UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013

Commission file number: 0-20293

UNION FIRST MARKET BANKSHARES CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

1051 East Cary Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code is (804) 633-5031

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

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

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

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  ¨    No  x

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  x    No  ¨

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  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 29.405 of this chapter) 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.  ¨

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

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

The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2013 was approximately $494,929,402 based on the closing share price on that date of $20.59 per share.

The number of shares of common stock outstanding as of March 4, 2014 was 46,858,764.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be used in conjunction with the registrant’s 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

UNION FIRST MARKET BANKSHARES CORPORATION

FORM 10-K

INDEX

Glossary of Acronyms

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements in this report may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are statements that include projections, predictions, expectations, or beliefs about future events or results or otherwise and are not statements of historical fact.  Such statements are often characterized by the use of qualified words (and their derivatives) such as “expect,” “believe,” “estimate,” “plan,” “project,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “will,” or words of similar meaning or other statements concerning opinions or judgment of the Company and its management about future events.  Although the Company believes that its expectations with respect to forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions within the bounds of its existing knowledge of its business and operations, there can be no assurance that actual results, performance, or achievements of the Company will not differ materially from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.  Actual future results and trends may differ materially from historical results or those anticipated depending on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the effects of and changes in: general economic and bank industry conditions, the interest rate environment, legislative and regulatory requirements, competitive pressures, new products and delivery systems, inflation, stock and bond markets, accounting standards or interpretations of existing standards, mergers and acquisitions, technology, and consumer spending and savings habits.  More information is available on the Company’s website, http://investors.bankatunion.com and on the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. The information on the Company’s website is not a part of this Form 10-K. The Company does not intend or assume any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of the Company.

PART I

ITEM 1. - BUSINESS.

GENERAL

The Company is a financial holding company and a bank holding company organized under Virginia law and registered under the BHCA. The Company, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia is committed to the delivery of financial services through its community bank subsidiaries Union First Market Bank and StellarOne Bank and three non-bank financial services affiliates. The Company’s bank subsidiaries and non-bank financial services affiliates are:

History

The Company was formed in connection with the July 1993 merger of Northern Neck Bankshares Corporation and Union Bancorp, Inc. Although the Company was formed in 1993, certain of the community banks that were acquired and ultimately merged to form what is now Union First Market Bank were among the oldest in Virginia.

The table below indicates the year each community bank was formed, acquired by the Company and merged into what is now Union First Market Bank (except StellarOne Bank).

On January 1, 2014, the Company acquired StellarOne, a bank holding company based in Charlottesville, Virginia, in an all stock transaction pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization, dated as of June 9, 2013, between the Company and StellarOne, and a related Plan of Merger (together, the “StellarOne Merger Agreement”). As a result of the transaction, StellarOne’s former bank subsidiary, StellarOne Bank, became a wholly owned bank subsidiary of the Company. The Company expects to operate StellarOne Bank as a separate wholly-owned bank subsidiary until May 2014, at which time StellarOne Bank is expected to be merged with and into Union First Market Bank.

The Company’s operations center is located in Ruther Glen, Virginia.

The Company elected to be treated as a financial holding company by the Federal Reserve in September 2013.

Product Offerings and Market Distribution

The Company is the largest community banking organization headquartered in Virginia in terms of asset size, and provides full service banking and other financial services to the Northern, Central, Rappahannock, Roanoke Valley, Shenandoah, Tidewater, and Northern Neck regions of Virginia. The Subsidiary Banks operate 144 locations in the counties of Albemarle, Augusta, Bedford, Buena Vista, Caroline, Chesterfield, Culpeper, Essex, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Fluvanna, Franklin, Frederick, Giles, Hanover, Henrico, James City, King George, King William, Lancaster, Loudoun, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Northumberland, Orange, Pulaski, Rappahannock, Richmond, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Warren, Westmoreland, Wythe, and York, and the independent cities of Bedford, Charlottesville, Colonial Heights, Covington, Fredericksburg, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, Newport News, Radford, Richmond, Roanoke, Salem, Staunton, Virginia Beach, and Waynesboro.

The Subsidiary Banks are full service community banks offering consumers and businesses a wide range of banking and related financial services, including checking, savings, certificates of deposit and other depository services, as well as loans for commercial, industrial, residential mortgage and consumer purposes. The Subsidiary Banks issue credit cards and delivers ATM services through the use of reciprocally shared ATMs in the major ATM networks as well as remote ATMs for the convenience of customers and other consumers. The Subsidiary Banks also offer internet banking services and online bill payment for all customers, whether retail or commercial. The Subsidiary Banks also offer private banking and trust services to individuals and corporations through a Wealth Management Group.

UISI has provided securities, brokerage and investment advisory services since its formation in February 1993. UISI has 9 offices within the Bank’s trade area and is a full service investment company handling all aspects of wealth management including stocks, bonds, annuities, mutual funds and financial planning. Securities are offered through a third party contractual arrangement with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., an independent broker dealer.

As of December 31, 2013, UMG has offices in Virginia (13), Maryland (3), North Carolina (6), and South Carolina (1). UMG is also licensed to do business in selected states throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast, as well as Washington, D.C.  It provides a variety of mortgage products to customers in those areas. The mortgage loans originated by UMG generally are sold in the secondary market through purchase agreements with institutional investors.

UIG, an insurance agency, is owned by the Bank and UMG. This agency operates in a joint venture with Bankers Insurance, LLC, a large insurance agency owned by community banks across Virginia and managed by the Virginia Bankers Association. UIG generates revenue through sales of various insurance products, including long term care insurance and business owner policies.

SEGMENTS

The Company has two reportable segments: its traditional full service community banking business and its mortgage loan origination business. For more financial data and other information about each of the Company’s operating segments, refer to the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” sections, “Community Bank Segment” and “Mortgage Segment,” and to Note 17 “Segment Reporting Disclosures” in the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

EXPANSION AND STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS

The Company expands its market area and increases its market share through organic growth (internal growth and de novo expansion) and strategic acquisitions. Strategic acquisitions by the Company to date have included whole bank acquisitions, branch and deposit acquisitions, and purchases of existing branches from other banks. The Company generally considers acquisitions of companies in strong growth markets or with unique products or services that will benefit the entire organization. Targeted acquisitions are priced to be economically feasible with minimal short-term drag to achieve positive long-term benefits. These acquisitions may be paid for in the form of cash, stock, debt, or a combination thereof. The amount and type of consideration and deal charges paid could have a short-term dilutive effect on the Company’s earnings per share or book value. However, cost savings and revenue enhancements in such transactions are anticipated to provide long-term economic benefit to the Company.

The Company’s new construction expansion during the last three years consists of opening two new bank branches in Virginia:

On January 1, 2014, the Company acquired StellarOne in an all stock transaction pursuant to the terms and conditions of the StellarOne Merger Agreement. Pursuant to the StellarOne Merger Agreement, StellarOne’s common shareholders received 0.9739 shares of the Company’s common stock in exchange for each share of StellarOne’s common stock, resulting in the Company issuing 22,147,874 common shares. As a result of the transaction, StellarOne’s former bank subsidiary, StellarOne Bank, became a wholly owned bank subsidiary of the Company. The Company expects to operate StellarOne Bank as a separate wholly-owned bank subsidiary until May 2014, at which time StellarOne Bank is expected to be merged with and into the Bank. Further information about the StellarOne acquisition can be found in Note 20 “Subsequent Events”. As part of the acquisition plan and cost control efforts, the Company has decided to consolidate 13 overlapping bank branches into nearby locations during 2014.  In all cases, customers will be able to use branches within close proximity or continue to use the Subsidiary Banks’ other delivery channels including internet and mobile banking.

In June 2011, the Bank opened seven in-store bank branches in MARTIN’S Food Markets located in Harrisonburg, Waynesboro, Staunton, Winchester (2), Culpeper, and Stephens City, Virginia. The Bank currently operates in-store bank branches in 28 MARTIN’S Food Markets through its acquisition of FMB primarily in the Richmond area market.

In May 2011, the Company acquired deposits of approximately $48.9 million and loans of approximately $70.8 million at book value through the acquisition of the Harrisonburg, Virginia branch of NewBridge Bank. The Bank retained the commercial loan operation team from the branch and all employees of the branch. The transaction also included the purchase of a real estate parcel/future branch site in Waynesboro, Virginia.

On February 1, 2010, the Company acquired First Market Bank, FSB, a privately held federally chartered savings bank based in Richmond, Virginia, in an all stock transaction. Upon the acquisition, FMB became a state chartered commercial bank subsidiary of the Company until it merged with Union Bank and Trust Company in March 2010 and the combined bank began to operate under the name Union First Market Bank.

During 2011 and 2012, the Bank conducted a performance and opportunity analysis of its branch network.  As a result, the Company decided to consolidate bank branches into nearby locations during 2012.  The Company closed eight branches located in Charlottesville, Mechanicsville, Port Royal, Fredericksburg, Williamsburg, Northumberland County, and two located in Fairfax County. In all cases, customers could use branches within close proximity or continue to use the Bank’s other delivery channels including internet and mobile banking.

EMPLOYEES

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately 1,025 full-time equivalent employees, including executive officers, loan and other banking officers, branch personnel, operations, and other support personnel. Of this total, 175 were mortgage segment personnel. None of the Company’s employees are represented by a union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. The Company provides employees with a comprehensive employee benefit program which includes the following: group life, health and dental insurance, paid time off, educational opportunities, a cash incentive plan, a stock purchase plan, stock incentive plans, deferred compensation plans for officers and key employees, an ESOP and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

COMPETITION

The financial services industry remains highly competitive and is constantly evolving. The Company experiences strong competition in all aspects of its business. In its market areas, the Company competes with large national and regional financial institutions, credit unions, other independent community banks, as well as consumer finance companies, mortgage companies, loan production offices, mutual funds and life insurance companies. Competition for deposits and loans is affected by various factors including interest rates offered, the number and location of branches and types of products offered, and the reputation of the institution. Credit unions increasingly have been allowed to expand their membership definitions and, because they enjoy a favorable tax status, have been able to offer more attractive loan and deposit pricing. The Company’s non-bank affiliates also operate in highly competitive environments. The Company believes its community bank framework and philosophy provide a competitive advantage, particularly with regard to larger national and regional institutions, allowing the Company to compete effectively. The Company’s community bank segment generally has strong market shares within the markets it serves. The Company’s deposit market share in Virginia was 1.96% of total bank deposits as of June 30, 2013.

ECONOMY

The economy in the Company’s footprint showed some signs of improvement during 2013, though growth remains sluggish and unemployment continues to be elevated by historical standards. Interest rates steepened somewhat, but continue to be low relative to historical rates. Housing starts and sales improved in 2013; however, higher long term interest rates may suppress continued progress in the housing market. The continued weakness in employment, continued low rates, and the burden of regulatory requirements enacted in response to the most recent financial crisis made for a challenging 2013 for the Company and for community banks in general. The effects of federal sequestration and spending cuts on Virginia’s economy remain uncertain and could have significant consequences, as approximately 30% of Virginia’s economy is tied to the federal government and the state is the leader in Department of Defense contracts. Despite this uncertainty, Virginia topped Forbes’ 2013 list of the Best States for Business. In response to the continued slow economic recovery during 2013, the Company’s management focused significant attention on managing nonperforming assets and controlling costs, while working with borrowers to mitigate and protect against risk of loss.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The Company and its bank subsidiaries are extensively and increasingly regulated under both federal and state laws. The following description briefly addresses certain historic and current provisions of federal and state laws and certain regulations, proposed regulations, and the potential impacts on the Company and the Subsidiary Banks. To the extent statutory or regulatory provisions or proposals are described in this report, the description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory or regulatory provisions or proposals.

Regulatory Reform – The Dodd-Frank Act

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly restructured the financial regulatory regime in the United States and has a broad impact on the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act provides for new and stronger capital standards that, among other things, eliminate the treatment of trust preferred securities as Tier 1 capital. Existing trust preferred securities are grandfathered for banking entities with less than $15 billion of assets, such as the Company. The Dodd-Frank Act also permanently raises deposit insurance levels to $250,000. Pursuant to modifications under the Dodd-Frank Act, deposit insurance assessments are now calculated based on an insured depository institution’s assets rather than its insured deposits and the minimum reserve ratio of the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC was raised to 1.35%. The Dodd-Frank Act also established the CFPB as an independent bureau of the Board of Governors of the FRB. The CFPB has the exclusive authority to prescribe rules governing the provision of consumer financial products and services, which in the case of the Subsidiary Banks will be enforced by the Federal Reserve.

Although a significant number of the rules and regulations mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act have been finalized, certain of the act’s requirements have yet to be implemented. Given the uncertainty associated with the manner in which the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented by the federal bank regulatory agencies in the future, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on the operations of the Company and the Subsidiary Banks is unclear. The changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may affect the profitability of business activities, require changes to certain business practices, impose more stringent regulatory requirements or otherwise adversely affect the business and financial condition of the Company and the Subsidiary Banks. These changes may also require the Company to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make necessary changes to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements.

The Company

General. As a financial holding company and a bank holding company registered under the BHCA, the Company is subject to supervision, regulation, and examination by the Federal Reserve. The Company elected to be treated as financial holding company by the Federal Reserve in September 2013. The Company is also registered under the bank holding company laws of Virginia and is subject to supervision, regulation, and examination by the SCC.

Permitted Activities. A bank holding company is limited to managing or controlling banks, furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiaries, and engaging in other activities that the Federal Reserve determines by regulation or order to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. In addition, bank holding companies that qualify and elect to be financial holding companies, such as the Company, may engage in any activity, or acquire and retain the shares of a company engaged in any activity, that is either (i) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity (as determined by the Federal Reserve in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury) or (ii) complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally (as solely determined by the Federal Reserve), without prior approval of the Federal Reserve. Activities that are financial in nature include securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting and making merchant banking investments.

To maintain financial holding company status, a financial holding company and all of its depository institution subsidiaries must be “well capitalized” and “well managed.” A depository institution subsidiary is considered to be “well capitalized” if it satisfies the requirements for this status under applicable Federal Reserve capital requirements. A depository institution subsidiary is considered “well managed” if it received a composite rating and management rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination. A financial holding company’s status will also depend upon it maintaining its status as “well capitalized” and “well managed” under applicable Federal Reserve regulations. If a financial holding company ceases to meet these capital and management requirements, the Federal Reserve’s regulations provide that the financial holding company must enter into an agreement with the Federal Reserve to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements. Until the financial holding company returns to compliance, the Federal Reserve may impose limitations or conditions on the conduct of its activities, and the company may not commence any of the broader financial activities permissible for financial holding companies or acquire a company engaged in such financial activities without prior approval of the Federal Reserve. If the company does not return to compliance within 180 days, the Federal Reserve may require divestiture of the holding company’s depository institutions.

In order for a financial holding company to commence any new activity permitted by the BHCA or to acquire a company engaged in any new activity permitted by the BHCA, each insured depository institution subsidiary of the financial holding company must have received a rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination under the CRA. See below under “The Subsidiary Banks – Community Reinvestment Act.”

Despite prior approval, the Federal Reserve may order a bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any activity or to terminate ownership or control of any subsidiary when the Federal Reserve has reasonable cause to believe that a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of any bank subsidiary of that bank holding company may result from such an activity.

Banking Acquisitions; Changes in Control. The BHCA requires, among other things, the prior approval of the Federal Reserve in any case where a bank holding company proposes to (i) acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the outstanding voting stock of any bank or bank holding company (unless it already owns a majority of such voting shares), (ii) acquire all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (iii) merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, the Federal Reserve will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the public benefits expected to be received from the acquisition, the projected capital ratios and levels on a post-acquisition basis, and the acquiring institution’s performance under the CRA and its compliance with fair housing and other consumer protection laws.

Subject to certain exceptions, the BHCA and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with the applicable regulations, require Federal Reserve approval (or, depending on the circumstances, no notice of disapproval) prior to any person or company’s acquiring “control” of a bank or bank holding company. A conclusive presumption of control exists if an individual or company acquires the power, directly or indirectly, to direct the management or policies of an insured depository institution or to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities of any insured depository institution. A rebuttable presumption of control exists if a person or company acquires 10% or more but less than 25% of any class of voting securities of an insured depository institution and either the institution has registered its securities with the SEC under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or no other person will own a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the acquisition. The Company’s common stock is registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

In addition, Virginia law requires the prior approval of the SCC for (i) the acquisition of more than 5% of the voting shares of a Virginia bank or any holding company that controls a Virginia bank, or (ii) the acquisition by a Virginia bank holding company of a bank or its holding company domiciled outside Virginia.

Source of Strength. Federal Reserve policy has historically required bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement, the Company is expected to commit resources to support the Subsidiary Banks, including times when the Company may not be in a financial position to provide such resources. Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to depositors and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary banks. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.

Safety and Soundness. There are a number of obligations and restrictions imposed on bank holding companies and their subsidiary banks by law and regulatory policy that are designed to minimize potential loss to the depositors of such depository institutions and the FDIC insurance fund in the event of a depository institution default. For example, under the FDICIA, to avoid receivership of an insured depository institution subsidiary, a bank holding company is required to guarantee the compliance of any subsidiary bank that may become “undercapitalized” with the terms of any capital restoration plan filed by such subsidiary with its appropriate federal bank regulatory agency up to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5% of the institution’s total assets at the time the institution became undercapitalized, or (ii) the amount that is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all applicable capital standards as of the time the institution fails to comply with such capital restoration plan.

Under the FDIA, the federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted guidelines prescribing safety and soundness standards. These guidelines establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines.

Capital Requirements. The Federal Reserve imposes certain capital requirements on bank holding companies under the BHCA, including a minimum leverage ratio and a minimum ratio of “qualifying” capital to risk-weighted assets. These requirements are described below under “The Subsidiary Banks – Capital Requirements”. Subject to its capital requirements and certain other restrictions, the Company is able to borrow money to make a capital contribution to the Subsidiary Banks, and such loans may be repaid from dividends paid by the Subsidiary Banks to the Company.

Limits on Dividends and Other Payments. The Company is a legal entity, separate and distinct from its subsidiaries. A significant portion of the revenues of the Company result from dividends paid to it by the Subsidiary Banks. There are various legal limitations applicable to the payment of dividends by the Subsidiary Banks to the Company and to the payment of dividends by the Company to its shareholders. The Subsidiary Banks are subject to various statutory restrictions on its ability to pay dividends to the Company. Under current regulations, prior approval from the Federal Reserve is required if cash dividends declared in any given year exceed net income for that year, plus retained net profits of the two preceding years. The payment of dividends by the Subsidiary Banks or the Company may be limited by other factors, such as requirements to maintain capital above regulatory guidelines. Bank regulatory agencies have the authority to prohibit the Subsidiary Banks or the Company from engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting their business. The payment of dividends, depending on the financial condition of the Subsidiary Banks, or the Company, could be deemed to constitute such an unsafe or unsound practice.

Under the FDIA, insured depository institutions such as the Subsidiary Banks, are prohibited from making capital distributions, including the payment of dividends, if, after making such distributions, the institution would become “undercapitalized” (as such term is used in the statute). Based on the Subsidiary Banks’ current financial condition, the Company does not expect this provision will have any impact on its ability to receive dividends from the Subsidiary Banks. The Company’s non-bank subsidiaries pay dividends to the Company periodically on a non-regulated basis.

In addition to dividends it receives from the Subsidiary Banks, the Company receives management fees from its affiliated companies for expenses incurred related to external financial reporting and audit fees, investor relations expenses, board of directors fees, and legal fees related to corporate actions. These fees are charged to each subsidiary based upon various specific allocation methods measuring the estimated usage of such services by that subsidiary. The fees are eliminated from the financial statements in the consolidation process.

The Subsidiary Banks

General. The Subsidiary Banks are supervised and regularly examined by the Federal Reserve and the SCC. The various laws and regulations administered by the bank regulatory agencies affect corporate practices, such as the payment of dividends, incurrence of debt, and acquisition of financial institutions and other companies; they also affect business practices, such as the payment of interest on deposits, the charging of interest on loans, types of business conducted, and location of offices. Certain of these law and regulations are referenced above under “The Company.”

Current Capital Requirements. The Federal Reserve and the other federal banking agencies have issued risk-based and leverage capital guidelines applicable to U.S. banking organizations. In addition, those regulatory agencies may from time to time require that a banking organization maintain capital above the minimum levels because of its financial condition or actual or anticipated growth. Under the current risk-based capital requirements of the Federal Reserve, the Company and the Subsidiary Banks are required to maintain a minimum ratio of total capital (which is defined as core capital and supplementary capital less certain specified deductions from total capital such as reciprocal holdings of depository institution capital instruments and equity investments) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%. In determining the amount of risk-weighted assets, all assets, including certain off-balance sheet activities, recourse obligations, residual interests and direct credit substitutes, are multiplied by a risk-weight factor of 0% to 1,250%, assigned by the capital regulation based on the risks believed inherent in the type of asset. At least half of the total capital is required to be “Tier 1 capital,” which consists principally of common and certain qualifying preferred shareholders’ equity (including grandfathered trust preferred securities), less certain intangibles and other adjustments. The remainder (“Tier 2 capital”) consists of cumulative preferred stock, long-term perpetual preferred stock, a limited amount of subordinated and other qualifying debt (including certain hybrid capital instruments), and a limited amount of the general loan loss allowance. The Tier 1 and total capital to risk-weighted asset ratios of the Company were 13.05% and 14.17%, respectively, as of December 31, 2013, thus exceeding the minimum requirements. The Tier 1 and total capital to risk-weighted asset ratios of the Bank were 12.43% and 13.56%, respectively, as of December 31, 2013, also exceeding the minimum requirements.

Each of the federal bank regulatory agencies also has established a minimum leverage capital ratio of Tier 1 capital to average adjusted assets (“Tier 1 leverage ratio”). The guidelines provide for a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3.0% for financial holding companies and banking organizations that have the highest supervisory rating. All other banking organizations are required to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4.0% unless a different minimum is specified by an appropriate regulatory authority. In addition, for a depository institution to be considered “well capitalized” under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, its Tier 1 leverage ratio must be at least 5.0%. The guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets. The Federal Reserve has not advised the Company or the Subsidiary Banks of any specific minimum leverage ratio applicable to either entity. As of December 31, 2013, the Tier 1 leverage ratios of the Company and the Bank were 10.70% and 10.19%, respectively, well above the minimum requirements.

New Capital Requirements. On June 7, 2012, the Federal Reserve issued a series of proposed rules that would revise and strengthen its risk-based and leverage capital requirements and its method for calculating risk-weighted assets. The rules were proposed to implement the Basel III regulatory capital reforms from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. On July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve approved certain revisions to the proposals and finalized new capital requirements for banking organizations.

Effective January 1, 2015, the final rules require the Company and the Subsidiary Banks to comply with the following new minimum capital ratios: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5% of risk-weighted assets; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.0% of risk-weighted assets (increased from the current requirement of 4.0%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8.0% of risk-weighted assets (unchanged from current requirement); and (iv) a leverage ratio of 4.0% of total assets. These are the initial capital requirements, which will be phased in over a four-year period. When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the rules will require the Company and the Subsidiary Banks to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer” (which is added to the 4.5% common equity Tier 1 ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7.0% upon full implementation), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 6.0% Tier 1 capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% upon full implementation), (iii) a minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 8.0% total capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5% upon full implementation), and (iv) a minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average assets.

The capital conservation buffer requirement will be phased in beginning January 1, 2016, at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets, increasing each year until fully implemented at 2.5% on January 1, 2019. The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases, and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

With respect to the Subsidiary Banks, the rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA by (i) introducing a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio requirement at each level (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum ratio for well-capitalized status being 8.0% (as compared to the current 6.0%); and (iii) eliminating the current provision that provides that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3.0% Tier 1 leverage ratio and still be well-capitalized.

The new capital requirements also include changes in the risk weights of assets to better reflect credit risk and other risk exposures. These include a 150% risk weight (up from 100%) for certain high volatility commercial real estate acquisition, development and construction loans and nonresidential mortgage loans that are 90 days past due or otherwise on nonaccrual status, a 20% (up from 0%) credit conversion factor for the unused portion of a commitment with an original maturity of one year or less that is not unconditionally cancellable, a 250% risk weight (up from 100%) for mortgage servicing rights and deferred tax assets that are not deducted from capital, and increased risk-weights (from 0% to up to 600%) for equity exposures.

If the new minimum capital ratios described above had been effective as of December 31, 2013, based on management’s interpretation and understanding of the new rules, the Company would have remained “well capitalized” as of such date.

Deposit Insurance. Substantially all of the deposits of the Subsidiary Banks are insured up to applicable limits by the DIF of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. On April 1, 2011, the deposit insurance assessment base changed from total deposits to average total assets minus average tangible equity, pursuant to a rule issued by the FDIC as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.

The FDIA, as amended by the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, requires the FDIC to set a ratio of deposit insurance reserves to estimated insured deposits of at least 1.35%. The FDIC utilizes a risk-based assessment system that imposes insurance premiums based upon a risk matrix that takes into account a bank’s capital level and supervisory rating. On February 27, 2009, the FDIC introduced three possible adjustments to an institution’s initial base assessment rate: (i) a decrease of up to five basis points for long-term unsecured debt, including senior unsecured debt (other than debt guaranteed under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program) and subordinated debt and, for small institutions, a portion of Tier 1 capital; (ii) an increase not to exceed 50% of an institution’s assessment rate before the increase for secured liabilities in excess of 25% of domestic deposits; and (iii) for non-Risk Category I institutions, an increase not to exceed 10 basis points for brokered deposits in excess of 10% of domestic deposits. In 2013 and 2012, the Company paid only the base assessment rate for “well capitalized” institutions, which totaled $2.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively, in regular deposit insurance assessments.

In addition, all FDIC insured institutions are required to pay assessments to the FDIC at an annual rate of approximately one basis point of insured deposits to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation, an agency of the federal government established to recapitalize the predecessor to the Savings Association Insurance Fund. These assessments will continue until the FICO bonds mature in 2017 through 2019.

Transactions with Affiliates. Pursuant to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W, the authority of the Subsidiary Banks to engage in transactions with related parties or “affiliates” or to make loans to insiders is limited. Loan transactions with an affiliate generally must be collateralized and certain transactions between the Subsidiary Banks and its affiliates, including the sale of assets, the payment of money or the provision of services, must be on terms and conditions that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing for comparable nonaffiliated transactions. In addition, the Subsidiary Banks generally may not purchase securities issued or underwritten by affiliates.

Loans to executive officers, directors or to any person who directly or indirectly, or acting through or in concert with one or more persons, owns, controls or has the power to vote more than 10% of any class of voting securities of a bank (“10% Shareholders”), are subject to Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and their corresponding regulations (Regulation O) and Section 13(k) of the Exchange Act relating to the prohibition on personal loans to executives (which exempts financial institutions in compliance with the insider lending restrictions of Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act). Among other things, these loans must be made on terms substantially the same as those prevailing on transactions made to unaffiliated individuals and certain extensions of credit to those persons must first be approved in advance by a disinterested majority of the entire board of directors. Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act prohibits loans to any of those individuals where the aggregate amount exceeds an amount equal to 15% of an institution’s unimpaired capital and surplus plus an additional 10% of unimpaired capital and surplus in the case of loans that are fully secured by readily marketable collateral, or when the aggregate amount on all of the extensions of credit outstanding to all of these persons would exceed the Subsidiary Banks’ unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. Section 22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act identifies limited circumstances in which the Subsidiary Banks are permitted to extend credit to executive officers.

Prompt Corrective Action. Federal banking regulators are authorized and, under certain circumstances, required to take certain actions against banks that fail to meet their capital requirements. The federal bank regulatory agencies have additional enforcement authority with respect to undercapitalized depository institutions. “Well capitalized” institutions may generally operate without supervisory restriction. With respect to “adequately capitalized” institutions, such banks cannot normally pay dividends or make any capital contributions that would leave it undercapitalized, they cannot pay a management fee to a controlling person if, after paying the fee, it would be undercapitalized, and they cannot accept, renew or roll over any brokered deposit unless the bank has applied for and been granted a waiver by the FDIC.

Immediately upon becoming “undercapitalized,” a depository institution becomes subject to the provisions of Section 38 of the FDIA, which: (i) restrict payment of capital distributions and management fees; (ii) require that the appropriate federal banking agency monitor the condition of the institution and its efforts to restore its capital; (iii) require submission of a capital restoration plan; (iv) restrict the growth of the institution’s assets; and (v) require prior approval of certain expansion proposals. The appropriate federal banking agency for an undercapitalized institution also may take any number of discretionary supervisory actions if the agency determines that any of these actions is necessary to resolve the problems of the institution at the least possible long-term cost to the DIF, subject in certain cases to specified procedures. These discretionary supervisory actions include: (i) requiring the institution to raise additional capital; (ii) restricting transactions with affiliates; (iii) requiring divestiture of the institution or the sale of the institution to a willing purchaser; and (iv) any other supervisory action that the agency deems appropriate. These and additional mandatory and permissive supervisory actions may be taken with respect to significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized institutions. The Subsidiary Banks meet the definition of being “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2013.

As described above in “The Subsidiary Banks – New Capital Requirements,” the new capital requirement rules issued by the Federal Reserve incorporate new requirements into the prompt corrective action framework.

Community Reinvestment Act. The Subsidiary Banks are subject to the requirements of the CRA. The CRA imposes on financial institutions an affirmative and ongoing obligation to meet the credit needs of the local communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. If the Subsidiary Banks receive a rating from the Federal Reserve of less than “satisfactory” under the CRA, restrictions on operating activities would be imposed. In addition, in order for a financial holding company, like the Company, to commence any new activity permitted by the BHCA, or to acquire any company engaged in any new activity permitted by the BHCA, each insured depository institution subsidiary of the financial holding company must have received a rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination under the CRA. The Subsidiary Banks currently have a “satisfactory” CRA rating.

Privacy Legislation. Several recent laws, including amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act, and related regulations issued by the federal bank regulatory agencies, provide new protections against the transfer and use of customer information by financial institutions. A financial institution must provide to its customers information regarding its policies and procedures with respect to the handling of customers’ personal information. Each institution must conduct an internal risk assessment of its ability to protect customer information. These privacy provisions generally prohibit a financial institution from providing a customer’s personal financial information to unaffiliated parties without prior notice and approval from the customer.

USA Patriot Act of 2001. In October 2001, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (“Patriot Act”) was enacted in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and Northern Virginia. The Patriot Act is intended to strengthen U. S. law enforcement and the intelligence communities’ abilities to work cohesively to combat terrorism. The continuing impact on financial institutions of the Patriot Act and related regulations and policies is significant and wide ranging. The Patriot Act contains sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws, and imposes various regulations, including standards for verifying customer identification at account opening, and rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulators and law enforcement entities to identify persons who may be involved in terrorism or money laundering.

Volcker Rule. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits insured depository institutions and their holding companies from engaging in proprietary trading except in limited circumstances, and prohibits them from owning equity interests in excess of 3% of Tier 1 capital in private equity and hedge funds (known as the “Volcker Rule”). On December 10, 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies adopted final rules implementing the Volcker Rule. These final rules prohibit banking entities from (i) engaging in short-term proprietary trading for their own accounts, and (ii) having certain ownership interests in and relationships with hedge funds or private equity funds. The final rules are intended to provide greater clarity with respect to both the extent of those primary prohibitions and of the related exemptions and exclusions. The final rules also require each regulated entity to establish an internal compliance program that is consistent with the extent to which it engages in activities covered by the Volcker Rule, which must include (for the largest entities) making regular reports about those activities to regulators. Although the final rules provide some tiering of compliance and reporting obligations based on size, the fundamental prohibitions of the Volcker Rule apply to banking entities of any size, including the Company and the Subsidiary Banks. The final rules are effective April 1, 2014, but the conformance period has been extended from its statutory end date of July 21, 2014 until July 21, 2015. The Company has evaluated the implications of the final rules on its investments and does not expect any material financial implications.

Under the final rules implementing the Volcker Rule, banking entities would have been prohibited from owning certain collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) backed by trust preferred securities (“TruPS”) as of July 21, 2015, which could have forced banking entities to recognize unrealized market losses based on the inability to hold any such investments to maturity. However, on January 14, 2014, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued an interim rule, effective April 1, 2014, exempting TruPS CDOs from the Volcker Rule if (i) the CDO was established prior to May 19, 2010, (ii) the banking entity reasonably believes that the offering proceeds of the CDO were used to invest primarily in TruPS issued by banks with less than $15 billion in assets, and (iii) the banking entity acquired the CDO on or before December 10, 2013. However, regulators are soliciting comments to the Interim Rule, and this exemption could change prior to its effective date. The Company currently does not have any impermissible holdings of TruPS CDOs under the interim rule, and therefore, will not be required to divest of any such investments or change the accounting treatment.

Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Rule. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a final rule on January 10, 2013 (effective on January 10, 2014), amending Regulation Z as implemented by the Truth in Lending Act, requiring creditors to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Creditors are required to determine consumers’ ability to repay in one of two ways. The first alternative requires the creditor to consider the following eight underwriting factors when making the credit decision: (i) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (ii) current employment status; (iii) the monthly payment on the covered transaction; (iv) the monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (v) the monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations; (vi) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (vii) the monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (viii) credit history. Alternatively, the creditor can originate “qualified mortgages,” which are entitled to a presumption that the creditor making the loan satisfied the ability-to-repay requirements. In general, a “qualified mortgage” is a mortgage loan without negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, or terms exceeding 30 years. In addition, to be a qualified mortgage the points and fees paid by a consumer cannot exceed 3% of the total loan amount. Qualified mortgages that are “higher-priced” (e.g. subprime loans) garner a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ability-to-repay rules, while qualified mortgages that are not “higher-priced” (e.g. prime loans) are given a safe harbor of compliance. To meet the mortgage credit needs of a broader customer base, the Company is predominantly an originator of mortgages that are in compliance with the Ability-to-Pay rules.

Consumer Laws and Regulations. The Subsidiary Banks are also subject to certain consumer laws and regulations issued thereunder that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. These laws include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Housing Act and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, among others. The laws and related regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions transact business with customers. The Subsidiary Banks must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of their ongoing customer relations.

Incentive Compensation. In June 2010, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of financial institutions do not undermine the safety and soundness of such institutions by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The Interagency Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of financial institutions, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a financial institution’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the institution’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the financial institution’s board of directors.

The Federal Reserve will review, as part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of financial institutions, such as the Company and the Subsidiary Banks, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each financial institution based on the scope and complexity of the institution’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the institution’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the institution’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a financial institution if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the institution’s safety and soundness and the financial institution is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies. At December 31, 2013, the Company and the Subsidiary Banks have not been made aware of any instances of non-compliance with the final guidance.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies

The Company’s operations are affected not only by general economic conditions but also by the policies of various regulatory authorities. In particular, the Federal Reserve regulates money and credit conditions and interest rates to influence general economic conditions. These policies have a significant impact on overall growth and distribution of loans, investments and deposits; they affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for time and savings deposits. Federal Reserve monetary policies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks, including the Company, in the past and are expected to do so in the future.

Filings with the SEC

The Company files annual, quarterly, and other reports under the Exchange Act with the SEC. These reports and this Form 10-K are posted and available at no cost on the Company’s investor relations website, http://investors.bankatunion.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company files such documents with the SEC. The information contained on the Company’s website is not a part of this Form 10-K. The Company’s filings are also available through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

ITEM 1A. - RISK FACTORS

An investment in the Company’s securities involves risks. In addition to the other information set forth in this report, investors in the Company’s securities should carefully consider the factors discussed below. These factors could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and capital position, and could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from its historical results or the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report, in which case the trading price of the Company’s securities could decline.

Risks Related To The Company’s Business

The Company’s business may be adversely affected by conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally.

The community banking industry is directly affected by national, regional, and local economic conditions. The economy in the Company’s footprint showed some signs of improvement during 2013, though growth remains sluggish and unemployment continues to be elevated. The effects of federal sequestration and spending cuts on Virginia’s economy remain uncertain and could have significant consequences. Management allocates significant resources to mitigate and respond to risks associated with the current economic conditions, however, such conditions cannot be predicted or controlled. Therefore, such conditions, including a reduction in federal government spending, a flatter yield curve and extended low interest rates, could adversely affect the credit quality of the Company’s loans, and/or the Company’s results of operations and financial condition. The Company’s financial performance is dependent on the business environment in the markets where the Company operates, in particular, the ability of borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, as well as demand for loans and other products and services the Company offers. In addition, the Company holds securities which can be significantly affected by various factors including credit ratings assigned by third parties, and an adverse credit rating in securities held by the Company could result in a reduction of the fair value of its securities portfolio and have an adverse impact on its financial condition. While general economic conditions in Virginia and the U.S. continued to improve in 2013, there can be no assurance that this improvement will continue.

Combining the Company and StellarOne may be more difficult, costly or time-consuming than expected, and the anticipated benefits and cost savings of the merger may not be realized.

The Company and StellarOne operated independently until the completion of the merger in January 2014. The success of the merger will depend, in part, on the Company’s ability to realize the anticipated benefits and cost savings from combining and integrating the businesses of the Company and StellarOne and to do so in a manner that permits growth opportunities and cost savings to be realized without materially disrupting existing customer relationships or decreasing revenues due to loss of customers. The integration process in the merger could result in the loss of key employees, the disruption of ongoing business, inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies that affect adversely the combined company’s ability to maintain relationships with customers and employees or achieve the anticipated benefits and cost savings of the merger. The loss of key employees or delays or other problems in implementing planned system conversions could adversely affect the Company’s ability to successfully conduct its business, which could have an adverse effect on the Company’s financial results and the value of its common stock. If the Company experiences difficulties with the integration process, the anticipated benefits of the merger may not be realized fully or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected. As with any merger of financial institutions, there also may be business disruptions that cause the Company to lose customers or cause customers to remove their accounts from the Company’s subsidiary banks and move their business to competing financial institutions. These integration matters could have an adverse effect on the Company. If the Company is not able to achieve its business objectives in the merger, the anticipated benefits and cost savings of the merger may not be realized fully or at all or may take longer to realize than expected.

The inability of the Company to successfully manage its growth or implement its growth strategy may adversely affect the Company’s results of operations and financial conditions.

The Company may not be able to successfully implement its growth strategy if it is unable to identify attractive markets, locations, or opportunities to expand in the future. In addition, the ability to manage growth successfully depends on whether the Company can maintain adequate capital levels, maintain cost controls, effectively manage asset quality, and successfully integrate any businesses acquired into the organization.

As the Company continues to implement its growth strategy by opening new branches or acquiring branches or banks, it expects to incur increased personnel, occupancy, and other operating expenses. In the case of new branches, the Company must absorb those higher expenses while it begins to generate new deposits; there is also further time lag involved in redeploying new deposits into attractively priced loans and other higher yielding earning assets. Thus, the Company’s plans to expand could depress earnings in the short run, even if it efficiently executes a branching strategy leading to long-term financial benefits.

Difficulties in combining the operations of acquired entities with the Company’s own operations may prevent the Company from achieving the expected benefits from acquisitions.

The Company may not be able to achieve fully the strategic objectives and operating efficiencies expected in an acquisition, including the Company’s recent acquisition of StellarOne. Inherent uncertainties exist in integrating the operations of an acquired entity. In addition, the markets and industries in which the Company and its potential acquisition targets operate are highly competitive. The Company may lose customers or the customers of acquired entities as a result of an acquisition; the Company may lose key personnel, either from the acquired entity or from itself; and the Company may not be able to control the incremental increase in noninterest expense arising from an acquisition in a manner that improves its overall operating efficiencies. These factors could contribute to the Company’s not achieving the expected benefits from its acquisitions within desired time frames, if at all. Future business acquisitions could be material to the Company and it may issue additional shares of common stock to pay for those acquisitions, which would dilute current shareholders’ ownership interests. Acquisitions also could require the Company to use substantial cash or other liquid assets or to incur debt; the Company could therefore become more susceptible to economic downturns and competitive pressures.

Changes in interest rates could adversely affect the Company’s income and cash flows.

The Company’s income and cash flows depend to a great extent on the difference between the interest rates earned on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and the interest rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. These rates are highly sensitive to many factors beyond the Company’s control, including general economic conditions and the policies of the Federal Reserve and other governmental and regulatory agencies. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, will influence the origination of loans, the prepayment of loans, the purchase of investments, the generation of deposits, and the rates received on loans and investment securities and paid on deposits or other sources of funding. The impact of these changes may be magnified if the Company does not effectively manage the relative sensitivity of its assets and liabilities to changes in market interest rates. In addition, the Company’s ability to reflect such interest rate changes in pricing its products is influenced by competitive pressures. Fluctuations in these areas may adversely affect the Company and its shareholders. The Subsidiary Banks are often at a competitive disadvantage in managing its costs of funds compared to the large regional, super-regional, or national banks that have access to the national and international capital markets.

The Company generally seeks to maintain a neutral position in terms of the volume of assets and liabilities that mature or re-price during any period so that it may reasonably maintain its net interest margin; however, interest rate fluctuations, loan prepayments, loan production, deposit flows, and competitive pressures are constantly changing and influence the ability to maintain a neutral position. Generally, the Company’s earnings will be more sensitive to fluctuations in interest rates depending upon the variance in volume of assets and liabilities that mature and re-price in any period. The extent and duration of the sensitivity will depend on the cumulative variance over time, the velocity and direction of changes in interest rates, shape and slope of the yield curve, and whether the Company is more asset sensitive or liability sensitive. Accordingly, the Company may not be successful in maintaining a neutral position and, as a result, the Company’s net interest margin may be affected.

The Company’s allowance for loan losses may prove to be insufficient to absorb losses in its loan portfolio.

Like all financial institutions, the Company maintains an allowance for loan losses to provide for loans that its borrowers may not repay in their entirety. The Company believes that it maintains an allowance for loan losses at a level adequate to absorb probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio as of the corresponding balance sheet date and in compliance with applicable accounting and regulatory guidance. However, the allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover actual loan losses and future provisions for loan losses could materially and adversely affect the Company’s operating results. Accounting measurements related to impairment and the loan loss allowance require significant estimates that are subject to uncertainty and changes relating to new information and changing circumstances. The significant uncertainties surrounding the ability of the Company’s borrowers to execute their business models successfully through changing economic environments, competitive challenges, and other factors complicate the Company’s estimates of the risk of loss and amount of loss on any loan. Because of the degree of uncertainty and susceptibility of these factors to change, the actual losses may vary from current estimates. The Company expects fluctuations in the loan loss provisions due to the uncertain economic conditions.

The Company’s banking regulators, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review the allowance for loan losses and may require the Company to increase its allowance for loan losses by recognizing additional provisions for loan losses charged to expense, or to decrease the allowance for loan losses by recognizing loan charge-offs, net of recoveries. Any such required additional provisions for loan losses or charge-offs could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s concentration in loans secured by real estate may adversely affect earnings due to changes in the real estate markets.

The Company offers a variety of secured loans, including commercial lines of credit, commercial term loans, real estate, construction, home equity, consumer, and other loans. Many of the Company’s loans are secured by real estate (both residential and commercial) in the Company’s market areas. A major change in the real estate markets, resulting in deterioration in the value of this collateral, or in the local or national economy, could adversely affect borrowers’ ability to pay these loans, which in turn could affect the Company. Risks of loan defaults and foreclosures are unavoidable in the banking industry; the Company tries to limit its exposure to these risks by monitoring extensions of credit carefully. The Company cannot fully eliminate credit risk; thus, credit losses will occur in the future. Additionally, changes in the real estate market also affect the value of foreclosed assets and, therefore, additional losses may occur when management determines it is appropriate to sell the assets.

The Company has a significant concentration of credit exposure in commercial real estate, and loans with this type of collateral are viewed as having more risk of default.

The Company’s commercial real estate portfolio consists primarily of owner-operated properties and other commercial properties. These types of loans are generally viewed as having more risk of default than residential real estate loans. They are also typically larger than residential real estate loans and consumer loans and depend on cash flows from the owner’s business or the property to service the debt. Cash flows may be affected significantly by general economic conditions, and a downturn in the local economy or in occupancy rates in the local economy where the property is located could increase the likelihood of default. Because the Company’s loan portfolio contains a number of commercial real estate loans with relatively large balances, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in the percentage of non-performing loans. An increase in non-performing loans could result in a loss of earnings from these loans, an increase in the provision for loan losses and an increase in charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition.

The Company’s banking regulators generally give commercial real estate lending greater scrutiny, and may require banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans to implement improved underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as possibly higher levels of allowances for losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.

The Company’s loan portfolio contains construction and development loans, and a decline in real estate values and economic conditions would adversely affect the value of the collateral securing the loans and have an adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition.

Although most of the Company’s construction and development loans are secured by real estate, the Company believes that, in the case of the majority of these loans, the real estate collateral by itself may not be a sufficient source for repayment of the loan if real estate values decline and there is a downturn in the local and national economies. If the Company is required to liquidate the collateral securing a construction and development loan to satisfy the debt, its earnings and capital may be adversely affected. A period of reduced real estate values may continue for some time, resulting in potential adverse effects on the Company’s earnings and capital.

The Company’s credit standards and its on-going credit assessment processes might not protect it from significant credit losses.

The Company assumes credit risk by virtue of making loans and leases and extending loan commitments and letters of credit. The Company manages credit risk through a program of underwriting standards, the review of certain credit decisions and a continuous quality assessment process of credit already extended. The Company’s exposure to credit risk is managed through the use of consistent underwriting standards that emphasize local lending while avoiding highly leveraged transactions as well as excessive industry and other concentrations. The Company’s credit administration function employs risk management techniques to help ensure that problem loans and leases are promptly identified. While these procedures are designed to provide the Company with the information needed to implement policy adjustments where necessary and to take appropriate corrective actions, there can be no assurance that such measures will be effective in avoiding undue credit risk.

The Company’s focus on lending to small to mid-sized community-based businesses may increase its credit risk.

Most of the Company’s commercial business and commercial real estate loans are made to small business or middle market customers. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities and have a heightened vulnerability to economic conditions. If general economic conditions in the market areas in which the Company operates negatively impact this important customer sector, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected. Moreover, a portion of these loans have been made by the Company in recent years and the borrowers may not have experienced a complete business or economic cycle. Any deterioration of the borrowers’ businesses may hinder their ability to repay their loans with the Company, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Nonperforming assets take significant time to resolve and adversely affect the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

The Company’s nonperforming assets adversely affect its net income in various ways. The Company does not record interest income on nonaccrual loans, which adversely affects its income and increases loan administration costs. When the Company receives collateral through foreclosures and similar proceedings, it is required to mark the related loan to the then fair market value of the collateral less estimated selling costs, which may result in a loss. An increase in the level of nonperforming assets also increases the Company’s risk profile and may affect the capital levels regulators believe are appropriate in light of such risks. The Company utilizes various techniques such as workouts, restructurings, and loan sales to manage problem assets. Increases in or negative adjustments in the value of these problem assets, the underlying collateral, or in the borrowers’ performance or financial condition, could adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires significant commitments of time from management and staff, which can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities, including origination of new loans. There can be no assurance that the Company will avoid further increases in nonperforming loans in the future.

The Company faces substantial competition that could adversely affect the Company’s growth and/or operating results.

The Company operates in a competitive market for financial services and faces intense competition from other financial institutions both in making loans and attracting deposits which can greatly affect pricing for our products and services. The Company’s primary competitors include community, regional, and national banks as well as credit unions and mortgage companies. Many of these financial institutions have been in business for many years, are significantly larger, have established customer bases and have greater financial resources and higher lending limits. In addition, credit unions are exempt from corporate income taxes, providing a significant competitive pricing advantage. Accordingly, some of the Company’s competitors in its market have the ability to offer products and services that it is unable to offer or to offer at more competitive rates.

The carrying value of goodwill may be adversely affected.

When the Company completes an acquisition, often times, goodwill is recorded on the date of acquisition as an asset. Current accounting guidance requires goodwill to be tested for impairment; the Company performs such impairment analysis at least annually. A significant adverse change in expected future cash flows or sustained adverse change in the Company’s common stock could require the asset to become impaired. If impaired, the Company would incur a charge to earnings that would have a significant impact on the results of operations. The Company’s carrying value of goodwill was approximately $59.4 million at December 31, 2013.

The Company’s exposure to operational, technological, and organizational risk may adversely affect the Company.

Similar to other financial institutions, the Company is exposed to many types of operational and technological risk, including reputation, legal, and compliance risk. The Company’s ability to grow and compete is dependent on its ability to build or acquire the necessary operational and technological infrastructure and to manage the cost of that infrastructure while it expands and integrates acquired businesses. Operational risk can manifest itself in many ways, such as errors related to failed or inadequate processes, faulty or disabled computer systems, fraud by employees or persons outside of the Company, and exposure to external events. The Company is dependent on its operational infrastructure to help manage these risks. From time to time, it may need to change or upgrade its technology infrastructure. The Company may experience disruption, and it may face additional exposure to these risks during the course of making such changes. As the Company acquires other financial institutions, it faces additional challenges when integrating different operational platforms. Such integration efforts may be more disruptive to the business and/or more costly than anticipated.

The Company’s operations may be adversely affected by cyber security risks.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company collects and stores sensitive data, including proprietary business information and personally identifiable information of its customers and employees in systems and on networks. The secure processing, maintenance and use of this information is critical to operations and the Company’s business strategy. The Company has invested in accepted technologies, and continually reviews processes and practices that are designed to protect its networks, computers and data from damage or unauthorized access. Despite these security measures, the Company’s computer systems and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance, or other disruptions. A breach of any kind could compromise systems and the information stored there could be accessed, damaged or disclosed. A breach in security could result in legal claims, regulatory penalties, disruption in operations, and damage to the Company’s reputation, which could adversely affect our business.

The Company’s dependency on its management team and the unexpected loss of any of those personnel could adversely affect operations.

The Company is a customer-focused and relationship-driven organization. Future growth is expected to be driven in large part by the relationships maintained with customers. While the Company has assembled an experienced management team, is building the depth of that team, and has management development plans in place, the unexpected loss of key employees could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and may result in lower revenues or greater expenses.

Legislative or regulatory changes or actions, or significant litigation, could adversely affect the Company or the businesses in which the Company is engaged.

The Company is subject to extensive state and federal regulation, supervision, and legislation that govern almost all aspects of its operations. Laws and regulations change from time to time and are primarily intended for the protection of consumers, depositors, and the FDIC’s DIF. The impact of any changes to laws and regulations or other actions by regulatory agencies may negatively affect the Company or its ability to increase the value of its business. Such changes could include higher capital requirements, increased insurance premiums, increased compliance costs, reductions of non-interest income, and limitations on services that can be provided. Actions by regulatory agencies or significant litigation against the Company could cause it to devote significant time and resources to defend itself and may lead to liability or penalties that materially affect the Company and its shareholders. Future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations or enforcement could be materially adverse to the Company and its shareholders.

The Dodd-Frank Act substantially changes the regulation of the financial services industry and it could have a material adverse effect upon the Company.

The Dodd-Frank Act provides wide-ranging changes in the way banks and financial services firms generally are regulated and affects the way the Company and its customers and counterparties do business with each other. Among other things, it requires increased capital and regulatory oversight for banks and their holding companies, changes the deposit insurance assessment system, changes responsibilities among regulators, establishes the new CFPB, and makes various changes in the securities laws and corporate governance that affect public companies, including the Company. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires numerous studies and regulations related to its implementation. The Company is continually evaluating the effects of the Dodd-Frank Act, together with implementing the regulations that have been proposed and adopted. The ultimate effects of the Dodd-Frank Act and the resulting rulemaking cannot be predicted at this time, but it has increased our operating and compliance costs in the short-term, and it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operation and financial condition.

The Company will be subject to more stringent capital and liquidity requirements as a result of the Basel III regulatory capital reforms and the Dodd-Frank Act, the short-term and long-term impact of which is uncertain.

The Company and the Subsidiary Banks are each subject to capital adequacy guidelines and other regulatory requirements specifying minimum amounts and types of capital which each must maintain. From time to time, regulators implement changes to these regulatory capital adequacy guidelines. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the federal banking agencies have established stricter capital requirements and leverage limits for banks and bank holding companies that are based on the Basel III regulatory capital reforms. If the Company and the Subsidiary Banks fail to meet these minimum capital guidelines and/or other regulatory requirements, the Company’s financial condition would be materially and adversely affected.

New regulations issued by the CFPB could adversely impact the Company’s earnings.

The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority to administer and carry out the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to financial institutions that offer covered financial products and services to consumers. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a final rule effective January 10, 2014, requiring mortgage lenders to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms, or to originate “qualified mortgages” that meet specific requirements with respect to terms, pricing and fees. The new rule also contains new disclosure requirements at mortgage loan origination and in monthly statements. These requirements could limit the Company’s ability to make certain types of loans or loans to certain borrowers, or could make it more expensive and/or time consuming to make these loans, which could adversely impact the Company’s profitability.

The Subsidiary Banks rely upon independent appraisals to determine the value of the real estate which secures a significant portion of its loans, and the values indicated by such appraisals may not be realizable if the Subsidiary Banks are forced to foreclose upon such loans.

A significant portion of the Subsidiary Banks’ loan portfolio consists of loans secured by real estate. The Subsidiary Banks rely upon independent appraisers to estimate the value of such real estate. Appraisals are only estimates of value and the independent appraisers may make mistakes of fact or judgment that adversely affect the reliability of their appraisals. In addition, events occurring after the initial appraisal may cause the value of the real estate to increase or decrease. As a result of any of these factors, the real estate securing some of the Subsidiary Bank’s loans may be more or less valuable than anticipated at the time the loans were made. If a default occurs on a loan secured by real estate that is less valuable than originally estimated, the Subsidiary Banks may not be able to recover the outstanding balance of the loan.  

The Company and the Subsidiary Banks rely on other companies to provide key components of its business infrastructure.

Third parties provide key components of the Company’s (and the Subsidiary Banks’) business operations such as data processing, recording and monitoring transactions, online banking interfaces and services, internet connections and network access. While the Company has selected these third party vendors carefully, it does not control their actions. Any problem caused by these third parties, including poor performance of services, failure to provide services, disruptions in communication services provided by a vendor and failure to handle current or higher volumes, could adversely affect the Company’s ability to deliver products and services to its customers and otherwise conduct its business, and may harm its reputation. Financial or operational difficulties of a third party vendor could also hurt the Company’s operations if those difficulties affect the vendor’s ability to serve the Company. Replacing these third party vendors could also create significant delay and expense. Accordingly, use of such third parties creates an unavoidable inherent risk to the Company’s business operations.

The Company depends on the accuracy and completeness of information about clients and counterparties, and its financial condition could be adversely affected if it relies on misleading information.

In deciding whether to extend credit or to enter into other transactions with clients and counterparties, the Company may rely on information furnished to it by or on behalf of clients and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information, which the Company does not independently verify. The Company also may rely on representations of clients and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. For example, in deciding whether to extend credit to clients, the Company may assume that a customer’s audited financial statements conform to GAAP and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer. The Company’s financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent it relies on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading.

Changes in accounting standards could impact reported earnings.

The authorities that promulgate accounting standards, including the FASB, SEC, and other regulatory authorities, periodically change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements. These changes are difficult to predict and can materially impact how the Company records and reports its financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, the Company could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in the restatement of financial statements for prior periods. Such changes could also require the Company to incur additional personnel or technology costs.

Failure to maintain effective systems of internal and disclosure control could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operation and financial condition.

Effective internal and disclosure controls are necessary for the Company to provide reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud and to operate successfully as a public company. If the Company cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, its reputation and operating results would be harmed. As part of the Company’s ongoing monitoring of internal control, it may discover material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in its internal control that require remediation. A “material weakness” is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of a company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

The Company has in the past discovered, and may in the future discover, areas of its internal controls that need improvement. Even so, the Company is continuing to work to improve its internal controls. The Company cannot be certain that these measures will ensure that it implements and maintains adequate controls over its financial processes and reporting in the future. Any failure to maintain effective controls or to timely implement any necessary improvement of the Company’s internal and disclosure controls could, among other things, result in losses from fraud or error, harm the Company’s reputation or cause investors to lose confidence in the Company’s reported financial information, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operation and financial condition.

Limited availability of financing or inability to raise capital could adversely impact the Company.

The amount, type, source, and cost of the Company’s funding directly impacts the ability to grow assets. The ability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, and other sources could become more difficult, more expensive, or altogether unavailable. A number of factors could make such financing more difficult, more expensive or unavailable including: the financial condition of the Company at any given time; rate disruptions in the capital markets; the reputation for soundness and security of the financial services industry as a whole; and, competition for funding from other banks or similar financial service companies, some of which could be substantially larger or be more favorably rated.

Consumers may increasingly decide not to use the Subsidiary Banks to complete their financial transactions, which would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition and operations.

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions through alternative methods that historically have involved banks. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts, mutual funds or general-purpose reloadable prepaid cards. Consumers can also complete transactions such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The Company is subject to claims and litigation pertaining to fiduciary responsibility.

From time to time, customers make claims and take legal action pertaining to the performance of the Company’s fiduciary responsibilities. Whether customer claims and legal action related to the performance of the Company’s fiduciary responsibilities are founded or unfounded, 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 its 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 the Company’s business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company is a defendant in a variety of litigation and other actions, which may have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operation.

The Company may be involved from time to time in a variety of litigation arising out of its business. The Company’s insurance may not cover all claims that may be asserted against it, and any claims asserted against it, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, may harm the Company’s reputation. Should the ultimate judgments or settlements in any litigation exceed the Company’s insurance coverage, they could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operation for any period. In addition, the Company may not be able to obtain appropriate types or levels of insurance in the future, nor may the Company be able to obtain adequate replacement policies with acceptable terms, if at all.

On November 20, 2013, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding (the “Memorandum”) with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of certain litigation in response to the announcement of the StellarOne Merger Agreement. As described in the joint proxy statement/prospectus of Union and StellarOne dated October 22, 2013, on June 14, 2013, Jaclyn Crescente, individually and purportedly on behalf of all other StellarOne shareholders, filed a class action complaint against StellarOne, its current directors, StellarOne Bank (the “StellarOne Defendants”) and the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (the “Court”) (Case No. 3:13-cv-00021-NKM). The complaint alleges that the StellarOne directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger with the Company, and that the Company aided and abetted in such breaches of duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages in the event that the transaction is completed. Under the terms of the Memorandum, the Company, the StellarOne Defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims made by the plaintiffs relating to the merger, subject to approval by the Court. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the Memorandum, the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. The parties to the Memorandum have agreed that final resolution by the Court of any fee petition will not be a precondition to the dismissal of the lawsuit. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum may be terminated.

Risks Related To The Company’s Securities

The Company’s ability to pay dividends depends upon the results of operations of its subsidiaries.

The Company is a financial holding company and a bank holding company that conducts substantially all of its operations through the Subsidiary Banks and other subsidiaries. As a result, the Company’s ability to make dividend payments on its common stock depends primarily on certain federal regulatory considerations and the receipt of dividends and other distributions from its subsidiaries. There are various regulatory restrictions on the ability of the Subsidiary Banks to pay dividends or make other payments to the Company. Although the Company has historically paid a cash dividend to the holders of its common stock, holders of the common stock are not entitled to receive dividends, and regulatory or economic factors may cause the Company’s board of directors to consider, among other things, the reduction of dividends paid on the Company’s common stock.

While the Company’s common stock is currently traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, it has less liquidity than stocks for larger companies quoted on a national securities exchange.

The trading volume in the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market has been relatively low when compared with larger companies listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market or other stock exchanges. There is no assurance that a more active and liquid trading market for the common stock will exist in the future. Consequently, shareholders may not be able to sell a substantial number of shares for the same price at which shareholders could sell a smaller number of shares. In addition, we cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales of the Company’s common stock in the market, or the availability of shares of common stock for sale in the market, will have on the market price of the common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of common stock in the market, or the potential for large amounts of sales in the market, could cause the price of the Company’s common stock to decline, or reduce the Company’s ability to raise capital through future sales of common stock.

Future issuances of the Company’s common stock could adversely affect the market price of the common stock and could be dilutive.

The Company is not restricted from issuing additional shares of common stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, shares of common stock. Issuances of a substantial number of shares of common stock, or the expectation that such issuances might occur, including in connection with acquisitions by the Company, could materially adversely affect the market price of the shares of the common stock and could be dilutive to shareholders. Because the Company’s decision to issue common stock in the future will depend on market conditions and other factors, it cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, or nature of possible future issuances of its common stock. Accordingly, the Company’s shareholders bear the risk that future issuances will reduce the market price of the common stock and dilute their stock holdings in the Company.

The Company’s governing documents and Virginia law contain anti-takeover provisions that could negatively affect its shareholders.

The Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and the Virginia Stock Corporation Act contain certain provisions designed to enhance the ability of the Company’s board of directors to deal with attempts to acquire control of the Company. These provisions and the ability to set the voting rights, preferences, and other terms of any series of preferred stock that may be issued, may be deemed to have an anti-takeover effect and may discourage takeovers (which certain shareholders may deem to be in their best interest). To the extent that such takeover attempts are discouraged, temporary fluctuations in the market price of the Company’s common stock resulting from actual or rumored takeover attempts may be inhibited. These provisions also could discourage or make more difficult a merger, tender offer, or proxy contest, even though such transactions may be favorable to the interests of shareholders, and could potentially adversely affect the market price of the Company’s common stock.

The current economic conditions may cause volatility in the Company’s common stock value.

In the current economic environment, the value of publicly traded stocks in the financial services sector has been volatile. However, even in a more stable economic environment the value of the Company’s common stock can be affected by a variety of factors such as excepted results of operations, actual results of operations, actions taken by shareholders, news or expectations based on the performance of others in the financial services industry, and expected impacts of a changing regulatory environment. These factors not only impact the value of the Company’s common stock but could also affect the liquidity of the stock given the Company’s size, geographical footprint, and industry.

ITEM 1B. - UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS.

The Company does not have any unresolved staff comments to report for the year ended December 31, 2013.

ITEM 2. - PROPERTIES.

The Company, through its subsidiaries, owns or leases buildings that are used in the normal course of business. Effective October 31, 2011, the corporate headquarters was relocated from 111 Virginia Street, Suite 200, Richmond, Virginia to 1051 East Cary Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia. The Company’s subsidiaries own or lease various other offices in the counties and cities in which they operate. At December 31, 2013, the Bank operated 90 branches throughout Virginia. All of the offices of UMG are leased, either through a third party or within a Bank branch. The vast majority of the offices of UISI are located within the retail branch properties. The Company’s operations center is in Ruther Glen, Virginia. See the Note 1 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” and Note 4 “Bank Premises and Equipment” in the “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information with respect to the amounts at which Bank premises and equipment are carried and commitments under long-term leases.

ITEM 3. - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

In the ordinary course of its operations, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings. Based on the information presently available, and after consultation with legal counsel, management believes that the ultimate outcome in such proceedings, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the business or the financial condition or results of operations of the Company.

ITEM 4. - MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.

None.

PART II

ITEM 5. - MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES.

The following performance graph does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other Company filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates the performance graph by reference therein.

Five-Year Stock Performance Graph

The following chart compares the yearly percentage change in the cumulative shareholder return on the Company’s common stock during the five years ended December 31, 2013, with (1) the Total Return Index for the NASDAQ Stock Market and (2) the Total Return Index for NASDAQ Bank Stocks. This comparison assumes $100 was invested on December 31, 2008 in the Company’s common stock and the comparison groups and assumes the reinvestment of all cash dividends prior to any tax effect and retention of all stock dividends.

Union First Market Bankshares Corporation

Source: SNL Financial Corporation LC, Charlottesville, VA (2014)

Information on Common Stock, Market Prices and Dividends

There were 24,976,434 shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding at the close of business on December 31, 2013, which were held by 2,378 shareholders of record. The closing price of the Company’s common stock on December 31, 2013 was $24.81 per share compared to $15.77 on December 31, 2012.

The following table summarizes the high and low sales prices and dividends declared for quarterly periods during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.

Regulatory restrictions on the ability of the Bank to transfer funds to the Company at December 31, 2013 are set forth in Note 19, “Parent Company Financial Information,” contained in the “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K. A discussion of certain limitations on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to the Company and the ability of the Company to pay dividends on its common stock, is set forth in Part I., Item 1 - Business, of this Form 10-K under the headings “Supervision and Regulation – The Company - Limits on Dividends and Other Payments.”

It is anticipated that dividends will continue to be paid on a quarterly basis. In making its decision on the payment of dividends on the Company’s common stock, the Board of Directors considers operating results, financial condition, capital adequacy, regulatory requirements, shareholder returns, and other factors.

Stock Repurchase Program

In December 2011, the Company was authorized to repurchase up to 350,000 shares of its common stock in the open market or in private transactions. No shares were repurchased during 2011.

In February 2012, the Company was authorized to enter into a stock purchase agreement with James E. Ukrop, then a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, and a trust related to Mr. Ukrop. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company repurchased 335,649 shares of its common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $4,363,437, or $13.00 per share. The repurchase was funded with cash on hand. The Company transferred 115,384 of the repurchased shares to its ESOP for $13.00 per share. The remaining 220,265 shares were retired. On February 6, 2012, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with respect to the agreement and repurchase.

In December 2012, the Company was authorized to repurchase up to 750,000 shares of the Company’s common stock on the open market or in private transactions. Subsequently, in December 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to purchase 750,000 shares of its common stock from Markel Corporation, the Company’s largest shareholder at that time, for an aggregate purchase price of $11,580,000, or $15.44 per share. Steven A. Markel was a director of the Company and Vice Chairman of Markel Corporation at that time. The repurchase was funded with cash on hand and the Company retired the shares. On December 12 and 21, 2012, the Company filed Current Reports on Form 8-K with respect to the authorization and repurchase.

In March 2013, the Company entered into an agreement to purchase 500,000 shares of its common stock from Markel Corporation, at that time the Company’s largest shareholder, for an aggregate purchase price of $9,500,000, or $19.00 per share. Steven A. Markel was a director of the Company and Vice Chairman of Markel Corporation at that time. The repurchase was funded with cash on hand and the shares were retired. The Company’s authorization to repurchase an additional 250,000 shares under its current repurchase program authorization expired December 31, 2013.

On January 30, 2014, the Company received authorization from its Board of Directors to purchase up to $65.0 million of the Company’s common stock on the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. The repurchase program is authorized through December 31, 2015.

ITEM 6. – SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.

The following table sets forth selected financial data for the Company over each of the past five years ended December 31, (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts):

⁽¹⁾ Refer to "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations", section "Non GAAP Measures" for supplemental performance measures which the Company believes may be useful to investors as they exclude non-operating adjustments resulting from acquisitions and allow investors to see the combined economic results of the organization. These measures are a supplement to GAAP used to prepare the Company’s financial statements and should not be viewed as a substitute for GAAP measures. In addition, the Company’s non-GAAP measures may not be comparable to non-GAAP measures of other companies. Operating metrics, which exclude acquisition-related costs, including operating earnings, return on average assets, return on average equity, efficiency ratio, and earnings per share are shown for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 only.

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

The following discussion and analysis provides information about the major components of the results of operations and financial condition, liquidity, and capital resources of the Company and its subsidiaries. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the “Consolidated Financial Statements” and the “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements” presented in Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” contained in this Form 10-K.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES

General

The accounting and reporting policies of the Company and its subsidiaries are in accordance with GAAP and conform to general practices within the banking industry. The Company’s 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 could result in material changes in the Company’s consolidated financial position and/or results of operations.

The more critical accounting and reporting policies include the Company’s accounting for the allowance for loan losses, mergers and acquisitions, and goodwill and intangible assets. The Company’s accounting policies are fundamental to understanding the Company’s consolidated financial position and consolidated results of operations. Accordingly, the Company’s significant accounting policies are discussed in detail in Note 1 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in the “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

The following is a summary of the Company’s critical accounting policies that are highly dependent on estimates, assumptions, and judgments.

Allowance for Loan Losses

The provision for loan losses charged to operations is an amount sufficient to bring the allowance for loan losses to an estimated balance that management considers adequate to absorb potential losses in the portfolio. Loans are charged against the allowance when management believes the collectability of the principal is unlikely. Recoveries of amounts previously charged-off are credited to the allowance. Management’s determination of the adequacy of the allowance is based on an evaluation of the composition of the loan portfolio, the value and adequacy of collateral, current economic conditions, historical loan loss experience, and other risk factors. Management believes that the allowance for loan losses is adequate. While management uses available information to recognize losses on loans, future additions to the allowance may be necessary based on changes in economic conditions, particularly those affecting real estate values. In addition, regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review the Company’s allowance for loan losses. Such agencies may require the Company to make adjustments to the allowance based on their judgments about information available to them at the time of their examination.

The Company performs regular credit reviews of the loan portfolio to review the credit quality and adherence to its underwriting standards. The credit reviews consist of reviews by its Internal Audit group and reviews performed by an independent third party. Upon origination, each commercial loan is assigned a risk rating ranging from one to nine, with loans closer to one having less risk. This risk rating scale is the Company’s primary credit quality indicator. Consumer loans are generally not risk rated; the primary credit quality indicator for this portfolio segment is delinquency status. The Company has various committees that review and ensure that the allowance for loan losses methodology is in accordance with GAAP and loss factors used appropriately reflect the risk characteristics of the loan portfolio.

The Company’s ALL consists of specific, general, and unallocated components.

Specific Reserve Component - The specific reserve component relates to impaired loans. A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect the scheduled payments of principal or interest when due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Upon being identified as impaired, for loans not considered to be collateral dependent, an allowance is established when the discounted cash flows of the impaired loan are lower than the carrying value of that loan. Nonaccrual loans under $100,000 and other impaired loans under $500,000 are aggregated based on similar risk characteristics. The level of credit impairment within the pool(s) is determined based on historical loss factors for loans with similar risk characteristics, taking into consideration environmental factors specifically related to the underlying pool. The impairment of collateral dependent loans is measured based on the fair value of the underlying collateral (based on independent appraisals), less selling costs, compared to the carrying value of the loan. If the Company determines that the value of an impaired collateral dependent loan is less than the recorded investment in the loan, it either recognizes an impairment reserve as a specific component to be provided for in the allowance for loan losses or charge-off the deficiency if it is determined that such amount represents a confirmed loss. Typically, a loss is confirmed when the Company is moving towards foreclosure (or final disposition) of the underlying collateral, the collateral deficiency has not improved for two consecutive quarters, or when there is a payment default of 180 days, whichever occurs first.

The Company obtains independent appraisals from a pre-approved list of independent, third party appraisal firms located in the market in which the collateral is located. The Company’s approved appraiser list is continuously maintained to ensure the list only includes such appraisers that have the experience, reputation, character, and knowledge of the respective real estate market. At a minimum, it is ascertained that the appraiser is currently licensed in the state in which the property is located, experienced in the appraisal of properties similar to the property being appraised, has knowledge of current real estate market conditions and financing trends, and is reputable. The Company’s internal Real Estate Valuation Group, which reports to the Risk and Compliance Group, performs either a technical or administrative review of all appraisals obtained. A technical review will ensure the overall quality of the appraisal, while an administrative review ensures that all of the required components of an appraisal are present. Generally, independent appraisals are updated every 12 to 24 months or as necessary. The Company’s impairment analysis documents the date of the appraisal used in the analysis, whether the officer preparing the report deems it current, and, if not, allows for internal valuation adjustments with justification. Adjustments to appraisals generally include discounts for continued market deterioration subsequent to the appraisal date. Any adjustments from the appraised value to carrying value are documented in the impairment analysis, which is reviewed and approved by senior credit administration officers and the Special Assets Loan Committee. External appraisals are the primary source to value collateral dependent loans; however, the Company may also utilize values obtained through broker price opinions or other valuations sources. These alternative sources of value are used only if deemed to be more representative of value based on updated information regarding collateral resolution. Impairment analyses are updated, reviewed, and approved on a quarterly basis at or near the end of each reporting period.

General Reserve Component - The general reserve component covers non-impaired loans and is derived from an estimate of credit losses adjusted for various environmental factors applicable to both commercial and consumer loan segments. The estimate of credit losses is a function of the product of net charge-off historical loss experience to the loan balance of the loan portfolio averaged during the preceding twelve quarters, as management has determined this to adequately reflect the losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The environmental factors consist of national, local, and portfolio characteristics and are applied to both the commercial and consumer segments. The following table shows the types of environmental factors management considers:

Unallocated Component – This component may be used to cover uncertainties that could affect management’s estimate of probable losses. The unallocated component of the allowance reflects the margin of imprecision inherent in the underlying assumptions used in the methodologies for estimating specific and general losses in the portfolio. Together, the specific, general, and any unallocated allowance for loan loss represents management’s estimate of losses inherent in the current loan portfolio. Though provisions for loan losses may be based on specific loans, the entire allowance for loan losses is available for any loan management deems necessary to charge-off. At December 31, 2013, there were no material amounts considered unallocated as part of the allowance for loan losses.

Impaired Loans

A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect the scheduled payments of principal or interest when due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Factors considered by management in determining impairment include payment status, collateral value, and the probability of collecting scheduled principal and interest payments when due. Loans that experience insignificant payment delays and payment shortfalls generally are not classified as impaired. A loan that is classified substandard or worse is considered impaired. Management determines the significance of payment delays and payment shortfalls on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the loan and the borrower, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the borrower’s prior payment record, and the amount of the shortfall in relation to the principal and interest owed. Impairment is measured on a loan-by-loan basis by either the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, the loan’s obtainable market price, or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. The impaired loan policy is the same for each of the seven classes within the commercial portfolio segment.

For the consumer loan portfolio segment, large groups of smaller balance homogeneous loans are collectively evaluated for impairment. This evaluation subjects each of the Company’s homogenous pools to a historical loss factor derived from net charge-offs experienced over the preceding twelve quarters. The Company applies payments received on impaired loans to principal and interest based on the contractual terms until they are placed on nonaccrual status. All payments received are then applied to reduce the principal balance and recognition of interest income is terminated.

Mergers and Acquisitions

The Company’s merger and acquisition strategy focuses on high-growth areas with strong market demographics and targets organizations that have a comparable corporate culture, strong performance, and good asset quality, among other factors.

Business combinations are accounted for under ASC 805, Business Combinations, using the acquisition method of accounting. The acquisition method of accounting requires an acquirer to recognize the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the acquisition date measured at their fair values as of that date. To determine the fair values, the Company will continue to rely on third party valuations, such as appraisals, or internal valuations based on discounted cash flow analyses or other valuation techniques. Under the acquisition method of accounting, the Company will identify the acquirer and the closing date and apply applicable recognition principles and conditions. If they are necessary to implement its plan to exit an activity of an acquiree, costs that the Company expects, but is not obligated, to incur in the future are not liabilities at the acquisition date, nor are costs to terminate the employment of or relocate an acquiree’s employees. The Company does not recognize these costs as part of applying the acquisition method. Instead, the Company recognizes these costs as expenses in its post-combination financial statements in accordance with other applicable GAAP.

Acquisition-related costs are costs the Company incurs to effect a business combination. Those costs include advisory, legal, accounting, valuation, and other professional or consulting fees. Some other examples of acquisition-related costs to the Company include systems conversions, integration planning consultants, and advertising costs. The Company will account for acquisition-related costs as expenses in the periods in which the costs are incurred and the services are received, with one exception. The costs to issue debt or equity securities will be recognized in accordance with other applicable GAAP. These acquisition-related costs are included within the Consolidated Statements of Income classified within the noninterest expense caption.

Goodwill and Intangible Assets

The Company follows ASC 350, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, which prescribes the accounting for goodwill and intangible assets subsequent to initial recognition. The provisions of this guidance discontinued the amortization of goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives but require an impairment review at least annually and more frequently if certain impairment indicators are evident.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Executive Overview

⁽¹⁾For a reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures operating earnings, ROA, ROE, EPS, and efficiency ratio, see “NON-GAAP MEASURES” included in this Item 7.

Net Income

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2013 decreased $915,000, or 2.6%, from $35.4 million to $34.5 million and represented earnings per share of $1.38 compared to $1.37 for the prior year. Excluding after-tax acquisition-related expenses of $2.0 million, operating earnings for 2013 were $36.5 million and operating earnings per share was $1.46. Return on average equity for the year ended December 31, 2013 was 7.91% compared to 8.13% for the prior year while return on average assets was 0.85% compared to 0.89% for the prior year; operating return on average equity for the year ended December 31, 2013 was 8.38% compared to 8.13% for the prior year while operating return on average assets was 0.90% compared to 0.89% for the prior year.

The $915,000 decrease in net income was principally a result of a decrease in net interest margin of $2.7 million related to a decline in the yield on interest-earning assets that outpaced the reduction in the cost of funds, a decrease in noninterest income of $2.4 million largely due to lower gains on sales of mortgage loans, net of commission expenses, of $4.8 million, and higher noninterest expenses of $3.8 million primarily driven by salary and benefits expenses and costs related to the StellarOne merger. These items were partially offset by a $6.1 million decrease in provision for loan losses due to continued improvement in asset quality.

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2012 increased $5.0 million, or 16.3%, from 2011. Net income available to common shareholders increased $7.6 million, or 27.5%, from 2011, which included preferred dividends and discount accretion on preferred stock of $2.7 million. Return on average equity for the year ended December 31, 2012 was 8.13% compared to 6.90% for 2011 while return on average assets was 0.89% compared to 0.79% for 2011. Earnings per share was $1.37, an increase of $0.30, or 28.0%, from $1.07 for the year ended December 31, 2011. Earnings per share included preferred dividends and discount accretion on preferred stock of $2.7 million, or $0.10 per share, in 2011.

The $5.0 million increase in net income was principally a result of higher net gains on sales of mortgage loans driven by higher origination volumes, lower provision for loan losses, reductions in FDIC insurance expense due to changes in the assessment base and rate, lower core deposit intangible amortization expense, and an increase in account service charges and net debit and credit card interchange fees. Partially offsetting these results were higher salaries and benefits related to the addition of mortgage loan originators and support personnel in 2012 and lower net interest income driven by reductions in interest income on interest-earning assets that outpaced the impact of lower costs on interest-bearing liabilities.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income, which represents the principal source of revenue for the Company, is the amount by which interest income exceeds interest expense. The net interest margin is net interest income expressed as a percentage of average earning assets. Changes in the volume and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, as well as their respective yields and rates, have a significant impact on the level of net interest income, the net interest margin, and net income.

The decline in the general level of interest rates over the last five years has placed downward pressure on the Company’s earning asset yields and related interest income. The decline in earning asset yields, however, has been offset principally by the repricing of money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposits and lower borrowing costs. The Company believes that its net interest margin will continue to decline modestly over the next several quarters as decreases in earning asset yields are projected to outpace declines in rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities.

The following table shows interest income on earning assets and related average yields, as well as interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities and related average rates paid for the periods indicated (dollars in thousands):

⁽¹⁾ Core net interest margin (FTE) excludes the impact of acquisition accounting accretion and amortization adjustments in net interest income.

For the year ended December 31, 2013, tax-equivalent net interest income was $156.9 million, a decrease of $1.7 million, or 1.1%, when compared to the same period last year. The tax-equivalent net interest margin decreased by 12 basis points to 4.22% from 4.34% in the prior year. The decline in the net interest margin was principally due to the continued decline in accretion on the acquired net earning assets (-6 bps) and a decline in the yield on interest-earning assets that outpaced the reduction in the cost of funds (-6 bps). Lower interest-earning asset income was principally due to lower yields on loans as new loans and renewed loans were originated and repriced at lower rates and declining investment securities yields driven by cash flows from securities investments reinvested at lower yields.

⁽¹⁾ Core net interest margin (FTE) excludes the impact of acquisition accounting accretion and amortization adjustments in net interest income.

For the year ended December 31, 2012, tax-equivalent net interest income was $158.6 million, a decrease of $2.1 million, or 1.3%, when compared to the same period in 2011. The tax-equivalent net interest margin decreased by 23 basis points to 4.34% from 4.57% in 2011. The decline in the net interest margin was principally due to the continued decline in accretion on the acquired net earning assets (-10 bps) and a decline in the yield on interest-earning assets that outpaced the reduction in the cost of interest-bearing liabilities (-13 bps). Lower interest-earning asset income was principally due to lower yields on loans and investment securities as new loans and renewed loans were originated and repriced at lower rates, faster prepayments on mortgage backed securities, and cash flows from securities investments reinvested at lower yields. The reduction in the cost of interest-bearing liabilities was primarily driven by a shift in the mix of the Company’s deposit accounts as customers moved from certificates of deposits to transaction and money market accounts. During the third quarter of 2012, the Company modified its fixed rate convertible FHLB advances to floating rate advances, which resulted in reducing the Company’s FHLB borrowing costs. The modification of the FHLB advances lowered the 2012 cost of interest-bearing liabilities by 3 bps subsequent to executing the modification during the third quarter of 2012.

The following table shows interest income on earning assets and related average yields as well as interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities and related average rates paid for the years indicated (dollars in thousands):

AVERAGE BALANCES, INCOME AND EXPENSES, YIELDS AND RATES (TAXABLE EQUIVALENT BASIS)

(1) Rates and yields are annualized and calculated from actual, not rounded amounts in thousands, which appear above.

(2) Interest income on securities includes $15 thousand, $201 thousand, and $387 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 in accretion of the fair market value adjustments.

(3) Nonaccrual loans are included in average loans outstanding.

(4) Interest income on loans includes $2.1 million, $3.7 million, and $6.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 in accretion of the fair market value adjustments related to the acquisitions.

(5) Interest expense on certificates of deposits includes $7 thousand, $233 thousand, and $886 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 in accretion of the fair market value adjustments related to the acquisitions.

(6) Interest expense on borrowings includes $489 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 in amortization of the fair market value adjustments related to acquisitions.

(7) Income and yields are reported on a taxable equivalent basis using the statutory federal corporate tax rate of 35%.

(8) Core net interest margin excludes purchase accounting adjustments and was 4.18%, 4.24%, and 4.37% for the year ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011.

The Volume Rate Analysis table below presents changes in interest income and interest expense and distinguishes between the changes related to increases or decreases in average outstanding balances of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities (volume), and the changes related to increases or decreases in average interest rates on such assets and liabilities (rate). Changes attributable to both volume and rate have been allocated proportionally. Results, on a taxable equivalent basis, are as follows in this Volume Rate Analysis table for the years ended December 31, (dollars in thousands):

The Company’s fully taxable equivalent net interest margin includes the impact of acquisition accounting fair value adjustments. The 2013 and remaining estimated discount/premium and net accretion impact are reflected in the following table (dollars in thousands):

Noninterest Income

NM - Not Meaningful

For the year ended December 31, 2013, noninterest income decreased $2.4 million, or 5.7%, to $38.7 million, from $41.1 million a year ago. Excluding mortgage segment operations, noninterest income increased $2.6 million, or 10.5%, from last year. Service charges on deposit accounts increased $459,000 primarily related to higher overdraft and returned check fees as well as service charges on savings accounts. Other account service charges and fees increased $1.4 million due to higher net interchange fee income, revenue on retail investment products, and fees on letters of credit. Other operating income increased $1.1 million primarily related to increased income on bank owned life insurance, trust income, and other insurance-related revenues. Conversely, gains on bank premises decreased $342,000 as the Company recorded a loss in the current year on the closure of bank premises coupled with net gains in the prior year related to sale of bank premises. Gains on sales of mortgage loans, net of commissions, decreased $4.8 million driven by lower loan origination volume and lower gain on sale margins in 2013. Mortgage loan originations decreased by $154.8 million, or 14.1%, to $941.4 million in 2013 compared to $1.1 billion in 2012. Of the loan originations in the current year, 38.9% were refinances compared to 54.3% in 2012. Lower gain on sale margins were also partly due to reductions resulting from valuation reserves of $363,000 related to aged mortgage loans held-for-sale as well as a non-recurring charge of $966,000 for contractual indemnifications related to prior period errors in mortgage insurance premium calculations in certain mortgage loans.