UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

þ		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number 000-22374

Fidelity Southern Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Georgia		58-1416811
(State or other jurisdiction of		(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)		Identification No.)
3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 1550		30305
Atlanta, Georgia		(Zip Code)
(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (404) 240-1504

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No þ

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No þ

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes o No o

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

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer o		Accelerated filer o		Non-accelerated filer o		Smaller reporting company þ
				(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o No þ

     The aggregate market value of the common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant (assuming for these purposes, but without conceding, that all executive officers and directors are “affiliates” of the registrant) as of June 30, 2009 (based on the average bid and ask price of the Common Stock as quoted on the NASDAQ National Market System on June 30, 2009), was $19,982,579.

     At March 4, 2010, there were 10,266,864 shares of Common Stock outstanding, without stated par value.

     Portions of the registrant’s Annual Report to Shareholders for fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, are incorporated by reference into Part II. Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2010 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

				Pages
		PART I
Item 1.		Business		3
Item 1A.		Risk Factors		13
Item 1B.		Unresolved Staff Comments		19
Item 2.		Properties		19
Item 3.		Legal Proceedings		19
Item 4.		Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders		19
		PART II
Item 5.		Market For Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		19
Item 6.		Selected Financial Data		21
Item 7.		Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		23
Item 7A.		Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		49
Item 8.		Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		50
Item 9.		Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure		87
Item 9A.		Controls and Procedures		87
Item 9B.		Other Information		89
		PART III
Item 10.		Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance		89
Item 11.		Executive Compensation		89
Item 12.		Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters		89
Item 13.		Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence		89
Item 14.		Principal Accountant Fees and Services		89
		PART IV
Item 15.		Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules		89
EX-21
EX-23
EX-31.1
EX-31.2
EX-32.1
EX-32.2
EX-99.1
EX-99.2

PART I

Item 1.		Business

General

          Fidelity Southern Corporation (“FSC” or “Fidelity”) is a bank holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. We conduct operations primarily though Fidelity Bank, a state chartered wholly-owned subsidiary bank (the “Bank”). The Bank was organized as a national banking corporation in 1973 and converted to a Georgia chartered state bank in 2003. LionMark Insurance Company (“LIC”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FSC and is an insurance agency offering consumer credit related insurance products. FSC also owns five subsidiaries established to issue trust preferred securities. The “Company”, “we” or “our”, as used herein, includes FSC and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires.

          At December 31, 2009, we had total assets of $1.852 billion, total loans of $1.421 billion, total deposits of $1.551 billion, and shareholders’ equity of $129.7 million.

Forward-Looking Statements

          This report on Form 10-K may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that reflect our current expectations relating to present or future trends or factors generally affecting the banking industry and specifically affecting our operations, markets and services. Without limiting the foregoing, the words “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “projects,” “intends,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions we believe are reasonable and may relate to, among other things, the difficult economic conditions and the economy’s impact on operating results, credit quality, liquidity, capital, the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses, changes in interest rates, and litigation results. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those projected for many reasons, including without limitation, changing events and trends that have influenced our assumptions.

          These trends and events include (1) the continued decline in real estate values in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area and in eastern and northern Florida markets; (2) general business and economic conditions; (3) conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally and the impact of recent efforts to address difficult market and economic conditions; (4) our liquidity and sources of liquidity; (5) the terms of the U.S. Treasury Department’s (the “Treasury”) equity investment in us, and the resulting limitations on executive compensation imposed through our participation in the TARP Capital Purchase Program; (6) a stagnant economy and its impact on operations and credit quality; (7) uncertainty with respect to future governmental economic and regulatory measures, including the ability of the Treasury to unilaterally amend any provision of the purchase agreement we entered into as part of the TARP Capital Purchase Program, the winding down of governmental emergency measures intended to stabilize the financial system, and numerous legislative proposals to further regulate the financial services industry; (8) unique risks associated with our construction and land development loans; (9) our ability to raise capital; (10) the impact of a recession on our consumer loan portfolio and its potential impact on our commercial portfolio; (11) economic conditions in Atlanta, Georgia; (12) our ability to maintain and service relationships with automobile dealers and indirect automobile loan purchasers and our ability to profitably manage changes in our indirect automobile lending operations; (13) the accuracy and completeness of information from customers and our counterparties; (14) changes in the interest rate environment and their impact on our net interest margin; (15) difficulties in maintaining quality loan growth; (16) less favorable than anticipated changes in the national and local business environment, particularly in regard to the housing market in general and residential construction and new home sales in particular; (17) the impact of and adverse changes in the governmental regulatory requirements affecting us; (18) the effectiveness of our controls and procedures; (19) our ability to attract and retain skilled people; (20) greater competitive pressures among financial institutions in our market; (21) changes in political, legislative and economic conditions; (22) inflation; (23) greater loan losses than historic levels and an insufficient allowance for loan losses; (24) failure to achieve the revenue increases expected to result from our investments in our growth strategies, including our branch additions and in our transaction deposit and lending businesses; (25) the volatility and limited trading of our common stock; and (26) the impact of dilution on our common stock.

          This list is intended to identify some of the principal factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements included herein and are not intended to represent a complete list of all risks and uncertainties in our business. Investors are encouraged to read the risks discussed under “Item 1A. — Risk Factors.”

Market Area, Products and Services

          The Bank provides an array of financial products and services for business and retail customers primarily through 23 branches in Fulton, Dekalb, Cobb, Clayton, Gwinnett, Rockdale, Coweta, and Barrow Counties in Georgia, a branch in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, and on the Internet at www.lionbank.com. The Bank’s customers are primarily individuals and small and medium sized businesses located in Georgia. Mortgage and construction loans are also provided through a branch in Jacksonville, Florida.

Mortgage loans, automobile loans, and Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans are provided through employees located throughout the Southeast.

          The Bank is primarily engaged in attracting deposits from individuals and businesses and using these deposits and borrowed funds to originate commercial loans, commercial loans secured by real estate, SBA loans, construction and residential real estate loans, direct and indirect automobile loans, residential mortgage and home equity loans, and secured and unsecured installment loans. Internet banking, including on-line bill pay, and Internet cash management services are available to individuals and businesses, respectively. Additionally, the Bank offers businesses remote deposit services, which allow participating companies to scan and electronically send deposits to the Bank for improved security and funds availability. The Bank also provides international trade services. Trust services and merchant services activities are provided through agreements with third parties. Investment services are provided through an agreement with an independent broker-dealer.

          We have grown our assets, deposits, and business internally by building on our lending products, expanding our deposit products and delivery capabilities, opening new branches, and hiring experienced bankers with existing customer relationships in our market. We do not purchase loan participations from any other financial institution.

Deposits

          The Bank offers a full range of depository accounts and services to both individuals and businesses. As of December 31, 2009, deposits totaled $1.551 billion, consisting of:

		December 31, 2009
		Amount				%
		(Dollars in millions)
Noninterest-bearing demand deposits		$	158				10.2	%
Interest-bearing demand deposits and money market accounts			252				16.2
Savings deposits			441				28.4
Time deposits ($100,000 or more)			257				16.6
Other time deposits			344				22.2
Brokered time deposits			99				6.4
Total		$	1,551				100.0	%

          During 2009, the Bank continued a marketing program to increase the number and volume of our personal and business demand deposit accounts with the goals of building relationships with existing customers, adding new customers, increasing transaction accounts, and helping manage our cost of funds. We believe the marketing program has been a contributing factor to the growth in the Bank’s core deposits in 2009. Based on the success of this program, the Bank intends to continue this marketing program during 2010.

Lending

          The Bank’s primary lending activities include commercial loans to small and medium sized businesses, SBA sponsored loans, consumer loans (primarily indirect automobile loans), construction loans, and residential real estate loans. Commercial lending consists of the extension of credit for business purposes, primarily in the Atlanta metropolitan area. SBA loans, originated in the Atlanta metropolitan area and throughout the Southeast, are primarily made through the Bank’s SBA loan production office located in Covington, Georgia. Indirect loans are originated in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee. The Bank offers direct installment loans to consumers on both a secured and unsecured basis. Secured construction loans to homebuilders and developers and residential mortgages are primarily made in the Atlanta, Georgia, and Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan areas. The loans are generally secured by first real estate mortgages.

          As of December 31, 2009, the Bank had total loans outstanding, including loans held-for-sale, consisting of:

						Held-for-
		Total Loans				Sale				Loans
						(in millions)
Commercial, financial and agricultural		$	119			$	—			$	119
Real estate — mortgage—commercial			307				20				287
Real estate — construction			155				—				155
Real estate — mortgage—residential			212				81				131
Consumer installment loans			628				30				598
Total		$	1,421			$	131			$	1,290

          The loan categories in the above schedule are based on certain regulatory definitions and classifications. Certain of the following discussions are in part based on the Bank defined loan portfolios and may not conform to the above classifications.

Commercial and Industrial Lending

          The Bank originates commercial and industrial loans, which include certain SBA loans which include partially guaranteed loans and other credit enhanced loans that are generally secured by business property such as inventory, equipment and accounts receivable. All commercial loans are evaluated for the adequacy of repayment sources at the time of approval and are regularly reviewed for any deterioration in the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. In most instances, collateral is required to provide an additional source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower. The amount and type of the collateral vary from loan to loan depending on the purpose of the loan, the financial strength of the borrower, and the amount and terms of the loan.

Commercial Real Estate Lending

          The Bank engages in commercial real estate lending through direct originations. The Bank does not purchase loan participations from other banks. The Bank’s primary focus is on originating owner-occupied loans to finance real estate out of which an individual or company will operate their business. Non-owner occupied real estate loans for investment purposes are made on a selective basis and only where the borrowers or guarantors add substantial support to their credit. Loans where the sole source of repayment is derived from the project, or where the absence of the project’s success would call into question the ability of the borrower to service the debt, are avoided. The Bank’s commercial real estate loans are made to individuals and to small and medium sized businesses to provide diversification, to generate assets that are sensitive to fluctuations in interest rates, and to generate deposit and other relationships. Commercial real estate loans are generally prime-based floating-rate loans or shorter-term (one to five year) fixed-rate loans. Approximately 50% of our commercial loans are owner occupied real estate loans. At December 31, 2009, there was only one loan in the amount of $3 million for a retail shopping center. The remaining non-owner occupied loans were made to established commercial customers for purposes other than retail development.

          The Bank has a growing portfolio of SBA loans and SBA loans held-for-sale as a result of increased SBA loan production. These loans are primarily commercial real estate related, with a portion of each loan guaranteed by the SBA or with other credit enhancements provided by the government. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act appropriated $375 million to temporarily reduce fees and increase guarantees for loans made through the SBA’s lending programs. In December of 2009, Congress appropriated an additional $125 million to extend the incentives. Default guarantees were raised from 75% — 85% to 90%.

Indirect Automobile Lending

          The Bank purchases, on a nonrecourse basis, consumer installment contracts secured by new and used vehicles purchased by consumers from franchised motor vehicle dealers and selected independent dealers located throughout the Southeast. A portion of the indirect automobile loans the Bank originates is generally sold with servicing retained. At December 31, 2009, we were servicing $201 million in loans we had sold, primarily to other financial institutions.

          During 2009, the Bank produced $281 million of indirect automobile loans, while profitably selling $57 million to third parties with servicing retained. The balances in indirect automobile loans held-for-sale fluctuate from month to month as pools of loans are developed for sale and due to normal monthly principal payments.

Consumer Lending

          The Bank’s consumer lending activity primarily consists of indirect automobile lending. The Bank also makes direct consumer loans (including direct automobile loans), residential mortgage and home equity loans, and secured and unsecured personal loans.

Real Estate Construction Lending

          The Bank originates real estate construction loans that consist primarily of one-to-four family residential construction loans made to builders. Loan disbursements are closely monitored by management to ensure that funds are being used strictly for the purposes agreed upon in the loan covenants. The Bank employs both internal staff and external inspectors to ensure that requests for loan disbursements are substantiated by regular inspections and reviews. Construction and development loans are similar to all residential loans in that borrowers are underwritten according to their adequacy of repayment sources at the time of approval. Unlike conventional residential lending, however, signs of deterioration in a construction loan or development loan customer’s ability to repay the loan are measured throughout the life of the loan and not only at origination or when the loan becomes past due. In most instances, loan amounts are limited to 80% of the appraised value upon completion of the construction project. The Bank originates real estate construction loans in our branch offices located throughout Atlanta, Georgia, and from our Jacksonville, Florida branch.

Real Estate Mortgage Lending

          The Bank’s residential mortgage loan business focuses on one-to-four family properties. We offer Federal Housing Authority (“FHA”), Veterans Administration (“VA”), and conventional and non-conforming residential mortgage loans. The Bank operates our residential mortgage banking business from four locations in the Atlanta metropolitan area and one location in Jacksonville, Florida. The Bank is an approved originator and servicer for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), and is an approved originator for loans insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).

          The balances of mortgage loans held-for-sale fluctuate due to economic conditions, interest rates, the level of real estate activity, the amount of mortgage loans retained by the Bank, and seasonal factors. During 2009, we originated approximately $846 million in loans, while selling $766 million to third parties.

          In January 2009, we hired 58 new employees in a major expansion of our mortgage division in Atlanta and continued to hire new employees throughout 2009. At December 31, 2009, we employed 110 full time equivalent employees including 59 loan originators. The Bank primarily sells originated residential mortgage loans and brokered loans to investors. Management expects mortgage banking division activity for 2010 to be comparable to 2009.

Brokerage Services

          The Bank offers a full array of brokerage products through an agreement with an independent full service broker-dealer.

International Trade Services

          The Bank provides services to individuals and business clients to meet their international business requirements. Letters of credit, foreign currency drafts, foreign and documentary collections, export finance, and international wire transfers represent some of the services provided.

Investment Securities

          At December 31, 2009, we owned investment securities totaling $163 million. Management’s conservative investment philosophy attempts to limit risk in the portfolio, which results in less yield through less risky investments than would otherwise be available if we were more aggressive in our investment philosophy. Investment securities include debt securities issued by agencies of the U.S. Government, mortgage backed securities issued by U.S. Government agencies, bank qualified municipal bonds, and FHLB stock. During 2007, 2008 and 2009, the Bank did not invest in any preferred stock of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, trust preferred obligations, collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMO’s”), auction rate securities (“ARS”), or collateralized debt obligations (“CDO’s”).

Significant Operating Policies

Lending Policy

          The Board of Directors of the Bank has delegated lending authority to our management, which in turn delegates lending authority to our loan officers, each of whom is limited as to the amount of secured and unsecured loans he or she can make to a single borrower or related group of borrowers. As our lending relationships are important to our success, the Board of Directors of our Bank has established review committees and written guidelines for lending activities. In particular, the Officers’ Credit Committee reviews lending relationships with aggregate relationship exposure exceeding $250,000. In addition, the Officers’ Credit Committee approves all credit for commercial loan relationships up to $5 million and for residential construction loan relationships up to $10 million. The Loan and Discount Committee must approve all credit for commercial loan relationships exceeding $5 million and all residential construction loan relationships exceeding $10 million. The Bank’s policy on calculating total exposure to an entity or individual, or related group of entities or individuals is more broad than that required under law and calls for the combining of all debt to all related entities regardless of the presence of independent sources of repayment or other conditions that might otherwise allow a portion of debt to be excluded.

          The Bank’s written guidelines for lending activities require, among other things, that:

	•		secured loans be made to persons and companies who maintain depository relationships with the Bank and who are well-established and have adequate net worth, collateral, and cash flow to support the loan;
	•		unsecured loans be made to persons who maintain depository relationships with the Bank and have significant financial strength;
	•		real estate loans be secured by real property located primarily in Georgia or primarily in the Southeast for SBA loans;

	•		working capital loans be repaid out of conversion of assets or earnings of the commercial borrower and that such loans generally be secured by the assets of the commercial borrower; and
	•		loan renewal requests be reviewed in the same manner as an application for a new loan.

          Residential construction loans are made through the use of officer guidance lines, which are approved, when appropriate, by the Bank’s Officers’ Credit Committee or the Loan and Discount Committee. These guidance lines are approved for established builders and developers with track records and adequate financial strength to support the credit being requested. Loans may be for speculative starts or for pre-sold residential property to specific purchasers.

Loan Review and Nonperforming Assets

          The Bank’s Credit Review Department reviews the Bank’s loan portfolios to identify potential deficiencies and recommends appropriate corrective actions. The Credit Review Department reviews more than 30% of the commercial and construction loan portfolios and reviews 10% of the consumer loans originated annually. In 2009 we reviewed more than 80% of the construction and commercial portfolios. The results of the reviews are presented to the Bank’s Loan and Discount Committee on a monthly basis.

          The Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses, which is established and maintained through provisions charged to operations. Such provisions are based on management’s evaluation of the loan portfolio, including loan portfolio concentrations, current economic conditions, the economic outlook, past loan loss experience, adequacy of underlying collateral, and such factors which, in management’s judgment, deserve consideration in estimating losses. Loans are charged off when, in the opinion of management, such loans are deemed to be uncollectible. Subsequent recoveries are added to the allowance.

Asset/Liability Management

          The Company’s Asset/Liability Committee (“ALCO”) manages on an overall basis the mix of and terms related to the Company’s assets and liabilities. ALCO attempts to manage asset growth, liquidity, and capital in order to reduce interest rate risk and maximize income. ALCO directs our overall acquisition and allocation of funds and reviews and sets rates on deposits, loans, and fees.

Investment Portfolio Policy

          The Company’s investment portfolio policy is designed to maximize income consistent with liquidity, risk tolerance, collateral needs, asset quality, regulatory constraints, and asset/liability objectives. The policy is reviewed at least annually by the Boards of Directors of FSC and the Bank. The Boards of Directors are provided information on a regular basis concerning significant purchases and sales of investment securities, including resulting gains or losses. They are also provided information related to average maturity, Federal taxable equivalent yield, and appreciation or depreciation by investment categories. The Board of Directors is responsible for the establishment, approval, implementation, and annual review of interest rate risk management strategies, comprehensive policies, procedures, and limits. Senior management is responsible for ensuring that board-approved strategies, policies, and procedures are appropriately executed through a robust interest rate risk measurement process and systems to assess exposures.

Supervision and Regulation

          The following is a brief summary of FSC’s and the Bank’s supervision and regulation as financial institutions and is not intended to be a complete discussion of all NASDAQ Stock Market, state or federal rules, statutes and regulations affecting their operations, or that apply generally to business corporations or NASDAQ listed companies. Changes in the rules, statutes and regulations applicable to FSC and the Bank can affect the operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways.

General

          We are a registered bank holding company subject to regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “Act”). We are required to file annual and quarterly financial information with the Federal Reserve and are subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve.

          The Act requires every bank holding company to obtain the Federal Reserve’s prior approval before (1) it may acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank that it does not already control; (2) it or any of its non-bank subsidiaries may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of a bank; and (3) it may merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company. In addition, a bank holding company is generally prohibited from engaging in, or acquiring, direct or indirect control of the voting shares of any company engaged in non-banking activities. This prohibition does not apply to activities listed in the Act or found by the Federal Reserve, by order or regulation, to be closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to

be a proper incident thereto. Some of the activities that the Federal Reserve has determined by regulation or order to be closely related to banking are:

	•		making or servicing loans and certain types of leases;
	•		performing certain data processing services;
	•		acting as fiduciary or investment or financial advisor;
	•		providing brokerage services;
	•		underwriting bank eligible securities;
	•		underwriting debt and equity securities on a limited basis through separately capitalized subsidiaries; and
	•		making investments in corporations or projects designed primarily to promote community welfare.

     Although the activities of bank holding companies have traditionally been limited to the business of banking and activities closely related or incidental to banking (as discussed above), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “GLB Act”) relaxed the previous limitations and permitted bank holding companies to engage in a broader range of financial activities. Specifically, bank holding companies may elect to become financial holding companies, which may affiliate with securities firms, and insurance companies and engage in other activities that are financial in nature. Among the activities that are deemed “financial in nature” include:

	•		lending, exchanging, transferring, investing for others or safeguarding money or securities;
	•		insuring, guaranteeing, or indemnifying against loss, harm, damage, illness, disability, or death, or providing and issuing annuities, and acting as principal, agent, or broker with respect thereto;
	•		providing financial, investment, or economic advisory services, including advising an investment company;
	•		issuing or selling instruments representing interest in pools of assets permissible for a bank to hold directly; and
	•		underwriting, dealing in or making a market in securities.

          A bank holding company may become a financial holding company under this statute only if each of its subsidiary banks is well capitalized, is well managed and has at least a satisfactory rating under the Community Reinvestment Act. A bank holding company that falls out of compliance with such requirement may be required to cease engaging in certain activities. Any bank holding company that does not elect to become a financial holding company remains subject to the bank holding company restrictions of the Act. Fidelity has no current plans to register as a financial holding company.

          Fidelity must also register with the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance (“GDBF”) and file periodic information with the GDBF. As part of such registration, the GDBF requires information with respect to the financial condition, operations, management and intercompany relationships of Fidelity and the Bank and related matters. The GDBF may also require such other information as is necessary to keep itself informed as to whether the provisions of Georgia law and the regulations and orders issued there under by the GDBF have been complied with, and the GDBF may examine Fidelity and the Bank. The Florida Office of Financial Regulation (“FOFR”) does not examine or directly regulate out-of-state holding companies for banks with a branch located in the State of Florida.

          Fidelity is an “affiliate” of the Bank under the Federal Reserve Act, which imposes certain restrictions on (1) loans by the Bank to Fidelity, (2) investments in the stock or securities of Fidelity by the Bank, (3) the Bank’s taking the stock or securities of an “affiliate” as collateral for loans by the Bank to a borrower, and (4) the purchase of assets from Fidelity by the Bank. Further, a bank holding company and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in certain tie-in arrangements in connection with any extension of credit, lease or sale of property or furnishing of services.

          The Bank is regularly examined by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). As a state banking association organized under Georgia law, the Bank is subject to the supervision of, and is regularly examined by, the GDBF. The Bank’s Florida branch is subject to examination by the FOFR. Both the FDIC and GDBF must grant prior approval of any merger, consolidation or other corporation reorganization involving the Bank.

          In 2009, FSC and the Bank operated under memoranda of understanding (“MOU”) with the FRB, the GDBF and the FDIC. The MOU, which relate primarily to the Bank’s asset quality and loan loss reserves, require that FSC and the Bank submit plans and report to its regulators regarding its loan portfolio and profit plans, among other matters. The MOU also require that the Bank maintain its Tier 1 Leverage Capital ratio at not less than 8% and an overall well-capitalized position as defined in applicable FDIC rules and regulations during the life of the MOU. Additionally, the MOU require that, prior to declaring or paying any cash dividends, FSC and the Bank must obtain the prior written consent of its regulators. Management believes the Bank and the Company are in compliance with the MOU. However, the regulators have not made a determination as to whether FSC and the Bank are in full compliance with the MOU, and it is uncertain when the regulators may make such a determination or when FSC and the Bank will no longer be subject to the limitations imposed by the MOU.

TARP Capital Purchase Program

          On October 14, 2008, the Treasury announced the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) Capital Purchase Program (the “Program”). The Program was instituted by the Treasury pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), which provides up to $700 billion to the Treasury to, among other things, take equity positions in financial institutions. The Program is intended to encourage U.S. Financial institutions to build capital and thereby increase the flow of financing to businesses and consumers.

          On December 19, 2008, as part of the Program, Fidelity entered into a Letter Agreement (“Letter Agreement”) and a Securities Purchase Agreement — Standard Terms with the Treasury, pursuant to which Fidelity agreed to issue and sell, and the Treasury agreed to purchase (1) 48,200 shares (the “Preferred Shares”) of Fidelity’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, having a liquidation preference of $1,000 per share, and (2) a ten-year warrant (the “Warrant”) to purchase up to 2,266,458 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $3.19 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $48.2 million in cash.

          In connection with Fidelity’s participation with the Program, Fidelity adopted the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance set forth in section 111 of EESA and any guidance or regulations adopted thereunder for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the Program. To ensure compliance with these standards, within the time frame prescribed by the Program, Fidelity has entered into agreements with its senior executive officers who would be subject to the standards. The executive officers have agreed to, among other things, (1) “clawback” provisions relating to the repayment by the executive officers of incentive compensation based on materially inaccurate financial statement or performance metrics and (2) limitations on certain post-termination “parachute” payments. In addition, the Letter Agreement provides that the Treasury may unilaterally amend any provision of the Letter Agreement to the extent required to comply with any changes in applicable federal law.

          The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”), was established pursuant to Section 121 of EESA, and has the duty, among other things, to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the purchase, management and sale of assets by the Treasury under TARP and the Program, including the shares of Preferred Shares purchased from Fidelity.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

          On February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”) was enacted, and the Department of Treasury implemented interim final rules under ARRA on June 15, 2009 (the “ARRA Regulations”). The ARRA, commonly known as the economic stimulus or economic recovery package, includes a wide variety of programs intended to stimulate the economy and provide for extensive infrastructure, energy, health, and education needs. In addition, ARRA imposes certain new executive compensation and corporate expenditure limits on all current and future TARP recipients, including Fidelity, until the institution has repaid the Treasury, which is now permitted under ARRA without penalty and without the need to raise new capital, subject to the Treasury’s consultation with the recipient’s appropriate regulatory agency. The executive compensation standards set forth in the ARRA and ARRA Regulations are more stringent than those currently in effect under the Program or those previously proposed by the Treasury. The new standards include (but are not limited to) (i) prohibitions on bonuses, retention awards and other incentive compensation to certain executive officers and other highly compensated employees, other than restricted stock grants which do not fully vest during the TARP period up to one-third of an employee’s total annual compensation, (ii) prohibitions on golden parachute (e.g., severance) payments for departure from a company, (iii) an expanded clawback of bonuses, retention awards, and incentive compensation if payment is based on materially inaccurate statements of earnings, revenues, gains or other criteria, (iv) prohibitions on compensation plans that encourage manipulation of reported earnings, (v) retroactive review of bonuses, retention awards and other compensation previously provided by TARP recipients if found by the Treasury to be inconsistent with the purposes of TARP or otherwise contrary to public interest, (vi) required establishment of a company-wide policy regarding “excessive or luxury expenditures”, and (vii) inclusion in a participant’s proxy statements for annual shareholder meetings of a nonbinding “say on pay” shareholder vote on the compensation of executives.

Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program

          On November 21, 2008, the Board of Directors of the FDIC adopted a final rule relating to the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (“TLG Program”). The TLG Program was announced by the FDIC on October 14, 2008, preceded by the determination of systemic risk by the Treasury, as an initiative to counter the system-wide crisis in the nation’s financial sector. Under the TLG Program the FDIC will (i) guarantee, through the earlier of maturity or June 30, 2012, certain newly issued senior unsecured debt issued by participating institutions and (ii) provide full FDIC deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction deposit accounts, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal accounts paying less than 0.5% interest per annum and Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts held at participating FDIC-insured institutions through June 30, 2010. Coverage under the TLG Program was available for the first 30 days without charge. The fee assessment for coverage of senior unsecured debt ranges from 50 basis points to 100 basis points per annum, depending on the initial maturity of the debt. The fee assessment for deposit insurance coverage is 10 basis points per quarter on amounts in covered accounts exceeding $250,000. Fidelity elected to participate in both guarantee programs.

FDIC Insurance Assessments

          The FDIC maintains the deposit insurance fund (“DIF”) by assessing depository institutions an insurance premium. The amount each institution is assessed is based upon statutory factors that include the balance of insured deposits as well as the degree of risk the institution poses to the DIF. The FDIC recently increased the amount of deposits it insures from $100,000 to $250,000. This increase is temporary and will continue through December 31, 2013. In 2009, the FDIC increased the amount assessed from financial institutions by increasing its risk-based deposit insurance assessment scale. The assessment scale for 2009 ranged from twelve basis points of assessable deposits for the strongest institutions to fifty basis points for the weakest. In 2009, the FDIC also approved a rule that required insured institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012. An insured institution’s risk-based deposit insurance assessments will continue to be calculated on a quarterly basis, but will be paid from the amount the institution prepaid until the later of the date that amount is exhausted or June 30, 2013, at which point any remaining funds would be returned to the insured institution.

Payment of Dividends

          FSC is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. Most of the revenue we receive results from dividends paid to us by the Bank. There are statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the payment of dividends by the Bank, as well as by us to our shareholders.

          Under the regulations of the GDBF, dividends may not be declared out of the retained earnings of a state bank without first obtaining the written permission of the GDBF, unless such bank meets all the following requirements:

	(a)		total classified assets as of the most recent examination of the bank do not exceed 80% of equity capital (as defined by regulation);
	(b)		the aggregate amount of dividends declared or anticipated to be declared in the calendar year does not exceed 50% of the net profits after taxes but before dividends for the previous calendar year; and
	(c)		the ratio of equity capital to adjusted assets is not less than 6%.

          The payment of dividends by Fidelity and the Bank may also be affected or limited by other factors, such as the requirement to maintain adequate capital above regulatory guidelines. In addition, if, in the opinion of the applicable regulatory authority, a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in or is about to engage in an unsafe or unsound practice (which, depending upon the financial condition of the bank, could include the payment of dividends), such authority may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from such practice. The FDIC has issued a policy statement providing that insured banks should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings. In addition to the formal statutes and regulations, regulatory authorities consider the adequacy of the Bank’s total capital in relation to its assets, deposits and other such items. Capital adequacy considerations could further limit the availability of dividends to the Bank.

          The MOU requires FSC and the Bank obtain prior written consent of the FRB, the GDBF and the FDIC, respectively, before paying any dividends. For 2009, the Bank did not pay a cash dividend to FSC, and FSC did not pay a cash dividend to its common stockholders. In 2009, FSC did declare a quarterly stock dividend of one share for every 200 shares owned. The Board of Directors for both the Bank and FSC will review on a quarterly basis whether to declare and pay dividends for 2010, with the declared and paid dividend consistent with current regulatory limitations, earnings, capital requirements, and forecasts of future earnings.

          Pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement, the ability of Fidelity to declare or pay dividends or distributions of its common stock is subject to restrictions, including a restriction against increasing dividends from the last quarterly cash dividend per share ($0.01) declared on the common stock prior to December 19, 2008, as adjusted for subsequent stock dividends and other similar actions. In addition, as long as the Preferred Shares are outstanding, dividend payments are prohibited until all accrued and unpaid dividends are paid on such preferred stock, subject to certain limited exceptions. This restriction will terminate on the third anniversary of the date of issuance of the Preferred Shares or, if earlier, the date on which the Preferred Shares have been redeemed in whole or the Treasury has transferred all of the Preferred Shares to third parties.

Capital Adequacy

          The Federal Reserve and the FDIC have implemented substantially identical risk-based rules for assessing bank and bank holding company capital adequacy. These regulations establish minimum capital standards in relation to assets and off-balance sheet exposures as adjusted for credit risk. Banks and bank holding companies are required to have (1) a minimum level of Total Capital (as defined) to risk-weighted assets of eight percent (8%); and (2) a minimum Tier 1 Capital (as defined) to risk-weighted assets of four percent (4%). In addition, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have established a minimum three percent (3%) leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to quarterly average total assets for the most highly-rated banks and bank holding companies. “Tier 1 Capital” generally consists of common equity excluding unrecognized gains and losses on available for sale securities, plus minority interests in equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries and certain perpetual preferred stock less certain intangibles. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC will require a bank holding company and a bank, respectively, to maintain a leverage ratio greater than four percent (4%) if either is

experiencing or anticipating significant growth or is operating with less than well-diversified risks in the opinion of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC use the leverage ratio in tandem with the risk-based ratio to assess the capital adequacy of banks and bank holding companies. The FDIC and the Federal Reserve consider interest rate risk in the overall determination of a bank’s capital ratio, requiring banks with greater interest rate risk to maintain adequate capital for the risk. While under the MOU, the Bank must maintain a leverage ratio of at least eight percent (8%).

          In addition, Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act implemented the prompt corrective action provisions that Congress enacted as a part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (the “1991 Act”). The “prompt corrective action” provisions set forth five regulatory zones in which all banks are placed largely based on their capital positions. Regulators are permitted to take increasingly harsh action as a bank’s financial condition declines. Regulators are also empowered to place in receivership or require the sale of a bank to another depository institution when a bank’s capital leverage ratio reaches 2%. Better capitalized institutions are generally subject to less onerous regulation and supervision than banks with lesser amounts of capital.

          The FDIC has adopted regulations implementing the prompt corrective action provisions of the 1991 Act, which place financial institutions in the following five categories based upon capitalization ratios: (1) a “well capitalized” institution has a Total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10%, a Tier 1 risk-based ratio of at least 6% and a leverage ratio of at least 5%; (2) an “adequately capitalized” institution has a Total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8%, a Tier 1 risk-based ratio of at least 4% and a leverage ratio of at least 4%; (3) an “undercapitalized” institution has a Total risk-based capital ratio of under 8%, a Tier 1 risk-based ratio of under 4% or a leverage ratio of under 4%; (4) a “significantly undercapitalized” institution has a Total risk-based capital ratio of under 6%, a Tier 1 risk-based ratio of under 3% or a leverage ratio of under 3%; and (5) a “critically undercapitalized” institution has a leverage ratio of 2% or less. Institutions in any of the three undercapitalized categories would be prohibited from declaring dividends or making capital distributions. The FDIC regulations also establish procedures for “downgrading” an institution to a lower capital category based on supervisory factors other than capital.

          To continue to conduct its business as currently conducted, FSC and the Bank will need to maintain capital well above the minimum levels. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the most recent notifications from the FDIC categorized the Bank as “well capitalized” under current regulations.

Internal Control Reporting

          The 1991 Act also imposes substantial auditing and reporting requirements and increases the role of independent accountants and outside directors of banks.

Commercial Real Estate

          In December 2006, the federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, issued a final guidance on concentrations in commercial real estate lending (the “Guidance”), noting that increases in banks’ commercial real estate concentrations could create safety and soundness concerns in the event of a significant economic downturn. The Guidance mandates certain minimal risk management practices and categorizes banks with defined levels of such concentrations as banks that may warrant elevated examiner scrutiny. The regulatory guideline defines a bank as having a concentration in commercial real estate if its portfolio of land, construction (both commercial and residential) and Acquisition and Development loans exceeds 100% of the Bank’s total risk based capital. The Bank’s ratio decreased from 124% at December 31, 2008 to 77% at December 31, 2009. The regulatory guideline for all real estate loans, except owner-occupied property as a percentage of capital is a maximum of 300%. The Bank’s ratio decreased from 172% at December 31, 2008 to 144% at December 31, 2009. The Guidance does not formally prohibit a bank from exceeding either of these two thresholds. Rather, it defines the circumstances under which a bank will be declared to have a commercial real estate concentration. Further, the Guidance requires any such banks with commercial real estate concentrations to have heightened and sophisticated risk management systems in place to adequately manage the increased levels of risk. While management believes that our credit processes, procedures and systems meet the risk management standards dictated by the Guidance, regulatory authorities could effectively limit increases in the real estate concentrations in the Bank’s loan portfolios or require additional credit administration and management costs associated therewith, or both.

Loans

          Inter-agency guidelines adopted by federal bank regulators mandate that financial institutions establish real estate lending policies with maximum allowable real estate loan-to-value limits, subject to an allowable amount of non-conforming loans as a percentage of capital. The Bank adopted the federal guidelines in 2001.

Transactions with Affiliates

          Under federal law, all transactions between and among a state nonmember bank and its affiliates, which include holding companies, are subject to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W promulgated thereunder. Generally,

these requirements limit these transactions to a percentage of the bank’s capital and require all of them to be on terms at least as favorable to the bank as transactions with non-affiliates. In addition, a bank may not lend to any affiliate engaged in non-banking activities not permissible for a bank holding company or acquire shares of any affiliate that is not a subsidiary. The FDIC is authorized to impose additional restrictions on transactions with affiliates if necessary to protect the safety and soundness of a bank. The regulations also set forth various reporting requirements relating to transactions with affiliates.

Financial Privacy

          In accordance with the GLB Act, federal banking regulators adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party. The privacy provisions of the GLB Act affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors.

Anti-Money Laundering Initiatives and the USA Patriot Act

          A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions in recent years has been aimed at combating terrorist financing. This has generally been accomplished by amending existing anti-money laundering laws and regulations. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”) has imposed significant new compliance and due diligence obligations, creating new crimes and penalties. The United States Treasury Department has issued a number of implementing regulations that apply to various requirements of the USA Patriot Act to us and the Bank. These regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing and to verify the identity of their customers. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution.

Future Legislation

          Various legislation affecting financial institutions and the financial industry is from time to time introduced in Congress. Such legislation may change banking statutes and the operating environment of Fidelity and its subsidiaries in substantial and unpredictable ways, and could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance depending upon whether any of this potential legislation will be enacted, and if enacted, the effect that it or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of Fidelity or any of its subsidiaries. With the recent enactments of EESA and ARRA, the nature and extent of future legislative and regulatory changes affecting financial institutions is very unpredictable at this time.

Competition

          The banking business is highly competitive. The Bank competes for traditional bank business with numerous other commercial banks and thrift institutions in Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Clayton, Gwinnett, Rockdale, Coweta and Barrow Counties, Georgia, the Bank’s primary market area other than for residential construction and development loans, SBA loans, residential mortgages, and indirect automobile loans. The Bank also competes for loans with insurance companies, regulated small loan companies, credit unions, and certain governmental agencies. The Bank competes with independent brokerage and investment companies, as well as state and national banks and their affiliates and other financial companies. Many of the companies with whom the Bank competes have greater financial resources.

          The indirect automobile financing and mortgage banking industries are also highly competitive. In the indirect automobile financing industry, the Bank competes with specialty consumer finance companies, including automobile manufacturers’ captive finance companies, in addition to other financial institutions. The residential mortgage banking business competes with independent mortgage banking companies, state and national banks and their subsidiaries, as well as thrift institutions and insurance companies.

Employees and Executive Officers

          As of December 31, 2009, we had 488 full-time equivalent employees. We are not a party to any collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our employee relations are good. We afford our employees a variety of competitive benefit programs including a retirement plan and group health, life and other insurance programs. We also support training and educational programs designed to ensure that employees have the types and levels of skills needed to perform at their best in their current positions and to help them prepare for positions of increased responsibility.

Executive Officers of the Registrant

          The Company’s executive officers, their ages, their positions with the Company at March 10, 2010, and the period during which they have served as executive officers, are as follows:

Name		Age				Since				Position
James B. Miller, Jr.			69				1979			Principal Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Fidelity since 1979; President of Fidelity from 1979 to April 2006; Chairman of Fidelity Bank since 1998; President of Fidelity Bank from 1977 to 1997, and from December 2003 through September 2004; and Chief Executive Officer of Fidelity Bank from 1977 to 1997 and from December 2003 until present. A director of Fidelity Bank since 1976. Chairman of LionMark Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, since November 2004. A director of Interface, Inc., a carpet and fabric manufacturing company, since 2000, and of American Software, Inc., a software development company, since 2002.
H. Palmer Proctor, Jr.			42				1996			President of Fidelity since April 2006; Senior Vice President of Fidelity from January 2006 through April 2006; Vice President of Fidelity from 1996 through January 2006; Director and President of Fidelity Bank since October 2004 and Senior Vice President of Fidelity Bank from 1996 through September 2004. Director and Secretary/Treasurer of LionMark Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, since November 2004.
Stephen H. Brolly			47				2008			Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Fidelity and Chief Financial Officer of Fidelity and Fidelity Bank since August 2008; Treasurer of Fidelity and Fidelity Bank from May 2006 through August 2008. Chief Financial Officer of LionMark Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, since August 2008. Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller of Sun Bancorp, Inc. in Vineland, New Jersey from 1999 to 2006.
David Buchanan			52				1995			Vice President of Fidelity since 1999; Executive Vice President of Fidelity Bank since October 2004; and Senior Vice President of Fidelity Bank from 1995 through September 2004. President of LionMark Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary, since November 2004.

Available Information

          We file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act. The public may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Also, the SEC maintains an Internet web site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, including Fidelity, that file electronically with the SEC. The public can obtain any documents that we file with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.

          We also make available free of charge on or through our Internet web site (http://www.lionbank.com) our Annual Report to Shareholders, our Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, our current reports on Form 8-K and if applicable, amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC.

Item 1A.		Risk Factors

          The following risk factors and other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may adversely impact our business operations. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, operating results, and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

Risks Related to our Business

A significant portion of the Bank’s loan portfolio is secured by real estate loans in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area and in eastern and northern Florida markets, and a continued downturn in real estate market values in those areas may adversely affect our business.

          Currently, our lending and other businesses are concentrated in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area and eastern and northern Florida. As of December 31, 2009, real estate mortgage, construction and commercial real estate loans, accounted for 47.4% of our total loan portfolio. Therefore, conditions in these markets will strongly affect the level of our nonperforming loans and our results of operations and financial condition. Real estate values and the demand for commercial and residential mortgages and construction loans are affected by, among other things, changes in general and local economic conditions, changes in governmental regulation, monetary and fiscal policies, interest rates and weather. The residential real estate markets in Atlanta and Jacksonville continue to experience a slowdown in sales and continued pricing declines. Continued declines in our real estate markets could adversely affect the demand for new real estate loans, and the value and liquidity of the collateral securing our existing loans. Adverse changes in our markets could also reduce our growth rate, impair our ability to collect loans, and generally affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The earnings of financial services companies are significantly affected by general business and economic conditions.

          Our operations and profitability are impacted by general business and economic conditions in the United States and abroad. These conditions include recession, short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation, money supply, political issues, legislative and regulatory changes, fluctuations in both debt and equity capital markets, broad trends in industry and finance, and the strength of the U.S. economy and the local economies in which we operate, all of which are beyond our control. A deterioration in economic conditions could result in an increase in loan delinquencies and non-performing assets, decreases in loan collateral values and a decrease in demand for our products and services, among other things, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our business may be adversely affected by conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally and there can be no assurance that recent efforts to address difficult market and economic conditions will be effective.

          Since mid-2007, and particularly during the second half of 2008, the financial markets and economic conditions generally were materially and adversely affected by significant declines in the values of nearly all asset classes and by a serious lack of liquidity. This was initially triggered by declines in home prices and the values of subprime mortgages, but spread to all commercial and residential mortgages as property prices declined rapidly and to nearly all asset classes. The effect of the market and economic downturn also spread to other areas of the credit markets and in the availability of liquidity. The magnitude of these declines led to a crisis of confidence in the financial sector as a result of concerns about the capital base and viability of certain financial institutions. During this period, interbank lending and commercial paper borrowing fell sharply, precipitating a credit freeze for both institutional and individual borrowers. Unemployment has also increased significantly.

          The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 were signed into law in response to the financial crisis affecting the banking system, financial markets and economic conditions generally. Pursuant to the EESA, the Treasury had the authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and certain other financial instruments from financial institutions for the purpose of stabilizing and providing liquidity to the U.S. financial markets. The Treasury announced the Capital Purchase Program under TARP pursuant to which it has purchased senior preferred stock in participating financial institutions. This includes a wide variety of programs intended to stimulate the economy and provide for extensive infrastructure, energy, health, and education needs. In addition, ARRA imposes certain new executive compensation and corporate expenditure limits on all current and future TARP recipients until the institution has repaid the Treasury, which is now permitted under ARRA without penalty and without the need to raise new capital, subject to the Treasury’s consultation with the recipient’s appropriate regulatory agency.

          The EESA followed, and has been followed by, numerous actions by the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury, the FDIC, the SEC and others to address the current crisis, including most recently the ARRA. These measures include homeowner relief that encourage loan restructuring and modification; the establishment of significant liquidity and credit facilities for financial institutions and investment banks; the lowering of the federal funds rate; emergency action against short selling practices; a temporary guaranty program for money market funds; the establishment of a commercial paper funding facility to provide back-stop liquidity to commercial paper issuers; and coordinated international efforts to address illiquidity and other weaknesses in the banking sector. There can be no assurance, however, as to the actual impact that EESA, including TARP and the Program, the ARRA and the other initiatives describe above will have on the banking system and financial markets or on us. The failure of these programs to help stabilize the banking system and financial markets and a continuation or worsening of current economic conditions could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, access to credit or the trading price of our common stock.

Liquidity is essential to our businesses and we rely on external sources to finance a significant portion of our operations.

          Liquidity is essential to our businesses. Our liquidity could be substantially affected in a negative fashion by an inability to raise funding in the long-term or short-term debt capital markets or the equity capital markets or an inability to access the secured lending markets. Factors that we cannot control, such as disruption of the financial markets or negative views about the financial services industry generally, could impair our ability to raise funding. In addition, our ability to raise funding could be impaired if lenders develop a negative perception of our long-term or short-term financial prospects. Such negative perceptions could be developed if we suffer a decline in the level of our business activity or regulatory authorities take significant action against us, among other reasons. If we are unable to raise funding using the methods described above, we would likely need to finance or liquidate unencumbered assets to meet maturing liabilities. We may be unable to sell some of our assets, or we may have to sell assets at a discount from market value, either of which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Future dividend payments and common stock repurchases are restricted by the terms of the Treasury’s equity investment in us.

          Under the terms of the Program, until the earlier of the third anniversary of the date of issuance of the Preferred Shares and the date on which the Preferred Shares have been redeemed in whole or the Treasury has transferred all of the Preferred Shares to third parties, we are prohibited from increasing dividends on our common stock from the last quarterly cash dividend per share ($0.01) declared on the common stock prior to December 19, 2008, as adjusted for subsequent stock dividends and other similar actions, and from making certain repurchases of equity securities, including our common stock, without the Treasury’s consent. Furthermore, as long as the Preferred Shares are outstanding, dividend payments and repurchases or redemptions relating to certain equity securities, including our common stock, are prohibited until all accrued and unpaid dividends are paid on such preferred stock, subject to certain limited exceptions.

The limitations on executive compensation imposed through our participation in the Capital Purchase Program may restrict our ability to attract, retain and motivate key employees, which could adversely affect our operations.

          As part of our participation in the Program, we agreed to be bound by certain executive compensation restrictions, including limitations on severance payments and the clawback of any bonus and incentive compensation that were based on materially inaccurate financial statements or any other materially inaccurate performance metric criteria. Subsequent to the issuance of the preferred shares, the ARRA was enacted, which provides more stringent limitations on severance pay and the payment of bonuses. To the extent that any of these compensation restrictions do not permit us to provide a comprehensive compensation package to our key employees that is competitive in our market area, we may have difficulty in attracting, retaining and motivating our key employees, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

The terms governing the issuance of the preferred shares to the Treasury may be changed, the effect of which may have an adverse effect on our operations.

          The terms of the Letter Agreement which we entered into with the Treasury provides that the Treasury may unilaterally amend any provision of the Letter Agreement to the extent required to comply with any changes in applicable federal law that may occur in the future. We have no assurances that changes in the terms of the transaction will not occur in the future. Such changes may place restrictions on our business or results of operations, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Fluctuations in interest rates could reduce our profitability and affect the value of our assets.

          Like other financial institutions, our earnings and cash flows are subject to interest rate risk. Our primary source of income is net interest income, which is the difference between interest earned on loans and investments and the interest paid on deposits and borrowings. We expect that we will periodically experience imbalances in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities and the relationships of various interest rates to each other. Over any defined period of time, our interest-earning assets may be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-bearing liabilities, or vice versa. In addition, the individual market interest rates underlying our loan and deposit products (e.g., prime versus competitive market deposit rates) may not change to the same degree over a given time period. In any event, if market interest rates should move contrary to our position, our earnings may be negatively affected. Also, the volume of nonperforming assets will negatively impact average yields if and as it increases. In addition, loan volume and quality and deposit volume and mix can be affected by market interest rates. Changes in levels of market interest rates, including the current rate environment, could materially adversely affect our net interest spread, asset quality, origination volume and overall profitability.

          In September 2007, the Federal Reserve began lowering the targeted Federal funds rate, reducing the rate to 4.25% by the end of 2007. In 2008, as the economic crisis deepened, the Federal Reserve continued to lower interest rates to a historic low of .25% where it remained for all of 2009. While these short-term market interest rates (which we use as a guide to price our deposits) decreased, the yield on our earning assets decreased more quickly which in combination with heavy competition for deposit accounts had a negative impact on our interest rate spread and net interest margin during 2008 and into 2009. Income could also be adversely

affected if the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase quicker than the interest rates received on loans and other investments during periods of rising interest rates.

          We principally manage interest rate risk by managing our volume and the mix of our earning assets and funding liabilities. In a changing interest rate environment, we may not be able to manage this risk effectively. If we are unable to manage interest rate risk effectively, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially harmed.

          Changes in the level of interest rates also may negatively affect our ability to originate construction, commercial and residential real estate loans, the value of our assets, and our ability to realize gains from the sale of our assets, all of which ultimately affect our earnings.

Construction and land development loans are subject to unique risks that could adversely affect earnings.

          Our construction and land development loan portfolio was $155 million at December 31, 2009, comprising 10.9% of total loans. Construction and land development loans are often riskier than home equity loans or residential mortgage loans to individuals. During general economic slowdowns, like the one we are currently experiencing, these loans represent higher risk due to slower sales and reduced cash flow that could impact the borrowers’ ability to repay on a timely basis. In addition, regulations and regulatory policies affecting banks and financial services companies undergo continuous change and we cannot predict when changes will occur or the ultimate effect of any changes. Since the latter part of 2006, there has been continued regulatory focus on construction, development and commercial real estate lending. Changes in the federal policies applicable to construction, development or commercial real estate loans make us subject to substantial limitations with respect to making such loans, increase the costs of making such loans, and require us to have a greater amount of capital to support this kind of lending, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our profitability or financial condition.

The allowance for loan losses may be insufficient.

          The Bank maintains an allowance for loan losses, which is established and maintained through provisions charged to operations. Such provisions are based on management’s evaluation of the loan portfolio, including loan portfolio concentrations, current economic conditions, the economic outlook, past loan loss experience, adequacy of underlying collateral, and such other factors which, in management’s judgment, deserve consideration in estimating loan losses. Loans are charged off when, in the opinion of management, such loans are deemed to be uncollectible. Subsequent recoveries are added to the allowance.

          The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires management to make significant estimates of current credit risks and trends, all of which may undergo material changes. Changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans and other factors may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses. In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review the Bank’s allowance for loan losses and may require an increase in the provision for loan losses or the recognition of further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of management. In addition, if charge-offs in future periods exceed the estimated charge-offs utilized in determining the sufficiency of the allowance for loan losses, we will need additional provisions to increase the allowance. Any increases in the allowance for loan losses will result in a decrease in net income and, possibly, regulatory capital, and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. See “Allowance for Loan Losses” in Item 7 — “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” located elsewhere in this report for further discussion related to our process for determining the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses.

We operate in a highly competitive industry and market area.

          We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, regional, and community banks within the markets in which we operate. Additionally, various out-of-state banks continue to enter the market area in which we currently operate. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and other financial intermediaries. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services, as well as better pricing for those products and services. A weakening in our competitive position, could adversely affect our growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our profitability depends significantly on economic conditions in the Atlanta metropolitan area.

          Our success depends primarily on the general economic conditions of the Atlanta metropolitan area and the specific local markets in which we operate. Unlike larger national or regional banks that are more geographically diversified, the Bank provides banking and financial services to customers primarily in the Atlanta metropolitan areas including Fulton, Dekalb, Cobb, Clayton, Gwinnett, Rockdale, Coweta and Barrow Counties. The local economic conditions in these areas have a significant impact on the

demand for our products and services as well as the ability of our customers to repay loans, the value of the collateral securing loans and the stability of our deposit funding sources. A significant decline in general economic conditions, caused by a significant economic slowdown, recession, inflation, acts of terrorism, outbreak of hostilities, or other international or domestic occurrences, unemployment, changes in securities markets, or other factors could impact these local economic conditions and, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The Bank may be unable to maintain and service relationships with automobile dealers and the Bank is subject to their willingness and ability to provide high quality indirect automobile loans.

          The Bank’s indirect automobile lending operation depends in large part upon the ability to maintain and service relationships with automobile dealers, the strength of new and used automobile sales, the loan rate and other incentives offered by other purchasers of indirect automobile loans or by the automobile manufacturers and their captive finance companies, and the continuing ability of the consumer to qualify for and make payments on high quality automobile loans. There can be no assurance the Bank will be successful in maintaining such dealer relationships or increasing the number of dealers with which the Bank does business, or that the existing dealer base will continue to generate a volume of finance contracts comparable to the volume historically generated by such dealers, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Financial services companies depend on the accuracy and completeness of information about customers and counterparties.

          In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions, we may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties, including financial statements, credit reports, and other financial information. We may also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports or other financial information could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to extensive governmental regulation.

          We are subject to extensive supervision and regulation by Federal and state governmental agencies, including the FRB, the GDBF and the FDIC. Current and future legislation, regulations, and government policy could adversely affect the Company and the financial institution industry as a whole, including the cost of doing business. Although the impact of such legislation, regulations, and policies cannot be predicted, future changes may alter the structure of, and competitive relationships among, financial institutions and the cost of doing business, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our growth may require us to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed.

          We are required by Federal regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. We anticipate our capital resources will satisfy our capital requirements for the foreseeable future. We may at some point, however, need to raise additional capital to support our growth. If we raise capital through the issuance of additional shares of our common stock or other securities, it would dilute the ownership interest of our current shareholders and may dilute the per share book value of our common stock. New investors may also have rights, preferences and privileges senior to our current shareholders, which may adversely impact our current shareholders.

          Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside our control, and on our financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot assure that we will have the ability to raise additional capital, if needed, on terms acceptable to us. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth or acquisitions could be materially impaired, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The building of market share through our branching strategy could cause our expenses to increase faster than revenues.

          We intend to continue to build market share in the greater Atlanta metropolitan area through our branching strategy. While we have no commitments to branch during 2010, there are branch locations under consideration and others may become available. There are considerable costs involved in opening branches and new branches generally require a period of time to generate sufficient revenues to offset their costs, especially in areas in which we do not have an established presence.

          Accordingly, any new branch can be expected to negatively impact our earnings for some period of time until the branch reaches certain economies of scale. Our expenses could be further increased if we encounter delays in the opening of new branches. Finally, we have no assurance that new branches will be successful, even after they have been established.

Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented.

          Management regularly reviews and updates our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

We may not be able to attract and retain skilled people.

          Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract and retain key people. Competition for the best people in most activities that we engage in can be intense and we may not be able to hire people or to retain them. The unexpected loss of services of one or more of our key personnel could have a material adverse impact on our business because of their skills, knowledge of our market, years of industry experience, and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel.

Our information systems may experience an interruption or breach in security.

          We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems could result in failures or disruptions in our customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan, and other systems. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to claims and litigation.

          From time to time, customers and others make claims and take legal action pertaining to the Company’s performance of our responsibilities. Whether customer claims and legal action related to the Company’s performance of our responsibilities are founded or unfounded, or if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to the Company, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of the Company and our products and services, as well as impact customer demand for those products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to our Common Stock

Our stock price can be volatile.

          Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for shareholders to resell common stock when they want and at prices they find attractive. Our stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors including, among other things:

	•		news reports relating to trends, concerns and other issues in the financial services industry;
	•		actual or anticipated variations in quarterly results of operations;
	•		recommendations by securities analysts;
	•		operating and stock price performance of other companies that investors deem comparable to us;
	•		perceptions in the marketplace regarding the Company and/or our competitors;
	•		significant acquisitions or business combinations, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments by or involving the Company or our competitors;
	•		changes in government laws and regulation; and
	•		geopolitical conditions such as acts or threats of terrorism or military conflicts.

          General market fluctuations, industry factors, and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes or credit loss trends, could also cause our stock price to decrease, regardless of operating results.

Our common stock trading volume is less than that of other larger financial services companies.

          Although our common stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, the trading volume in our common stock is less than that of larger financial services companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity, and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of our common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have

no control. Given the lower trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock, or the expectation of these sales, could cause our stock price to fall.

The exercise of the Warrant by the Treasury would dilute existing shareholders’ ownership interest and may make it more difficult for us to take certain actions that may be in the best interest of shareholders.

          In addition to the issuance of the Preferred Shares, we also granted to the Treasury the Warrant to purchase 2,266,458 shares of common stock at a price of $3.19 per share. If the Treasury exercises the entire Warrant, it would result in a significant dilution to the ownership interest of our existing shareholders and dilute the earnings per share value of our common stock. Further, if the Treasury exercises the entire Warrant, it will become the second largest shareholder of Fidelity. The Treasury has agreed that it will not exercise voting power with regard to the shares that it acquires by exercising the Warrant. However, Treasury’s abstention from voting may make it more difficult for us to obtain shareholder approval for those matters that require a majority of total shares outstanding, such as a business combination involving Fidelity.

Item 1B.		Unresolved Staff Comments

          None

Item 2.		Properties

          Our principal executive offices consist of 19,175 square feet of leased space in Atlanta, Georgia. Our support operations are principally conducted from 65,897 square feet of leased space located at 3 Corporate Square, Atlanta, Georgia. The Bank has 23 branch offices located in Fulton, Dekalb, Cobb, Clayton, Gwinnett, Rockdale, Coweta and Barrow Counties, Georgia, and a branch in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, of which 14 are owned and 10 are leased. The Company leases mortgage origination offices in Atlanta, Georgia, Alpharetta, Georgia and Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Company leases a SBA loan production office in Covington, Georgia, and an off-site storage space in Atlanta, Georgia.

Item 3.		Legal Proceedings

          We are a party to claims and lawsuits arising in the course of normal business activities. Although the ultimate outcome of all claims and lawsuits outstanding as of December 31, 2009, cannot be ascertained at this time, it is the opinion of management that these matters, when resolved, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Item 4.		Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

          No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2009.

PART II

Item 5.		Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

          Fidelity’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol LION. The following table sets forth the high and low closing sale prices (adjusted for stock dividends) for the common stock for the calendar quarters indicated, as published by the NASDAQ stock market.

Market Price — Common Stock

		2009								2008
		High				Low				High				Low
Fourth Quarter		$	4.65			$	2.39			$	4.79			$	1.46
Third Quarter			4.68				2.46				6.55				2.21
Second Quarter			3.40				2.15				8.51				4.17
First Quarter			4.24				1.10				10.09				7.09

          As of March 4, 2010, there were approximately 825 shareholders of record. In addition, shares of approximately 1,600 beneficial owners of Fidelity’s common stock were held by brokers, dealers, and their nominees.

Dividends

          The Company declared approximately $1.8 million and $3.4 million in cash dividends on common stock in 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Company did not declare any cash dividends in 2009. However, the Company declared a quarterly stock dividend

of one share for every 200 shares owned in 2009. Management cannot assure that this trend will continue. Future dividends will require a quarterly review of current and projected earnings for the remainder of 2010 in relation to capital requirements prior to the determination of the dividend, and be subject to regulatory restrictions under applicable law and the requirements of the MOU.

          The following schedule summarizes cash dividends declared and paid per share of common stock for the last three years:

		Dividend
		2009				2008				2007
First Quarter		$	—			$	.09			$	.09
Second Quarter			—				.09				.09
Third Quarter			—				.01				.09
Fourth Quarter			—				—				.09
For the Year		$	—			$	.19			$	.36

          In 2009, FSC and Fidelity Bank operated under memoranda of understanding with the FRB, the GDBF and the FDIC. The MOU, which relate primarily to the Bank’s asset quality and loan loss reserves, require that FSC and the Bank submit plans and report to its regulators regarding its loan portfolio and profit plans, among other matters. The MOU also require that the Bank maintain its Tier 1 Leverage Capital ratio at not less than 8% and an overall well-capitalized position as defined in applicable FDIC rules and regulations during the life of the MOU. Additionally, the MOU require that, prior to declaring or paying any cash dividends, FSC and the Bank must obtain the prior consent of its regulators.

          In addition, pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement entered into with the Treasury under the Capital Purchase Program, the ability of Fidelity to declare or pay dividends or distributions of its common stock is subject to restrictions, including a restriction against increasing dividends from the last quarterly cash dividend per share ($0.01) declared on the common stock prior to December 19, 2008, as adjusted for subsequent stock dividends and other similar actions. In addition, as long as the Preferred Shares are outstanding, dividend payments are prohibited until all accrued and unpaid dividends are paid on such preferred stock, subject to certain limited exceptions. This restriction will terminate on the third anniversary of the date of issuance of the Preferred Shares or, if earlier, the date on which the Preferred Shares have been redeemed in whole or the Treasury has transferred all of the Preferred Shares to third parties.

          See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for a further discussion of the restrictions on our ability to pay dividends.

Share Repurchases

          Fidelity did not repurchase any securities during the fourth quarter of 2009.

Sale of Unregistered Securities

          On December 19, 2008, as part of the Capital Purchase Program, Fidelity entered into the Letter Agreement with the Treasury, pursuant to which Fidelity agreed to issue and sell, and the Treasury agreed to purchase (1) 48,200 shares of Fidelity’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, having a liquidation preference of $1,000 per share, and (2) a ten-year Warrant to purchase up to 2,266,458 shares of the Company’s common stock, at an exercise price of $3.19 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $48.2 million in cash. The Preferred Shares qualify as Tier I capital under risk-based capital guidelines and will pay cumulative dividends at a rate of 5% per annum for the first five years and 9% per annum thereafter. The Preferred Shares are non-voting except for class voting rights on matters that would adversely affect the rights of the holders of the Preferred Shares.

          Other than the sale of Preferred Shares and the issuance of subordinated debt in 2007 in connection with the issuance of trust preferred securities by one of the Company’s business trust subsidiaries on the terms previously disclosed, Fidelity has not sold any unregistered securities in the past three years.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

          The following table presents information as of December 31, 2009, with respect to shares of common stock of Fidelity that may be issued under equity compensation plans. The equity compensation plans of Fidelity consist of the Stock Option Plans and the 401(k) tax qualified savings plan.

Number of Securities Remaining

Available for Future Issuance

Number of Securities

Under

to be Issued upon

Weighted Average

Equity Compensation Plans

Exercise of

Exercise Price of

(Excluding Securities Reflected in

Plan Category

Outstanding Options

Outstanding Options

Column A)

Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Shareholders(1)

494,405

$

8.59

313,242

Equity Compensation Plans Not Approved by Shareholders(2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total

494,405

$

8.59

313,242

Shareholder Return Performance Graph

          The following graph compares the percentage change in the cumulative five-year shareholder return on Fidelity’s Common Stock (traded on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol “LION”) with the cumulative total return on the NASDAQ Composite Index, and the SNL NASDAQ Bank Index.

          The graph assumes that the value invested in the Common Stock of Fidelity and in each of the two indices was $100 on December 31, 2004, and all dividends were reinvested.

		Period Ending December 31,
Index		2004				2005				2006				2007				2008				2009
Fidelity Southern Corporation		$	100.00			$	95.75			$	101.31			$	51.96			$	20.71			$	21.07
NASDAQ Composite			100.00				101.37				111.03				121.92				72.49				104.31
SNL NASDAQ Bank Index			100.00				96.95				108.85				85.45				62.06				50.34

Item 6.		Selected Financial Data

          The following table contains selected consolidated financial data. This information should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and notes included in this report.

		SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
		Years Ended December 31,
		2009				2008				2007				2006				2005
						(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
Interest income		$	97,583			$	104,054			$	113,462			$	97,804			$	74,016
Interest expense			46,009				57,636				66,682				54,275				34,684
Net interest income			51,574				46,418				46,780				43,529				39,332
Provision for loan losses			28,800				36,550				8,500				3,600				2,900
Noninterest income, including securities gains			33,978				17,636				17,911				15,699				14,339
Securities gains, net			5,308				1,306				2				—				32
Noninterest expense			64,562				48,839				47,203				40,568				35,001
Net (loss) income			(3,855	)			(12,236	)			6,634				10,374				10,326
Dividends declared — common			—				1,783				3,357				2,964				2,567
Per Share Data:
Net (loss) income:
Basic (loss) earnings(1)		$	(.71	)		$	(1.27	)		$	.69			$	1.09			$	1.09
Diluted (loss) earnings(1)			(.71	)			(1.27	)			.69				1.09				1.09
Book value(1)			8.44				9.42				10.35				9.88				9.10
Dividends declared			—				.19				.36				.32				.28
Dividend payout ratio			—	%			—	%			50.61	%			28.57	%			24.86	%
Profitability Ratios:
Return on average assets			(.21	)%			(.70	)%			.41	%			.70	%			.79	%
Return on average shareholders’ equity			(2.91	)			(12.43	)			6.84				11.67				12.59
Net interest margin			2.95				2.84				3.04				3.10				3.17
Asset Quality Ratios:
Net charge-offs to average loans			2.44	%			1.36	%			.45	%			.19	%			.23	%
Allowance to period-end loans			2.33				2.43				1.19				1.07				1.17
Nonperforming assets to total loans, OREO and repos			6.43				7.89				1.65				.40				.25
Allowance to nonperforming loans, OREO and repos			.32	x			.29	x			.71	x			2.52	x			4.50	x
Liquidity Ratios:
Total loans to total deposits			91.64	%			100.01	%			103.30	%			100.18	%			100.51	%
Loans to total deposits			83.18				96.14				98.77				95.98				97.79
Average total loans to average earning assets			82.46				89.81				90.34				88.36				86.58
Capital Ratios:
Leverage			9.03	%			10.04	%			7.93	%			8.07	%			8.64	%
Risk-based capital
Tier 1			11.25				11.10				8.43				8.54				9.60
Total			13.98				13.67				11.54				10.37				11.97
Average equity to average assets			7.13				5.66				5.93				5.99				6.29
Balance Sheet Data (At End of Period):
Assets		$	1,851,520			$	1,763,113			$	1,686,484			$	1,649,179			$	1,405,703
Earning assets			1,744,134				1,635,722				1,597,855				1,562,736				1,342,335
Total loans			1,421,090				1,443,862				1,452,013				1,389,024				1,129,777
Total deposits			1,550,725				1,443,682				1,405,625				1,386,541				1,124,013
Long-term debt			117,527				115,027				92,527				83,908				94,908
Shareholders’ equity			129,685				136,604				99,963				94,647				86,739
Daily Average:
Assets, net of discontinued operations		$	1,858,874			$	1,738,494			$	1,635,520			$	1,483,384			$	1,304,090
Earning assets			1,759,893				1,649,022				1,553,602				1,415,105				1,247,480
Total loans			1,451,240				1,481,066				1,403,461				1,250,386				1,080,025
Total deposits			1,542,569				1,445,485				1,377,503				1,223,428				1,072,695
Long-term debt			133,623				111,475				90,366				94,111				81,817
Shareholders’ equity			132,613				98,461				97,059				88,866				82,002

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL REVIEW

          The following management discussion and analysis addresses important factors affecting the results of operations and financial condition of FSC and its subsidiaries for the periods indicated. The consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes should be read in conjunction with this review.

Overview

          Our profitability, as with most financial institutions, is significantly dependent upon net interest income, which is the difference between interest received on interest-earning assets, such as loans and securities, and the interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities, principally deposits and borrowings. During a period of economic slow down the lack of interest income from nonperforming assets and an additional provision for loan losses can greatly reduce our profitability. Results of operations are also affected by noninterest income, such as service charges on deposit accounts and fees on other services, income from indirect automobile and SBA lending activities, mortgage banking, brokerage activities, and bank owned life insurance; as well as noninterest expenses such as salaries and employee benefits, occupancy, furniture and equipment, professional and other services, and other expenses, including income taxes.

          Economic conditions, competition, and the monetary and fiscal policies of the Federal government significantly affect financial institutions. Poor performance of subprime loans initiated the credit crisis that began in the summer of 2007, followed by substantial declines in residential home sales and prices, the slowing of the national economy and by a serious lack of liquidity. By the end of 2007, the credit turmoil migrated to consumer lending, as demonstrated by the increase in credit card delinquencies and automobile repossessions in all regions of the U.S., including our southeast markets. In 2008, the financial crisis worsened and led to a crisis of confidence in the financial sector as a result of concerns about the capital base and viability of certain financial institutions and the Treasury had to step in with capital infusions for many financial institutions. During this period, interbank lending and commercial paper borrowing fell sharply, precipitating a credit freeze for both institutional and individual borrowers. The national unemployment rate increased to 10.0% in December 2009 from 7.2% in December 2008. In 2009, the Federal Reserve kept short-term interest rates at historic lows in response to the national economic recession.

          The recession had a major impact on the Atlanta and Florida economies, particularly in the residential construction and development markets. Many builders and building related businesses have suffered financially due to the decreasing home prices, lack of demand for houses and the over supply of houses and residential lots. Additionally, this crisis has affected the consumer as demonstrated by the increased delinquencies and foreclosures throughout 2009. These are the primary reasons that, when compared to 2008, our net charge-offs increased 67.0% to $32.4 million during 2009. Our provision for loan losses decreased 21.2% to $28.8 million due to management’s efforts to build up reserves in 2008. Management recorded a total of $65.4 million in provision for loan losses in 2008 and 2009 compared to net charge-offs of $51.8 million over the same period, so for every dollar of net charge-offs, we recorded $1.26 in provision for loan losses. Our allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans outstanding decreased to 2.33% at December 31, 2009, from 2.43% at the end of 2008.

          Since our inception in 1974, we have pursued managed profitable growth through internal expansion built on providing quality financial services. During 2009, the Bank significantly expanded its mortgage lending division, but due to the recessionary economy our total loans decreased slightly from 2008. The loan portfolio is well diversified among consumer, business, and real estate.

          Net loss for 2009 was $3.9 million compared to net loss of $12.2 million in 2008. Net loss per basic and diluted share was $.71 for 2009 compared to net loss of $1.27 in 2008. Key factors impacting our financial condition and results of operations for 2009 are summarized below:

	•		The provision for loan losses for 2009 was $28.8 million compared to $36.6 million in 2008. Net charge-offs for 2009 were 2.44% of average loans outstanding compared to 1.36% for 2008. The allowance for loan losses was 2.33% of outstanding loans and provided a coverage ratio of 32.4% of nonperforming assets as of December 31, 2009.
	•		The net interest margin increased 11 basis points in 2009 to 2.95% from 2.84% in 2008, resulting from a 92 basis point decrease in the cost of funds which was greater than the 77 basis point decrease in the yield on earning assets. Management’s successful efforts to reduce the cost of funds included aggressive reductions in interest rates within the constraints of our market as well as a shift in the deposit mix to emphasize lower cost savings accounts.
	•		Total assets increased $88.4 million or 5.0% to $1.852 billion at the end of 2009 compared to $1.763 billion at year end 2008. This increase was primarily due to the 85.9% increase in cash and cash equivalents as a result of investment sales late in 2009, higher loans held-for-sale, and higher Other Assets primarily due to prepaid FDIC insurance premiums, partially offset by a decrease in the loans outstanding.

          The Bank’s franchise spans eight Counties in the metropolitan Atlanta market and one branch office in Jacksonville, Florida. Our lending activities and the total of our nonperforming assets are significantly influenced by the local economic environments in Atlanta and Jacksonville. Our net interest margin is affected by prevailing interest rates, nonperforming assets and competition among financial institutions for loans and deposits. Atlanta’s and to a lesser extent Jacksonville’s economies continue to be negatively impacted by the weak real estate market. Management expects the economy to be stagnant through the first half of 2010 which will pressure earnings for the year. However, continued market turmoil will provide opportunities to attract new customer relationships, and talented and experienced bankers. We plan to pursue these opportunities on a selective basis.

          Our overall focus is on building shareholder value. Our mission is “to continue growth, improve earnings and increase shareholder value; to treat customers, employees, community and shareholders according to the Golden Rule; and to operate within a culture of strong internal controls.” The strong focus in 2010 will be on credit quality, expense controls, and modest quality loan growth.

Critical Accounting Policies

          Our accounting and reporting policies are in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and conform to general practices within the financial services industry. Our financial position and results of operations are affected by management’s application of accounting policies, including estimates, assumptions, and judgments made to arrive at the carrying value of assets and liabilities and amounts reported for revenues, expenses, and related disclosures. Different assumptions in the application of these policies, or conditions significantly different from certain assumptions, could result in material changes in our consolidated financial position or consolidated results of operations. Our accounting policies are fundamental to understanding our consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations. Our significant accounting policies are discussed in detail in Note 1 in the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.” Significant accounting policies have been periodically discussed and reviewed with and approved by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors.

          The following is a summary of our more critical significant accounting policies that are highly dependent on estimates, assumptions, and judgments.

     Allowance for Loan Losses

          The allowance for loan losses is established and maintained through provisions charged to operations. Such provisions are based on management’s evaluation of the loan portfolio, including loan portfolio concentrations, current economic conditions, the economic outlook, past loan loss experience, adequacy of underlying collateral, and such other factors which, in management’s judgment, deserve consideration in estimating loan losses. Loans are charged off when, in the opinion of management, such loans are deemed to be uncollectible. Subsequent recoveries are added to the allowance.

          A formal review of the allowance for loan losses is prepared at least monthly to assess the probable credit risk inherent in the loan portfolio and to determine the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. For purposes of the monthly management review, the loan portfolio is separated by loan type and each loan type is treated as a homogeneous pool. In accordance with the Interagency Policy Statement on the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses, the level of allowance required for each loan type is determined based upon historical charge-off experience and current economic trends. In addition to the homogenous pools of loans, every commercial, commercial real estate, SBA, and construction loan is assigned a risk rating using established credit policy guidelines. All nonperforming commercial, commercial real estate, SBA, and construction loans and loans deemed to have greater than normal risk characteristics are reviewed monthly by Credit Review to determine the level of additional allowance for loan losses, if any, required to be specifically assigned to these loans.

     Capitalized Servicing Assets and Liabilities

          The majority of our indirect automobile loan pools and certain residential mortgage and SBA loans are sold with servicing retained. When the contractually specific servicing fees on loans sold servicing retained are expected to be more than adequate compensation to a servicer for performing the servicing, a capitalized servicing asset is recognized. When the expected costs to a servicer for performing loan servicing are not expected to adequately compensate a servicer, a capitalized servicing liability is recognized. Servicing assets and servicing liabilities are amortized over the expected lives of the serviced loans utilizing the interest method. Management makes certain estimates and assumptions related to costs to service varying types of loans and pools of loans, the projected lives of loans and pools of loans sold servicing retained, and discount factors used in calculating the present values of servicing fees projected to be received.

          No less frequently than quarterly, management reviews the status of all loans and pools of loans sold with related capitalized servicing assets to determine if there is any impairment to those assets due to such factors as earlier than estimated repayments or significant prepayments. Any impairment identified in these assets will result in reductions in their carrying values and a corresponding increase in operating expenses.

     Loan Related Revenue Recognition

          Loans are reported at principal amounts outstanding net of deferred fees and costs. Interest income and ancillary fees from loans are a primary source of revenue. Interest income is recognized in a manner that results in a level yield on principal amounts outstanding. Rate related loan fee income, loan origination, and commitment fees, and certain direct origination costs are deferred and amortized as an adjustment of the yield over the contractual lives of the related loans, taking into consideration assumed prepayments. The accrual of interest is discontinued when, in management’s judgment, it is determined that the collectibility of interest or principal is doubtful.

          For commercial, SBA, construction, and real estate loans, the accrual of interest is discontinued and the loan categorized as nonaccrual when, in management’s opinion, due to deterioration in the financial position or operations of the borrower, the full repayment of principal and interest is not expected, or principal or interest has been in default for a period of 90 days or more, unless the obligation is both well secured and in the process of collection. Commercial, SBA, construction, and real estate secured loans may be returned to accrual status when management expects to collect all principal and interest and the loan has been brought current. Interest received on well collateralized nonaccrual loans is recognized on the cash basis. If the commercial, SBA, construction or real estate secured loan is not well collateralized, payments are applied to reduce principal.

          Consumer loans are placed on nonaccrual upon becoming 90 days past due or sooner if, in the opinion of management, the full repayment of principal and interest is not expected. On consumer loans, any payment received on a loan on which the accrual of interest has been suspended is applied to reduce principal.

          When a loan is placed on nonaccrual, interest accrued during the current accounting period is reversed and interest accrued in prior periods, if significant, is charged off and adjustments to principal are made if the collateral related to the loan is deficient.

     Fair Value

          The primary financial instruments that the Company carries at fair value include investment securities, interest rate lock commitments (“IRLCs”), derivative instruments, and residential mortgage loans held-for-sale. Classification in the fair value hierarchy of financial instruments is based on the criteria set forth in FASB ASC 820-10-35.

          Fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. The guidance establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurements). A financial instrument’s level within the hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

          Investment Securities classified as available-for-sale are reported at fair value utilizing Level 2 inputs. For these securities, the Company obtains fair value measurements from an independent pricing service. The fair value measurements consider observable data that may include dealer quotes, market spreads, cash flows, the U.S. treasury yield curve, live trading levels, trade execution data, market consensus prepayment speeds, credit information and the bond’s terms and conditions, among other things. The investments in the Company’s portfolio are generally not quoted on an exchange but are actively traded in the secondary institutional markets.

          The Company classifies IRLCs on residential mortgage loans, which are derivatives under SFAS No. 133 now codified in ASC 815-10-15, on a gross basis within other liabilities or other assets. The fair value of these commitments, while based on interest rates observable in the market, is highly dependent on the ultimate closing of the loans. These “pull-through” rates are based on both the Company’s historical data and the current interest rate environment and reflect the Company’s best estimate of the likelihood that a commitment will ultimately result in a closed loan. As a result of the adoption of SAB No. 109, the loan servicing value is also included in the fair value of IRLCs.

          Derivative instruments are primarily transacted in the secondary mortgage and institutional dealer markets and priced with observable market assumptions at a mid-market valuation point, with appropriate valuation adjustments for liquidity and credit risk. For purposes of valuation adjustments to its derivative positions under FASB ASC 820-10-35, the Company has evaluated liquidity premiums that may be demanded by market participants, as well as the credit risk of its counterparties and its own credit.

          The credit risk associated with the underlying cash flows of instruments carried at fair value was a consideration in estimating the fair value of certain financial instruments. Credit risk was considered in the valuation through a variety of inputs, as applicable, including, the actual default and loss severity of the collateral, and level of subordination. The assumptions used to estimate credit risk applied relevant information that a market participant would likely use in valuing an instrument.

          The fair value of residential mortgage loans held-for-sale is based on what secondary markets are currently offering for portfolios with similar characteristics. As such, the Company classifies these loans as Level 2.

          SBA and indirect loans held-for-sale are measured at the lower of cost or fair value. Fair value is based on recent trades for similar loan pools as well as offering prices for similar assets provided by buyers in the secondary market. If the cost of a loan is determined to be less than the fair value of similar loans, the impairment is recorded by the establishment of a reserve to reduce the value of the loan.

          Impaired loans are evaluated and valued at the time the loan is identified as impaired, at the lower of cost or fair value. Fair value is measured based on the value of the collateral securing these loans and is classified as a Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. Collateral may include real estate or business assets, including equipment, inventory and accounts receivable. The value of real estate collateral is determined based on an appraisal by qualified licensed appraisers hired by the Company. If significant, the value of business equipment is based on an appraisal by qualified licensed appraisers hired by the Company, otherwise, the equipment’s net book value on the business’ financial statements is the basis for the value of business equipment. Inventory and accounts receivable collateral are valued based on independent field examiner review or aging reports. Appraised and reported values may be discounted based on management’s historical knowledge, changes in market conditions from the time of the valuation, and management’s expertise and knowledge of the client and client’s business. Impaired loans are evaluated on at least a quarterly basis for additional impairment and adjusted accordingly.

          Foreclosed assets are adjusted to fair value upon transfer of the loans to foreclosed assets. Subsequently, foreclosed assets are carried at the lower of carrying value or fair value less estimated selling costs. Fair value is based upon independent market prices, appraised values of the collateral or management’s estimation of the value of the collateral. When the fair value of the collateral is based on an observable market price or a current appraised value, the Company records the foreclosed asset as nonrecurring Level 2. When an appraised value is not available or management determines the fair value of the collateral is further impaired below the appraised value and there is no observable market price, the Company records the foreclosed asset as nonrecurring Level 3. Appraised and reported values may be discounted based on management’s historical knowledge, changes in market conditions from the time of the valuation, and management’s expertise and knowledge of the client and client’s business.

          The majority of the indirect automobile loan pools and certain SBA and residential mortgage loans are sold with servicing retained. When the contractually specific servicing fees on loans sold servicing retained are expected to be more than adequate compensation to a servicer for performing the servicing, a capitalized servicing asset is recognized based on fair value. When the expected costs to a servicer for performing loan servicing are not expected to adequately compensate a servicer, a capitalized servicing liability is recognized based on fair value. Servicing assets and servicing liabilities are amortized over the expected lives of the serviced loans utilizing the interest method. Management makes certain estimates and assumptions related to costs to service varying types of loans and pools of loans, prepayment speeds, the projected lives of loans and pools of loans sold servicing retained, and discount factors used in calculating the present values of servicing fees projected to be received.

     Income Taxes

          We file a consolidated Federal income tax return, as well as tax returns in several states. Income taxes are accounted for in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 740-10-25, formerly known as SFAS No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes”. Under the liability method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are recovered or settled. Deferred tax assets are reviewed annually to assess the probability of realization of benefits in future periods or whether valuation allowances are appropriate. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. Management has reviewed all evidence, both positive and negative, and concluded that a valuation allowance against the deferred tax asset is not needed at December 31, 2009. The calculation of the income tax provision is complex and requires the use of judgments and estimates in its determination.

Results of Operations

     2009 Compared to 2008

       Net Income

          Our net loss for the year ended December 31, 2009, was $3.9 million or $.71 basic and fully diluted loss per share. Net loss for the year ended December 31, 2008, was $12.2 million or $1.27 basic and fully diluted loss per share. The $8.4 million decrease in net loss in 2009 compared to 2008 was primarily due to a $7.8 million decrease in the provision for loan losses as a result of the recent positive economic trends affecting our loan portfolio including moderating asset quality and lower nonperforming assets.

          Net interest income increased during 2009 compared to 2008 as the average balance of interest-earning assets increased $110.9 million, compared to a $71.6 million increase in the average balance of interest-bearing liabilities. In addition, the net interest

margin increased 11 basis points to 2.95%. Noninterest income increased by $16.3 million or 92.7% to $34.0 million in 2009 compared to 2008, primarily due to an increase in revenues from mortgage banking activities of $14.6 million, and an increase in securities gains of $4.0 million, offset in part by a $1.0 million decrease in indirect lending activities and an $851,000 decrease in other operating income. Noninterest expense increased $15.7 million or 32.2% in 2009 compared to 2008 primarily due to increases in salaries and employee benefits of $7.4 million, the cost of operation of other real estate of $3.5 million, other operating expenses of $1.1 million, FDIC insurance expense of $2.7 million and professional and other services of $1.1 million compared to 2008.

     Net Interest Income/Margin

          Taxable-equivalent net interest income was $52.0 million in 2009 compared to $46.9 million in 2008, an increase of $5.1 million or 10.9%. Average interest-earning assets in 2009 increased $110.9 million to $1.760 billion, a 6.7% increase when compared to 2008. Average interest-bearing liabilities increased $71.6 million to $1.569 billion, a 4.8% increase. The net interest margin increased by 11 basis points to 2.95% in 2009 when compared to 2008.

          Taxable-equivalent interest income decreased $6.5 million or 6.2% to $98.0 million during 2009 compared with 2008 as a result of a 77 basis point decrease in the yield on interest-earning assets somewhat offset by the net growth of $110.9 million or 6.7% in average interest-earning assets. The average balance of loans outstanding in 2009 decreased $29.8 million or 2.0% to $1.451 billion when compared to 2008. The yield on average loans outstanding decreased 52 basis points to 6.00% when compared to 2008, in large part due to decreasing yields on the consumer loan portfolio, consisting primarily of indirect automobile loans as well as significant increases in average nonperforming loans. The average balance of investment securities increased $89.1 million as principal payments on mortgage backed securities were more than offset by investment purchases during the year. Average interest-bearing deposits increased $52.5 million to $55.1 million and Federal funds sold decreased $947,000 or 7.9% to $11.0 million due to management’s decision to maintain higher levels of liquidity in light of the continuing credit and liquidity crisis.

          Interest expense in 2009 decreased $11.6 million or 20.2% to $46.0 million as a result of a $71.6 million or 4.8% growth in average interest-bearing liability balances, more than offset by a 92 basis point decrease in the cost of interest-bearing liabilities due to managements efforts to lower cost of funds by decreasing rates paid on deposits and to replace higher cost certificates of deposit with lower cost core deposits. Average total interest-bearing deposits increased $83.1 million or 6.3% to $1.400 billion during 2009 compared to 2008, while average borrowings decreased $11.5 million or 6.4% to $169.3 million. The increase in average total interest-bearing deposits was primarily due to an increase of $124.6 million in savings deposits offset by a decrease in demand accounts and time deposits.

          The cost of funds for subordinated debt decreased from 7.83% for 2008 to 6.89% in 2009 primarily as a result of Fidelity Southern Statutory Trust I and II which have floating rate indexes and decreased from 4.57% and 3.76%, respectively at December 31, 2008 to 3.35% and 2.14% at December 31, 2009.

Average Balances, Interest and Yields

		For the Years Ended December 31,
		2009												2008												2007
		Average				Income/				Yield/				Average				Income/				Yield/				Average				Income/				Yield/
		Balance				Expense				Rate				Balance				Expense				Rate				Balance				Expense				Rate
		(Dollars in thousands)
ASSETS
Interest-Earning Assets:
Loans, net of unearned income(1)(2)
Taxable		$	1,444,423			$	86,643				6.00	%		$	1,472,573			$	96,009				6.52	%		$	1,390,625			$	105,222				7.57	%
Tax-exempt(3)			6,817				395				5.93				8,493				581				6.97				12,837				1,052				8.20
Total loans			1,451,240				87,038				6.00				1,481,066				96,590				6.52				1,403,462				106,274				7.57
Investment securities
Taxable			227,731				9,901				4.35				139,391				6,867				4.93				137,370				6,964				5.07
Tax-exempt (4)			14,760				898				6.09				13,975				833				5.96				6,782				390				5.75
Total Investment securities			242,491				10,799				4.47				153,366				7,700				5.05				144,152				7,354				5.12
Interest-bearing deposits			55,149				139				.25				2,630				36				1.38				1,134				58				5.08
Federal funds sold			11,013				24				.22				11,960				179				1.49				4,855				243				5.01
Total interest-earning assets			1,759,893				98,000				5.57				1,649,022				104,505				6.34				1,553,603				113,929				7.34
Noninterest-Earning Assets:
Cash and due from banks			25,900												22,239												23,383
Allowance for loan losses			(33,632	)											(22,610	)											(14,644	)
Premises and equipment			18,725												19,537												18,875
Other real estate owned			21,527												12,624												2,918
Other assets			66,461												57,682												51,385
Total assets		$	1,858,874											$	1,738,494											$	1,635,520
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Interest-Bearing Liabilities:
Demand deposits		$	236,819				2,794				1.18			$	271,429				6,226				2.29			$	293,336				10,243				3.49
Savings deposits			333,865				6,963				2.09				209,301				6,043				2.89				203,529				8,881				4.36
Time deposits			829,229				28,864				3.48				836,049				36,453				4.36				749,803				38,778				5.17
Total interest-bearing deposits			1,399,913				38,621				2.76				1,316,779				48,722				3.70				1,246,668				57,902				4.64
Federal funds purchased			—				—				—				9,001				265				2.94				10,310				548				5.31
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase			29,237				390				1.33				34,924				921				2.64				21,674				657				3.03
Other short-term borrowings			6,407				227				3.54				25,393				879				3.46				24,516				1,111				4.54
Subordinated debt			67,527				4,650				6.89				67,527				5,284				7.83				54,478				4,945				9.08
Long-term debt			66,096				2,121				3.21				43,948				1,565				3.56				35,888				1,519				4.23
Total interest-bearing liabilities			1,569,180				46,009				2.93				1,497,572				57,636				3.85				1,393,534				66,682				4.79
Noninterest-Bearing Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity:
Demand deposits			142,656												128,706												130,835
Other liabilities			14,425												13,755												14,092
Shareholders’ equity			132,613												98,461												97,059
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity		$	1,858,874											$	1,738,494											$	1,635,520
Net interest income/spread						$	51,991				2.64							$	46,869				2.49							$	47,247				2.55
Net interest rate margin											2.95												2.84												3.04

Rate/Volume Analysis

		2009 Compared to 2008 Variance												2008 Compared to 2007 Variance
		Attributed to(1)												Attributed to(1)
		Volume				Rate				Net Change				Volume				Rate				Net Change
		(In thousands)
Net Loans:
Taxable		$	(1,807	)		$	(7,559	)		$	(9,366	)		$	5,961			$	(15,174	)		$	(9,213	)
Tax-exempt(2)			(106	)			(80	)			(186	)			(327	)			(145	)			(472	)
Investment Securities:
Taxable			3,926				(892	)			3,034				102				(199	)			(97	)
Tax exempt(2)			47				18				65				428				15				443
Federal funds sold			(13	)			(142	)			(155	)			191				(255	)			(64	)
Interest-bearing deposits			156				(53	)			103				40				(62	)			(22	)
Total interest-earning assets		$	2,203			$	(8,708	)		$	(6,505	)		$	6,395			$	(15,820	)		$	(9,425	)
Interest-Bearing Deposits:
Demand		$	(715	)		$	(2,717	)		$	(3,432	)		$	(719	)		$	(3,299	)		$	(4,018	)
Savings			2,921				(2,001	)			920				245				(3,083	)			(2,838	)
Time			(295	)			(7,294	)			(7,589	)			4,158				(6,482	)			(2,324	)
Total interest-bearing deposits			1,911				(12,012	)			(10,101	)			3,684				(12,864	)			(9,180	)
Federal funds purchased			(132	)			(133	)			(265	)			(63	)			(221	)			(284	)
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase			(131	)			(400	)			(531	)			359				(94	)			265
Other short-term borrowings			(671	)			19				(652	)			40				(272	)			(232	)
Subordinated debt			—				(634	)			(634	)			1,082				(743	)			339
Long-term debt			723				(167	)			556				309				(263	)			46
Total interest-bearing liabilities		$	1,700			$	(13,327	)		$	(11,627	)		$	5,411			$	(14,457	)		$	(9,046	)

     Provision for Loan Losses

          Management’s policy is to maintain the allowance for loan losses at a level sufficient to absorb probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The allowance is increased by the provision for loan losses and decreased by charge-offs, net of recoveries.

          The provision for loan losses was $28.8 million in 2009, $36.6 million in 2008 and $8.5 million in 2007. Net charge-offs were $32.4 million in 2009 compared to $19.4 million in 2008 and $6.2 million in 2007. The decrease in the provision in 2009 compared to 2008 was primarily due to moderating asset quality and reductions in the level of nonperforming assets. In 2008, management increased provision for loan losses well in excess of charge-offs in response to the worsening economic climate and to continued deterioration in the Bank’s asset quality. In the second half of 2009, credit trends stabilized and we began to see some improvement in certain credit quality metrics such as nonperforming assets. At December 31, 2009 total nonperforming assets were $92.9 million compared to $115.2 million at December 31, 2008, a reduction of 22.3 million or 19.4%. Although we do not have a direct exposure to the subprime market, residential construction and development credit issues first surfacing with the subprime mortgage problems migrated to consumer loans, including our indirect automobile loan portfolio, during the second half of 2008 and continued in early 2009. The metropolitan Atlanta construction market continued its decline in 2009.

          The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans outstanding at the end of 2009, 2008, and 2007 was 2.33%, 2.43% and 1.19%, respectively. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans decreased 10 basis points in 2009 in response to the stabilizing economy and the associated positive impact on consumer loans. Adversely classified assets to total assets improved from 8.25% at the end of 2008 to 6.97% at the end of 2009.

          For additional information on asset quality, refer to the discussions regarding loans, credit quality, nonperforming assets, and the allowance for loan losses.

Analysis of the Allowance for Loan Losses

		December 31,
		2009				2008				2007				2006				2005
		(Dollars in thousands)
Balance at beginning of year		$	33,691			$	16,557			$	14,213			$	12,912			$	12,443
Charge-offs:
Commercial, financial and agricultural			315				99				200				1				385
SBA			730				220				—				67				—
Real estate-construction			20,217				9,083				1,934				—				—
Real estate-mortgage			416				332				82				5				160
Consumer installment			11,622				10,841				5,301				3,616				2,890
Total charge-offs			33,300				20,575				7,517				3,689				3,435
Recoveries:
Commercial, financial and agricultural			8				5				257				505				284
SBA			31				215				—				145				—
Real estate-construction			77				43				190				—				—
Real estate-mortgage			20				14				78				7				41
Consumer installment			745				882				836				733				679
Total recoveries			881				1,159				1,361				1,390				1,004
Net charge-offs			32,419				19,416				6,156				2,299				2,431
Provision for loan losses			28,800				36,550				8,500				3,600				2,900
Balance at end of year		$	30,072			$	33,691			$	16,557			$	14,213			$	12,912
Allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans			2.33	%			2.43	%			1.19	%			1.07	%			1.17	%
Ratio of net charge-offs during period to average loans outstanding, net			2.44				1.36				.45				.19				.23

          Consumer installment loan net charge-offs of $10.9 million increased 9.2% over charge-offs of $10.0 million in 2008. The majority of consumer installment loan charge-offs were related to indirect automobile loan repossessions and liquidations. The quarterly net charge-offs demonstrated a moderating trend in 2009. Quarterly indirect net charge-offs beginning with the third quarter of 2008 through the fourth quarter of 2009 were $3.0 million, $3.2 million, $3.5 million, $2.6 million, $2.2 million and $2.5 million, respectively.

          Real estate construction loan net charge-offs were $20.1 million in 2009 compared to $9.0 million in 2008. These charge-offs were related to residential construction builders and were attributed to the slow down in housing construction and sales. Based on recent trends in the economy and a smaller balance of construction loans outstanding, management believes the real estate construction loan charge-offs will decrease in 2010 as compared to 2009. We will continue to closely monitor the activity and trends in the residential housing construction portfolio as well as the rest of the loan portfolio.

     Noninterest Income

          Noninterest income for 2009 was $34.0 million compared to $17.6 million in 2008, a 92.7% increase. This increase was primarily due to an increase in revenues from mortgage banking and securities gains, somewhat offset by decreases in indirect lending and other operating income.

          Income from mortgage banking activities increased $14.6 million to $15.0 million during 2009 compared to 2008. In the first quarter of 2009, management made the strategic decision to expand the mortgage banking operation by hiring 58 former employees of an Atlanta based mortgage company which had closed down operations. During 2009, we continued to hire employees for our mortgage operation. As a result of this expansion and favorable mortgage interest rates, the Bank originated approximately $846 million in mortgage loans during 2009 compared to approximately $20 million in 2008. Origination fee income in 2009 was $3.7 million compared to $144,000 in 2008. Gain on loans sold increased from $148,000 in 2008 to $7.1 million in 2009. In addition, on January 1, 2009 the Bank elected under ASC 825-10-25 to value its loans held-for-sale at fair value. This valuation along with the mark to market on the derivatives associated with interest rate lock commitments and related hedges resulted in the recognition of a mark to market gain of $2.0 million during 2009. Other fee income associated with the mortgage banking activities was $2.2 million in 2009 compared to $48,000 in 2008.

          Securities gain income increased $4.0 million to $5.3 million in 2009 compared to $1.3 million in 2008. The increase is a result of the Bank repositioning the investment portfolio as part of the interest rate, cash flow, and capital risk rating strategies. The Bank sold 33 securities during 2009 compared to six in 2008.

          Income from indirect lending activities for 2009, which includes both net gains from the sales of indirect automobile loans and servicing and ancillary loan fees on loans sold, decreased $1.0 million or 19.1% to $4.2 million compared to $5.2 million for 2008. The decrease was due primarily to a decrease in loan sales in 2009 compared to 2008. There were service retained sales of $57.5 million of indirect automobile loans in 2009 compared to sales of $99.3 million in 2008 with $75.3 million sold servicing retained. Income from indirect automobile lending activities is an important source of our noninterest income and is heavily driven by investor purchases at favorable volume and pricing, movements in interest rates, competitive pricing, and current loan production, which varies with significant changes in automobile sales and manufacturers’ marketing packages in our markets. In the second half of 2009, management did begin to see more interest in loan purchases and higher gains on sales.

          Other operating income decreased $851,000 to $683,000 in 2009 compared to 2008 because of lower gains on sale of fixed assets and ORE, lower retail brokerage fee income, and lower insurance sales commissions. Brokerage fee income decreased because of the recessionary economy. Insurance commissions decreased due to lower production. Gains on sale of ORE decreased because of smaller gains on the sales of foreclosed properties. In addition a parcel of land owned by the Bank was sold for a gain in 2008 which did not reoccur in 2009.

     Noninterest Expense

          Noninterest expense during 2009 increased $15.7 million or 32.2% to $64.6 million when compared to 2008, due primarily to increases in salaries and employee benefits related to growth in the mortgage division, the cost of operation of other real estate because of an increased amount of foreclosed properties, other operating expenses, higher FDIC insurance premiums and higher professional and other services.

          Salaries and benefits expense increased $7.4 million or 28.8% in 2009 compared to 2008. The increase was primarily due to the higher commissions and salaries associated with the expansion of the mortgage division during 2009 and the hiring of new lenders in the SBA, Commercial, Private Banking and Indirect divisions of the Bank.

          The cost of operation of other real estate, which was $6.9 million in 2009, increased $3.5 million compared to 2008. The increase was a result of higher foreclosed assets held by the Bank during 2009. The average ORE balance increased 70.5% to $21.5 million in 2009 compared to $12.6 million in 2008. The cost of operation of other real estate is made up of $3.9 million in provision for other real estate losses, $1.6 million in foreclosure related expenses and $1.4 million in maintenance, real estate taxes, and other related expenses.

          Other operating expenses were $7.1 million in 2009 and $1.1 million or 17.9% higher than 2008 as a result the 2008 reversal of $415,000 in accrued expenses related to the reserve for Fidelity’s estimated proportional share of a settlement of the Visa litigation with Discover Financial Services which did not reoccur in 2009, higher other insurance expense related to the higher premiums, higher credit reports and appraisal fee expenses which increased $245,000 in 2009 to $652,000 due to the higher mortgage loan activity associated with the expansion of the mortgage division, and increased placement fees.

          Other significant variances include FDIC insurance expense which increased $2.6 million due to growth in deposits and a special assessment of five basis points totaling $863,000 in the second quarter of 2009. Management expects FDIC premiums to trend higher for the foreseeable future as bank closures are expected to continue into 2010. Professional and other services expense increased $1.1 million or 28.6% to $4.9 million in 2009 compared to 2008 primarily due to higher legal fees associated with SBA and indirect lending, and higher outside services related to the mortgage division expansion.

     Provision for Income Taxes

          The provision for income taxes benefit for 2009 and 2008 was $4.0 million and $9.1 million, respectively, with effective tax rates of 50.6% and 42.7%, respectively. The income tax benefit recorded in 2009 was primarily the result of a pretax loss as well as the recognition of state income tax credits earned during the year. The full benefit of the current year loss has been recognized due to the availability of sufficient income in the previous two years allowing the carryback of these losses for both Federal and state purposes. Management has reviewed all evidence, both positive and negative, and concluded that a valuation allowance against the deferred tax asset is not needed at December 31, 2009.

2008 Compared to 2007

     Net Income

          Our net loss for the year ended December 31, 2008, was $12.2 million or $1.27 basic and fully diluted loss per share. Net income for the year ended December 31, 2007, was $6.6 million or $.69 basic and fully diluted earnings per share. The $18.9 million decrease in net income in 2008 compared to 2007 was primarily due to a $28.l million increase in the provision for loan losses as a result of increased charge-offs and nonperforming assets.

          Net interest income decreased during 2008 compared to 2007 as the average balance of interest-earning assets increased $95.4 million, resulting in an increase in interest income, more than offset by a 20 basis point decline in the net interest margin. Noninterest income decreased by $275,000 or 1.5% to $17.6 million in 2008 compared to 2007, primarily due to a decrease in revenues from SBA lending activities of $1.2 million, and a decrease in other income of $375,000, offset in part by a $1.3 million gain from the mandatory redemption of 29,267 shares of Visa, Inc. upon Visa’s initial public offering. Noninterest expense increased $1.6 million or 3.5% in 2008 compared to 2007 primarily due to increases in the cost of operation of other real estate of $3.2 million and FDIC insurance expense of $818,000 compared to 2007 partially offset by reductions in Visa litigation accruals of $1.0 million, fraud losses, placement fees, and various other expenses.

     Net Interest Income/Margin

          Taxable-equivalent net interest income was $46.9 million in 2008 compared to $47.3 million in 2007, a decrease of $378,000 or .8%. Average interest-earning assets in 2008 increased $95.4 million to $1.649 billion, a 6.1% increase when compared to 2007. Average interest-bearing liabilities increased $104.0 million to $1.497 billion, a 7.5% increase. The net interest rate margin decreased by 20 basis points to 2.84% in 2008 when compared to 2007.

          Tax-equivalent interest income decreased $9.4 million or 8.3% to $104.5 million during 2008 compared with 2007 as a result of a 100 basis point decrease in the yield on interest-earning assets somewhat offset by the net growth of $95.4 million or 6.1% in average interest-earning assets. The average balance of loans outstanding in 2008 increased $77.6 million or 5.5% to $1.481 billion when compared to 2008. The yield on average loans outstanding decreased 105 basis points to 6.52% when compared to 2007, in large part due to decreasing yields on the consumer loan portfolio, consisting primarily of indirect automobile loans as well as significant increases in nonperforming loans. The average balance of investment securities increased $9.2 million as principal payments on mortgage backed securities were more than offset by investment purchases during the year. Average Federal funds sold increased $7.1 million or 146.3% to $12.0 million and interest-bearing deposits increased $1.5 million or 131.9% to $2.6 million due to management’s decision to maintain higher levels of liquidity.

          Interest expense in 2008 decreased $9.0 million or 13.6% to $57.6 million as a result of a $104.0 million or 7.5% growth in average interest-bearing liability balances, more than offset by a 94 basis point decrease in the cost of interest-bearing liabilities due to decreasing prevailing interest rates as the Federal Reserve aggressively lowered interest rates during 2008. Average total interest-bearing deposits increased $70.1 million or 5.6% to $1.317 billion during 2008 compared to 2007, while average borrowings increased $33.9 million or 23.1% to $180.8 million. The increase in average total interest-bearing deposits was primarily due to an increase of $86.2 million in average time deposits as customers sought higher yields as overall interest rates fell.

          The cost of funds for subordinated debt decreased from 9.08% for 2007 to 7.83% in 2008 primarily as a result of the full year effect of the addition of $20.0 million in trust preferred securities which have a five year fixed rate of 6.62% then convert to a floating rate at 140 basis points over three-month LIBOR. In addition, Fidelity Southern Statutory Trust I and II have floating rate indexes which decreased from 8.30% and 7.58%, respectively at December 31, 2007 to 4.57% and 3.76% at December 31, 2008.

     Provision for Loan Losses

          The provision for loan losses was $36.6 million in 2008, $8.5 million in 2007 and $3.6 million in 2006. Net charge-offs were $19.4 million in 2008 compared to $6.2 million in 2007 and $2.3 million in 2006. The increase in the provision in 2008 compared to 2007 was primarily due to charge-offs and charge-downs on residential construction and indirect automobile loans due to deteriorating credit quality.

          The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans outstanding at the end of 2008, 2007, and 2006 was 2.43%, 1.19% and 1.07%, respectively. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans increased in 2008 in response to the housing downturn, the worsening economy and its negative impact on consumer loans, resulting in declining credit quality and increased charge-offs. Adversely classified assets to total assets increased from 2.83% at the end of 2007 to 8.25% at the end of 2008.

          Consumer installment loan net charge-offs of $10.0 million increased 123.0% over charge-offs of $4.5 million in 2007. The majority of consumer installment loan charge-offs were related to indirect automobile loan repossessions and liquidations.

          Real estate construction loan net charge-offs were $9.0 million in 2008 compared to $1.7 million in 2007. These charge-offs were related to residential construction builders and were attributed to the slow down in housing construction and sales.

     Noninterest Income

          Noninterest income for 2008 was $17.6 million compared to $17.9 million in 2007, a 1.5% decrease. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease in revenues from SBA lending, and other operating income somewhat offset by a $1.3 million gain from the mandatory redemption of 29,267 shares of Visa, Inc.

          Income from SBA lending activities which includes gains from the sale of SBA loans and ancillary fees on loans sold with servicing retained, totaled $1.3 million for 2008, compared to $2.4 million for 2007. The decrease was due to lower sales in 2008 as a result of the continuing volatility in credit markets, particularly with respect to SBA 504 loans. Loans sold decreased from $40.0 million in 2007 to $18.2 million which included no SBA 504 loan sales in 2008.

          Other operating income decreased $375,000 to $1.5 million in 2008 compared to 2007 because of lower retail brokerage fee income, and lower insurance sales commissions somewhat offset by higher gains on sale of other real estate. Brokerage fee income decreased because of both the slowing economy and a restructuring of the Bank’s brokerage division. Insurance commissions decreased due to lower production. Gains on sale of ORE increased because of the increased volume of foreclosed properties and the related sales.

          Income from indirect lending activities for 2008 decreased $222,000 or 4.1% to $5.2 million compared to $5.4 million for 2007. The decrease was due primarily to a decrease in loan sales in 2008 compared to 2007. There were sales of $99.3 million of indirect automobile loans in 2008 with $75.3 million sold servicing retained, compared to sales of $176.3 million in 2007 with $157.3 million sold servicing retained.

     Noninterest Expense

          Noninterest expense during 2008 increased $1.6 million or 3.5% to $48.8 million when compared to 2007, due primarily to increases in the cost of operation of other real estate of $3.3 million as the Bank experienced write-downs and other expenses related to the increase in ORE. The average ORE balance increased to $12.6 million in 2008 compared to $2.9 million in 2007. FDIC insurance premiums increased $818,000 or 395.2% due to higher deposits and premiums related to the expiration of a one-time assessment credit.

          Somewhat offsetting these increases was a decrease in other operating expenses of $2.7 million or 30.7% to $6.0 million due to a $1.0 million reduction in expense related to the Bank’s proportional share of Visa litigation expenses under our indemnification obligation as a Visa member bank. In addition, there were decreases in placement fees due to fewer new hires, fraud losses, dealer track application expense due to fewer indirect loan originations, travel related expenses, and other various expenses.

     Provision for Income Taxes

          The provision for income taxes (benefit) expense for 2008 and 2007 was $(9.1) million and $2.4 million, respectively, with effective tax rates of (42.7)% and 26.2%, respectively. The income tax benefit recorded in 2008 was primarily the result of a pretax loss as well as the recognition of state income tax credits earned during the year. The full benefit of the current year loss has been recognized due to the availability of sufficient income in the previous two years allowing the carryback of these losses for both Federal and state purposes.

Financial Condition

          We manage our assets and liabilities to maximize long-term earnings opportunities while maintaining the integrity of our financial position and the quality of earnings. To accomplish this objective, management strives for efficient management of interest rate risk and liquidity needs. The primary objectives of interest-sensitivity management are to minimize the effect of interest rate changes on the net interest margin and to manage the exposure to risk while maintaining net interest income at acceptable levels. Liquidity is provided by our attempt to carefully structure our balance sheet and through unsecured and secured lines of credit with other financial institutions, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (the “FHLB”), and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (the “FRB”).

          The Asset/Liability Management Committee (“ALCO”) meets regularly to, among other things, review our interest rate sensitivity positions and our balance sheet mix, monitor our capital position and ratios, review our product offerings and pricing, including rates, fees and charges, monitor our funding needs and sources, and assess our current and projected liquidity.

Market Risk

          Our primary market risk exposures are interest rate risk, credit risk and liquidity risk. We have little or no risk related to trading accounts, commodities, or foreign exchange.

          Interest rate risk, which encompasses price risk, is the exposure of a banking organization’s financial condition and earnings ability to withstand adverse movements in interest rates. Accepting this risk can be an important source of profitability and shareholder value; however, excessive levels of interest rate risk can pose a significant threat to assets, earnings, and capital. Accordingly, effective risk management that maintains interest rate risk at prudent levels is essential to our success.

          ALCO, which includes senior management representatives, monitors and considers methods of managing the rate and sensitivity repricing characteristics of the balance sheet components consistent with maintaining acceptable levels of changes in portfolio values and net interest income with changes in interest rates. The primary purposes of ALCO are to manage our interest rate risk consistent with earnings and liquidity, to effectively invest our capital, and to preserve the value created by our core business operations. Our exposure to interest rate risk compared to established tolerances is reviewed on at least a quarterly basis by our Board of Directors.

          Evaluating a financial institution’s exposure to changes in interest rates includes assessing both the adequacy of the management process used to control interest rate risk and the organization’s quantitative levels of exposure. When assessing the interest rate risk management process, we seek to ensure that appropriate policies, procedures, management information systems, and internal controls are in place to maintain interest rate risk at prudent levels with consistency and continuity. Evaluating the quantitative level of interest rate risk exposure requires us to assess the existing and potential future effects of changes in interest rates on our consolidated financial condition, including capital adequacy, earnings, liquidity, and, where appropriate, asset quality.

          Interest rate sensitivity analysis, referred to as Equity at Risk, is used to measure our interest rate risk by computing estimated changes in earnings and in the net present value of our cash flows from assets, liabilities, and off-balance sheet items in the event of a range of assumed changes in market interest rates. Net present value represents the market value of portfolio equity and is equal to the market value of assets minus the market value of liabilities, with adjustments made for off-balance sheet items. This analysis assesses the risk of loss in market risk sensitive instruments in the event of a sudden and sustained 200, 300, and 400 basis point increases or decreases in market interest rates. In addition, management reviews the impact of various yield curve scenarios on earnings and cash flows.

          We utilize a statistical research firm specializing in the banking industry to provide various quarterly analyses and special analyses, as requested, related to our current and projected financial performance, including rate shock analyses. Data sources for this and other analyses include quarterly FDIC Call Reports and the Federal Reserve Y-9C, management assumptions, statistical loan portfolio information, industry norms and financial markets data. For purposes of evaluating rate shock, rate change induced sensitivity tables are used in determining the timing and volume of repayment, prepayment, and early withdrawals.

          Earnings and fair value estimates are subjective in nature and involve uncertainties and matters of significant judgment and, therefore, cannot be determined with precision. Assumptions have been made as to appropriate discount rates, prepayment speeds, expected cash flows, and other variables. Changes in assumptions significantly affect the estimates and, as such, the derived earnings and fair value may not be indicative of the negotiable value in an actual sale or comparable to that reported by other financial institutions. In addition, the fair value estimates are based on existing financial instruments without attempting to estimate the value of anticipated future business. The tax ramifications related to the realization of the unrealized gains and losses can have a significant effect on fair value estimates and have not been considered in the estimates. Our policy states that a negative change in net present value (equity at risk) as a result of an immediate and sustained 200 basis point increase or decrease in interest rates should not exceed the lesser of 2% of total assets or 15% of total regulatory capital. It also states that a similar increase or decrease in interest rates should not negatively impact net interest income or net income by more than 5% or 15%, respectively.

          The following schedule reflects an analysis of our assumed market value risk and earnings risk inherent in our interest rate sensitive instruments related to immediate and sustained interest rate variances of 200 basis points, both above and below current levels (rate shock analysis). It also reflects the estimated effects on net interest income and net income over a one-year period and the estimated effects on net present value of our assets, liabilities, and off-balance sheet items as a result of an immediate and sustained increase or decrease of 200 basis points in market rates of interest as of December 31, 2009 and 2008:

Rate Shock Analysis

		December 31, 2009								December 31, 2008
		+200 Basis				-200 Basis				+200 Basis				-200 Basis
Market Rates of Interest		Points				Points				Points				Points
		(Dollars in thousands)
Change in net present value		$	(9,953	)		$	25,869			$	(7,550	)		$	15,640
Change as a percent of total assets			(.54	)%			1.40	%			(.43	)%			.89	%
Change as a percent of regulatory equity			(4.76	)%			12.38	%			(3.54	)%			7.34	%
Percent change in net interest income			5.35	%			(4.29	)%			(1.97	)%			(2.62	)%
Percent change in net income			17.35	%			(13.90	)%			(7.68	)%			(10.28	)%

          The rate shock analysis at December 31, 2009, indicated that the effects of an immediate and sustained decrease of 200 basis points in market rates of interest would fall within policy parameters and approved tolerances for equity at risk, net interest income and net income. The effect of an immediate and sustained increase in rates would fall slightly outside of policy parameters.

          We have historically been asset sensitive to six months, however, we have been liability sensitive from six months to one year, largely mitigating the potential negative impact on net interest income and net income over a full year from a sudden and sustained decrease in interest rates. Likewise, historically the potential positive impact on net interest income and net income of a sudden and sustained increase in interest rates is reduced over a one-year period as a result of our liability sensitivity in the six-month to one-year time frame.

          As discussed above, the negative impact of an immediate and sustained 200 basis point increase in market rates of interest on the net present value (equity at risk) was slightly outside of established tolerances at December 31, 2009, and somewhat higher than that at December 31, 2008, primarily because of the increased sensitivity in our investment security portfolio. Also, the negative impact of an immediate and sustained 200 basis point decrease in market rates of interest on net interest income and net income was within established tolerances but reflected an increase in interest rate sensitivity at December 31, 2009, compared to year-end 2008. We follow FDIC guidelines for non-maturity deposits such as interest-bearing transaction and savings accounts in the interest rate sensitivity (gap) analysis; therefore, this analysis does not reflect the full impact of rapidly rising or falling market rates of interest on these accounts compared to the results of the rate shock analysis presented.

          Rate shock analysis provides only a limited, point in time view of interest rate sensitivity. The gap analysis also does not reflect factors such as the magnitude (versus the timing) of future interest rate changes and asset prepayments. The actual impact of interest rate changes upon earnings and net present value may differ from that implied by any static rate shock or gap measurement. In addition, net interest income and net present value under various future interest rate scenarios are affected by multiple other factors not embodied in a static rate shock or gap analysis, including competition, changes in the shape of the Treasury yield curve, divergent movement among various interest rate indices, and the speed with which interest rates change.

     Interest Rate Sensitivity

          The major elements used to manage interest rate risk include the mix of fixed and variable rate assets and liabilities and the maturity and repricing patterns of these assets and liabilities. It is our policy not to invest in derivatives outside of our mortgage hedging process. We perform a quarterly review of assets and liabilities that reprice and the time bands within which the repricing occurs. Balances generally are reported in the time band that corresponds to the instrument’s next repricing date or contractual maturity, whichever occurs first. However, fixed rate indirect automobile loans, mortgage backed securities, and residential mortgage loans are primarily included based on scheduled payments with a prepayment factor incorporated. Through such analyses, we monitor and manage our interest sensitivity gap to minimize the negative effects of changing interest rates.

          The interest rate sensitivity structure within our balance sheet at December 31, 2009, indicated a cumulative net interest sensitivity asset gap of 7.34% when projecting out one year. In the near term, defined as 90 days, there was a cumulative net interest sensitivity asset gap of 23.58% at December 31, 2009. When projecting forward six months, there was a net interest sensitivity asset gap of 16.21%. This information represents a general indication of repricing characteristics over time; however, the sensitivity of certain deposit products may vary during extreme swings in the interest rate cycle (see “Market Risk”). Since all interest rates and yields do not adjust at the same velocity, the interest rate sensitivity gap is only a general indicator of the potential effects of interest rate changes on net interest income. Our policy states that the cumulative gap at six months and one year should generally not exceed 15% and 10%, respectively. Our cumulative gap at one year is well within this guideline. The interest rate shock analysis is generally considered to be a better indicator of interest rate risk.

          The following table illustrates our interest rate sensitivity gap at December 31, 2009, as well as the cumulative position at December 31, 2009. All amounts are categorized by their actual maturity or repricing date with the exception of non-maturity deposit accounts. As a result of prior experience during periods of rate volatility and management’s estimate of future rate sensitivities, we allocate the non-maturity deposit accounts noted below, based on the estimated duration of those deposits:

Interest Rate Sensitivity Analysis

		Repricing Within
		0-30				31-60				61-90				91-120				121-150				151-180				181-365				Over One
		Days				Days				Days				Days				Days				Days				Days				Year				Total
														(Dollars in thousands)
Interest-Earning Assets:
Investment securities		$	1,355			$	1,344			$	1,334			$	28,092			$	1,316			$	11,308			$	36,193			$	82,068			$	163,010
Loans			441,507				38,464				27,356				26,177				24,628				24,274				178,353				529,100				1,289,859
Loans held-for-sale			68,653				36,219				12,045				2,045				2,045				5,112				5,112				—				131,231
Federal funds sold			428				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				428
Due from banks — interest-earning			159,606				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				159,606
Total interest-earning assets			671,549				76,027				40,735				56,314				27,989				40,694				219,658				611,168				1,744,134
Interest-Bearing Liabilities:
Demand deposit accounts			7,876				7,876				7,876				2,625				2,625				2,625				15,751				110,258				157,512
Savings and NOW accounts			44,060				44,060				44,060				14,687				14,687				14,687				88,119				176,238				440,598
Money market accounts			16,833				16,833				16,833				5,611				5,611				5,611				33,666				151,496				252,494
Time deposits >$100,000			16,948				16,489				19,554				13,841				29,228				37,851				77,936				45,602				257,449
Time deposits <$100,000			33,097				25,865				23,366				20,471				28,895				49,206				133,362				128,413				442,675
Long-term debt			—				—				25,774				—				—				—				—				41,753				67,527
Short-term borrowings			6,137				1,918				1,598				3,729				946				675				25,422				1,444				41,869
Total interest-bearing liabilities			124,951				113,041				139,061				60,964				81,992				110,655				374,256				655,204				1,660,124
Interest sensitivity gap		$	546,598			$	(37,014	)		$	(98,326	)		$	(4,650	)		$	(54,003	)		$	(69,961	)		$	(154,598	)		$	(44,036	)		$	84,010
Cumulative gap at 12/31/09		$	546,598			$	509,584			$	411,258			$	406,608			$	352,605			$	282,644			$	128,046			$	84,010
Ratio of cumulative gap to total interest-earning assets at 12/31/09			31.34	%			29.22	%			23.58	%			23.31	%			20.22	%			16.21	%			7.34	%			4.82	%
Ratio of interest sensitive assets to interest sensitive liabilities at 12/31/09			537.45	%			67.26	%			29.29	%			92.37	%			34.14	%			36.78	%			58.69	%			93.28	%