% $46,849 100.0% 100.0% 299 100.0% 100.0% $46,849 100.0% 100.0%

Low 6 5.1% $390 2.0% 23.9% 6 5.1% 2.9% $390 2.0% 1.3%

Moderate 19 16.2% $1,707 8.7% 16.0% 19 16.2% 10.2% $1,707 8.7% 6.1%

Middle 18 15.4% $2,282 11.6% 18.5% 18 15.4% 17.3% $2,282 11.6% 12.3%

Upper 67 57.3% $13,958 71.3% 41.5% 67 57.3% 54.6% $13,958 71.3% 63.5%

Unknown 7 6.0% $1,252 6.4% 0.0% 7 6.0% 15.0% $1,252 6.4% 16.9%

Total 117 100.0% $19,589 100.0% 100.0% 117 100.0% 100.0% $19,589 100.0% 100.0%

Low 7 25.9% $40 7.3% 23.9% 7 25.9% 8.7% $40 7.3% 2.9%

Moderate 2 7.4% $17 3.1% 16.0% 2 7.4% 12.3% $17 3.1% 8.5%

Middle 2 7.4% $25 4.6% 18.5% 2 7.4% 21.0% $25 4.6% 17.0%

Upper 10 37.0% $307 56.0% 41.5% 10 37.0% 47.9% $307 56.0% 65.7%

Unknown 6 22.2% $159 29.0% 0.0% 6 22.2% 10.0% $159 29.0% 5.9%

Total 27 100.0% $548 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $548 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 16.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 41.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 3 100.0% $3,108 100.0% 0.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $3,108 100.0% 100.0%

Total 3 100.0% $3,108 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $3,108 100.0% 100.0%

Low 38 8.5% $2,744 3.9% 23.9% 38 8.5% 3.9% $2,744 3.9% 1.8%

Moderate 85 19.1% $9,217 13.1% 16.0% 85 19.1% 13.8% $9,217 13.1% 9.0%

Middle 100 22.4% $13,340 19.0% 18.5% 100 22.4% 19.4% $13,340 19.0% 15.3%

Upper 206 46.2% $40,034 57.1% 41.5% 206 46.2% 49.0% $40,034 57.1% 57.6%

Unknown 17 3.8% $4,759 6.8% 0.0% 17 3.8% 13.9% $4,759 6.8% 16.2%

Total 446 100.0% $70,094 100.0% 100.0% 446 100.0% 100.0% $70,094 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 65 49.6% $9,218 44.2% 91.3% 65 49.6% 38.0% $9,218 44.2% 44.0%

Over $1 Million 56 42.7% $11,087 53.1% 5.0% 56 42.7%


Rev. Not Known 10 7.6% $559 2.7% 3.7% 10 7.6%

Total 131 100.0% $20,864 100.0% 100.0% 131 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 90 68.7% $4,525 21.7% 90 68.7% 89.0% $4,525 21.7% 25.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 15 11.5% $3,114 14.9% 15 11.5% 5.3% $3,114 14.9% 17.7%

$250,001 - $1 Million 26 19.8% $13,225 63.4% 26 19.8% 5.8% $13,225 63.4% 57.0%

Total 131 100.0% $20,864 100.0% 131 100.0% 100.0% $20,864 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 2 100.0% $90 100.0% 99.4% 2 100.0% 47.2% $90 100.0% 92.3%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.6% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $90 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 2 100.0% $90 100.0% 2 100.0% 75.0% $90 100.0% 17.1%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19.4% $0 0.0% 56.1%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5.6% $0 0.0% 26.8%

Total 2 100.0% $90 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $90 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







348



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

12.5

806

11.4

312

38.7

2,037

28.8

Moderate-income

2

25.0

1,819

25.7

602

33.1

1,222

17.3

Middle-income

5

62.5

4,451

62.9

631

14.2

1,479

20.9

Upper-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2,338

33.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


8

100.0

7,076

100.0

1,545

21.8

7,076

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1,529

715

9.7

46.8

465

30.4

349

22.8

Moderate-income

3,600

1,747

23.8

48.5

1,192

33.1

661

18.4

Middle-income

7,408

4,880

66.5

65.9

1,283

17.3

1,245

16.8

Upper-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


12,537

7,342

100.0

58.6

2,940

23.5

2,255

18.0

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

128

8.0

121

8.2

0

0.0

7

13.0

Moderate-income

516

32.4

466

31.4

25

46.3

25

46.3

Middle-income

947

59.5

896

60.4

29

53.7

22

40.7

Upper-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


1,591

100.0

1,483

100.0

54

100.0

54

100.0


93.2

3.4

3.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

1

0.5

1

0.5

0

0.0

0

0.0

Moderate-income

9

4.8

9

4.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

Middle-income

176

94.6

172

94.5

4

100.0

0

0.0

Upper-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


186

100.0

182

100.0

4

100.0

0

.0


97.8

2.2

.0





349

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 1 3.7% $131 4.4% 9.7% 1 3.7% 6.4% $131 4.4% 6.1%

Moderate 4 14.8% $364 12.1% 23.8% 4 14.8% 20.5% $364 12.1% 13.5%

Middle 22 81.5% $2,507 83.5% 66.5% 22 81.5% 69.9% $2,507 83.5% 79.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 3.2% $0 0.0% 1.4%

Total 27 100.0% $3,002 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $3,002 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 9.7% 0 0.0% 3.1% $0 0.0% 1.7%

Moderate 7 38.9% $387 19.9% 23.8% 7 38.9% 12.8% $387 19.9% 7.4%

Middle 11 61.1% $1,562 80.1% 66.5% 11 61.1% 84.0% $1,562 80.1% 90.9%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 18 100.0% $1,949 100.0% 100.0% 18 100.0% 100.0% $1,949 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 9.7% 0 0.0% 18.4% $0 0.0% 7.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 23.8% 0 0.0% 15.8% $0 0.0% 13.5%

Middle 6 100.0% $63 100.0% 66.5% 6 100.0% 65.8% $63 100.0% 79.5%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 6 100.0% $63 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $63 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Low 1 2.0% $131 2.6% 9.7% 1 2.0% 5.6% $131 2.6% 3.7%

Moderate 11 21.6% $751 15.0% 23.8% 11 21.6% 16.3% $751 15.0% 10.2%

Middle 39 76.5% $4,132 82.4% 66.5% 39 76.5% 76.7% $4,132 82.4% 85.4%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.4% $0 0.0% 0.6%

Total 51 100.0% $5,014 100.0% 100.0% 51 100.0% 100.0% $5,014 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 13.3% $133 11.4% 8.2% 2 13.3% 5.7% $133 11.4% 13.3%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 31.4% 0 0.0% 27.0% $0 0.0% 31.7%

Middle 13 86.7% $1,036 88.6% 60.4% 13 86.7% 59.9% $1,036 88.6% 50.8%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7.4% $0 0.0% 4.2%

Total 15 100.0% $1,169 100.0% 100.0% 15 100.0% 100.0% $1,169 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 4.9% 0 0.0% 5.2% $0 0.0% 9.9%

Middle 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 94.5% 1 100.0% 79.2% $55 100.0% 71.5%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.6% $0 0.0% 18.6%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






350

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 7 25.9% $484 16.1% 28.8% 7 25.9% 10.8% $484 16.1% 6.2%

Moderate 8 29.6% $736 24.5% 17.3% 8 29.6% 20.1% $736 24.5% 16.8%

Middle 3 11.1% $320 10.7% 20.9% 3 11.1% 26.1% $320 10.7% 26.4%

Upper 9 33.3% $1,462 48.7% 33.0% 9 33.3% 29.3% $1,462 48.7% 40.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 13.7% $0 0.0% 10.2%

Total 27 100.0% $3,002 100.0% 100.0% 27 100.0% 100.0% $3,002 100.0% 100.0%

Low 3 16.7% $104 5.3% 28.8% 3 16.7% 6.3% $104 5.3% 3.8%

Moderate 2 11.1% $103 5.3% 17.3% 2 11.1% 7.6% $103 5.3% 5.0%

Middle 4 22.2% $546 28.0% 20.9% 4 22.2% 24.0% $546 28.0% 19.7%

Upper 9 50.0% $1,196 61.4% 33.0% 9 50.0% 50.7% $1,196 61.4% 58.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 11.5% $0 0.0% 12.9%

Total 18 100.0% $1,949 100.0% 100.0% 18 100.0% 100.0% $1,949 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 28.8% 0 0.0% 5.3% $0 0.0% 2.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.3% 0 0.0% 15.8% $0 0.0% 21.6%

Middle 1 16.7% $10 15.9% 20.9% 1 16.7% 13.2% $10 15.9% 4.0%

Upper 4 66.7% $43 68.3% 33.0% 4 66.7% 63.2% $43 68.3% 71.7%

Unknown 1 16.7% $10 15.9% 0.0% 1 16.7% 2.6% $10 15.9% 0.7%

Total 6 100.0% $63 100.0% 100.0% 6 100.0% 100.0% $63 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 28.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.3% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 20.9% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 33.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Low 10 19.6% $588 11.7% 28.8% 10 19.6% 8.2% $588 11.7% 4.8%

Moderate 10 19.6% $839 16.7% 17.3% 10 19.6% 13.6% $839 16.7% 10.6%

Middle 8 15.7% $876 17.5% 20.9% 8 15.7% 24.2% $876 17.5% 22.2%

Upper 22 43.1% $2,701 53.9% 33.0% 22 43.1% 42.3% $2,701 53.9% 51.0%

Unknown 1 2.0% $10 0.2% 0.0% 1 2.0% 11.8% $10 0.2% 11.4%

Total 51 100.0% $5,014 100.0% 100.0% 51 100.0% 100.0% $5,014 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 11 73.3% $714 61.1% 93.2% 11 73.3% 40.1% $714 61.1% 52.6%

Over $1 Million 4 26.7% $455 38.9% 3.4% 4 26.7%


Rev. Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.4% 0 0.0%

Total 15 100.0% $1,169 100.0% 100.0% 15 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 12 80.0% $529 45.3% 12 80.0% 94.0% $529 45.3% 41.2%

$100,001 - $250,000 2 13.3% $340 29.1% 2 13.3% 2.6% $340 29.1% 14.0%

$250,001 - $1 Million 1 6.7% $300 25.7% 1 6.7% 3.4% $300 25.7% 44.8%

Total 15 100.0% $1,169 100.0% 15 100.0% 100.0% $1,169 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 97.8% 1 100.0% 37.7% $55 100.0% 68.1%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 2.2% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 1 100.0% 71.4% $55 100.0% 13.9%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15.6% $0 0.0% 29.9%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13.0% $0 0.0% 56.2%

Total 1 100.0% $55 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% $55 100.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar







351



Income Categories

Tract Distribution


Families < Poverty

Level as % of

Families by Tract


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

11

17.2

5,583

9.1

2,378

42.6

15,966

26.2

Moderate-income

16

25.0

14,950

24.5

3,877

25.9

10,502

17.2

Middle-income

22

34.4

24,479

40.1

2,344

9.6

11,305

18.5

Upper-income

14

21.9

16,023

26.3

769

4.8

23,262

38.1

Unknown-income

1

1.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


64

100.0

61,035

100.0

9,368

15.3

61,035

100.0

Housing


Units by

Owner-Occupied

Rental

Vacant

Tract

#

%

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

12,385

3,872

6.3

31.3

5,776

46.6

2,737

22.1

Moderate-income

29,487

13,018

21.1

44.1

11,589

39.3

4,880

16.5

Middle-income

42,862

26,016

42.1

60.7

11,807

27.5

5,039

11.8

Upper-income

27,032

18,838

30.5

69.7

6,377

23.6

1,817

6.7

Unknown-income

0

0

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


111,766

61,744

100.0

55.2

35,549

31.8

14,473

12.9

Total Businesses by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

2,586

15.8

2,218

14.8

272

31.2

96

17.4

Moderate-income

3,241

19.8

2,971

19.9

160

18.3

110

20.0

Middle-income

6,049

36.9

5,546

37.1

298

34.1

205

37.2

Upper-income

4,473

27.3

4,192

28.0

143

16.4

138

25.0

Unknown-income

24

0.1

22

0.1

0

0.0

2

0.4


16,373

100.0

14,949

100.0

873

100.0

551

100.0


91.3

5.3

3.4

Total Farms by


Tract


Over $1 Million


#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Low-income

8

4.2

7

3.8

1

14.3

0

0.0

Moderate-income

23

12.0

21

11.4

2

28.6

0

0.0

Middle-income

100

52.4

99

53.8

1

14.3

0

0.0

Upper-income

60

31.4

57

31.0

3

42.9

0

0.0

Unknown-income

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0


191

100.0

184

100.0

7

100.0

0

.0


96.3

3.7

.0





352

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $ (000s) $ % $ %

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.3% 0 0.0% 1.9% $0 0.0% 0.9%

Moderate 11 6.9% $891 3.7% 21.1% 11 6.9% 9.6% $891 3.7% 5.4%

Middle 71 44.7% $10,720 44.5% 42.1% 71 44.7% 39.1% $10,720 44.5% 35.9%

Upper 77 48.4% $12,503 51.8% 30.5% 77 48.4% 49.4% $12,503 51.8% 57.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 159 100.0% $24,114 100.0% 100.0% 159 100.0% 100.0% $24,114 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.3% 0 0.0% 1.1% $0 0.0% 0.5%

Moderate 7 8.0% $755 3.8% 21.1% 7 8.0% 6.6% $755 3.8% 3.3%

Middle 23 26.4% $4,021 20.0% 42.1% 23 26.4% 40.2% $4,021 20.0% 35.5%

Upper 57 65.5% $15,339 76.3% 30.5% 57 65.5% 52.1% $15,339 76.3% 60.6%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 87 100.0% $20,115 100.0% 100.0% 87 100.0% 100.0% $20,115 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.3% 0 0.0% 2.4% $0 0.0% 1.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 21.1% 0 0.0% 26.1% $0 0.0% 10.1%

Middle 1 33.3% $4 6.3% 42.1% 1 33.3% 45.4% $4 6.3% 42.7%

Upper 2 66.7% $60 93.8% 30.5% 2 66.7% 26.1% $60 93.8% 46.2%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 3 100.0% $64 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $64 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.1% $0 0.0% 11.9%

Moderate 1 50.0% $229 60.4% 0.0% 1 50.0% 36.4% $229 60.4% 21.2%

Middle 1 50.0% $150 39.6% 0.0% 1 50.0% 45.5% $150 39.6% 41.1%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 9.1% $0 0.0% 25.8%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 2 100.0% $379 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $379 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6.3% 0 0.0% 1.5% $0 0.0% 1.1%

Moderate 19 7.6% $1,875 4.2% 21.1% 19 7.6% 8.8% $1,875 4.2% 4.9%

Middle 96 38.2% $14,895 33.3% 42.1% 96 38.2% 40.0% $14,895 33.3% 36.0%

Upper 136 54.2% $27,902 62.5% 30.5% 136 54.2% 49.7% $27,902 62.5% 58.0%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 251 100.0% $44,672 100.0% 100.0% 251 100.0% 100.0% $44,672 100.0% 100.0%

Low 22 20.8% $5,912 24.8% 14.8% 22 20.8% 15.5% $5,912 24.8% 22.2%

Moderate 1 0.9% $250 1.1% 19.9% 1 0.9% 13.3% $250 1.1% 8.2%

Middle 28 26.4% $7,297 30.7% 37.1% 28 26.4% 37.0% $7,297 30.7% 39.1%

Upper 55 51.9% $10,345 43.5% 28.0% 55 51.9% 31.5% $10,345 43.5% 29.7%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2.7% $0 0.0% 0.7%

Total 106 100.0% $23,804 100.0% 100.0% 106 100.0% 100.0% $23,804 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.8% 0 0.0% 8.7% $0 0.0% 26.6%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 11.4% 0 0.0% 13.0% $0 0.0% 2.6%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 53.8% 0 0.0% 52.2% $0 0.0% 55.5%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 31.0% 0 0.0% 26.1% $0 0.0% 15.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Tr Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%



Small Farms

SM

ALL F

AR

MH

OM

E

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

I F

AM

ILY

Multi-Family Units

HM

DA

TO

TA

LS

Small Businesses

SM

ALL B

US

INE

SS

ES


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Tract

Income

Levels



2012 2012

BankOwner

Occupied

Units

Count Dollar






353

Agg Agg

# % $ (000s) $ % % # % % $(000s) $ % $ %

Low 14 8.8% $1,147 4.8% 26.2% 14 8.8% 5.1% $1,147 4.8% 2.6%

Moderate 50 31.4% $5,902 24.5% 17.2% 50 31.4% 20.2% $5,902 24.5% 14.5%

Middle 32 20.1% $5,117 21.2% 18.5% 32 20.1% 23.2% $5,117 21.2% 22.0%

Upper 62 39.0% $11,820 49.0% 38.1% 62 39.0% 38.5% $11,820 49.0% 49.6%

Unknown 1 0.6% $128 0.5% 0.0% 1 0.6% 13.2% $128 0.5% 11.4%

Total 159 100.0% $24,114 100.0% 100.0% 159 100.0% 100.0% $24,114 100.0% 100.0%

Low 2 2.3% $216 1.1% 26.2% 2 2.3% 3.5% $216 1.1% 1.6%

Moderate 14 16.1% $1,379 6.9% 17.2% 14 16.1% 10.0% $1,379 6.9% 5.7%

Middle 16 18.4% $1,938 9.6% 18.5% 16 18.4% 19.2% $1,938 9.6% 14.0%

Upper 53 60.9% $16,178 80.4% 38.1% 53 60.9% 50.6% $16,178 80.4% 62.3%

Unknown 2 2.3% $404 2.0% 0.0% 2 2.3% 16.7% $404 2.0% 16.4%

Total 87 100.0% $20,115 100.0% 100.0% 87 100.0% 100.0% $20,115 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 26.2% 0 0.0% 13.6% $0 0.0% 4.4%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.2% 0 0.0% 17.1% $0 0.0% 10.0%

Middle 1 33.3% $4 6.3% 18.5% 1 33.3% 24.2% $4 6.3% 19.0%

Upper 2 66.7% $60 93.8% 38.1% 2 66.7% 40.2% $60 93.8% 62.3%

Unknown 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 4.9% $0 0.0% 4.2%

Total 3 100.0% $64 100.0% 100.0% 3 100.0% 100.0% $64 100.0% 100.0%

Low 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 26.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Moderate 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 17.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Middle 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 18.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Upper 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 38.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 2 100.0% $379 100.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $379 100.0% 100.0%

Total 2 100.0% $379 100.0% 100.0% 2 100.0% 100.0% $379 100.0% 100.0%

Low 16 6.4% $1,363 3.1% 26.2% 16 6.4% 4.6% $1,363 3.1% 2.0%

Moderate 64 25.5% $7,281 16.3% 17.2% 64 25.5% 14.7% $7,281 16.3% 9.2%

Middle 49 19.5% $7,059 15.8% 18.5% 49 19.5% 21.1% $7,059 15.8% 16.9%

Upper 117 46.6% $28,058 62.8% 38.1% 117 46.6% 44.8% $28,058 62.8% 54.7%

Unknown 5 2.0% $911 2.0% 0.0% 5 2.0% 14.7% $911 2.0% 17.1%

Total 251 100.0% $44,672 100.0% 100.0% 251 100.0% 100.0% $44,672 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 43 40.6% $8,909 37.4% 91.3% 43 40.6% 35.8% $8,909 37.4% 36.4%

Over $1 Million 42 39.6% $9,419 39.6% 5.3% 42 39.6%


Rev. Not Known 21 19.8% $5,476 23.0% 3.4% 21 19.8%

Total 106 100.0% $23,804 100.0% 100.0% 106 100.0%

$100,000 or Less 41 38.7% $2,857 12.0% 41 38.7% 91.2% $2,857 12.0% 28.7%

$100,001 - $250,000 39 36.8% $7,250 30.5% 39 36.8% 4.7% $7,250 30.5% 19.6%

$250,001 - $1 Million 26 24.5% $13,697 57.5% 26 24.5% 4.1% $13,697 57.5% 51.7%

Total 106 100.0% $23,804 100.0% 106 100.0% 100.0% $23,804 100.0% 100.0%

$1 Million or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 96.3% 0 0.0% 56.5% $0 0.0% 93.3%

Over $1 Million 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 3.7% 0 0.0%

Not Known 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 100.0% 0 0.0%

$100,000 or Less 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 78.3% $0 0.0% 18.4%

$100,001 - $250,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.7% $0 0.0% 21.1%

$250,001 - $500,000 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13.0% $0 0.0% 60.5%

Total 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 100.0% $0 0.0% 100.0%


Total Farms

Sm

all

Farm R

evenue

Loan S

ize


HO

ME

PU

RC

HA

SE

RE

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OD

UC

T T

YP

E

Borrower Income

Levels



2012



HO

ME

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

MU

LT

IFA

MIL

YH

MD

A T

OT

ALS

Sm

all

Busin

ess

Total Businesses

Revenue

Loan S

ize

2012

Bank Families

by Family

Income

Count Dollar






Appendix K: Qualified Investments and Contributions

354

# $ # $ # $ # $ $% of

Total

Baldwin 0 $0 1 $137,000 1 $137,000 3 $22,000 $159,000 0.2%

Birmingham 0 $0 8 $6,982,293 8 $6,982,293 57 $219,087 $7,201,380 7.2%

Huntsville 0 $0 4 $700,707 4 $700,707 8 $23,616 $724,323 0.7%

Mobile 0 $0 6 $670,575 6 $670,575 17 $21,651 $692,226 0.7%

Montgomery 0 $0 5 $659,368 5 $659,368 13 $29,897 $689,265 0.7%

TOTAL 0 $0 24 $9,149,943 24 $9,149,943 98 $316,251 $9,466,194 9.5%

Fayetteville 2 $202,743 3 $791,897 5 $994,640 5 $21,689 $1,016,329 1.0%

Jonesboro 2 $209,700 9 $907,504 11 $1,117,204 14 $24,249 $1,141,453 1.1%

Little Rock 3 $357,500 4 $6,086,420 7 $6,443,920 77 $250,391 $6,694,311 6.7%

NE AR NonMSA 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 $13,426 $13,426 0.0%

TOTAL 7 $769,943 16 $7,785,821 23 $8,555,764 100 $309,755 $8,865,519 8.9%

Ft Myers 0 $0 13 $1,359,786 13 $1,359,786 19 $38,582 $1,398,368 1.4%

Jacksonville* 0 $0 3 $374,782 3 $374,782 2 $450 $375,232 0.4%

Keys 0 $0 1 $8,820,000 1 $8,820,000 9 $58,800 $8,878,800 8.9%

Palm Beach/Broward 0 $0 15 $2,296,131 15 $2,296,131 15 $43,225 $2,421,621 2.4%

Naples 0 $0 14 $2,217,439 14 $2,217,439 38 $125,490 $2,344,069 2.3%

Sarasota 0 $0 21 $2,943,291 21 $2,943,291 19 $41,872 $2,985,163 3.0%

Regional 4 $10,000 $10,000 0.0%

TOTAL 0 $0 67 $18,011,429 67 $18,011,429 106 $318,419 $18,413,253 18.5%

Acadiana 1 $526,826 4 $478,721 5 $1,005,547 15 $126,617 $1,132,164 1.1%

Allen 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $2,500 $2,500 0.0%

Baton Rouge 0 $0 15 $2,008,297 15 $2,008,297 19 $96,116 $2,104,413 2.1%

Houma 0 $0 1 $126,526 1 $126,526 2 $800 $127,326 0.1%

Lafayette 2 $13,264,175 37 $5,366,671 39 $18,630,846 37 $263,229 $18,894,075 18.9%

Lake Charles 2 $1,463,573 18 $2,186,662 20 $3,650,235 33 $88,351 $3,738,586 3.7%

Lincoln 0 $0 2 $271,491 2 $271,491 1 $1,500 $272,991 0.3%

Monroe 0 $0 10 $1,471,865 10 $1,471,865 13 $64,996 $1,536,861 1.5%

Morehouse 0 $0 2 $181,486 2 $181,486 3 $5,908 $187,394 0.2%

New Orleans 9 $23,565,874 40 $6,038,991 49 $29,604,865 73 664,813$ $30,269,678 30.3%

Shreveport 1 $299,948 7 $877,119 8 $1,177,067 35 $97,736 $1,274,803 1.3%

Regional 2 $4,000 $4,000 0.0%

TOTAL 15 $39,120,396 136 $19,007,829 151 $58,128,225 234 $1,416,566 $59,544,791 59.7%

Memphis 0 $0 9 $1,109,675 9 $1,109,675 10 $31,500 $1,141,175 1.1%

TOTAL 0 $0 9 $1,109,675 9 $1,109,675 10 $31,500 $1,141,175 1.1%

Houston 0 $0 8 $2,235,255 8 $2,235,255 16 $121,579 $2,356,834 2.4%

TOTAL 0 $0 8 $2,235,255 8 $2,235,255 16 $121,579 $2,356,834 2.4%

TOTAL

INSTITUTION22 $39,890,339 260 $57,299,952 282 $97,190,291 564 $2,597,475 $99,787,766 100.0%

**Full scope assessment areas noted in bold

TEXAS

Qualified Investments and Contributions by State

* Exited market during the review period.

TOTAL INSTITUTION

Total Investments +

ContributionsAssessment Area

ALABAMA

ARKANSAS

FLORIDA

LOUISIANA

TENNESSEEE

Prior Period

Investments

Current Period

Investments

Total

InvestmentsContributions

lafayette, louisiana august 5, 2013 public disclosure ... · presence in arkansas and tennessee)...

Documents