Our further review of Dodd-Frank disclosures in SEC filings indicates disclosures continue to be included in risk factors, descriptions of internal control matters and descriptions of regulatory implications of the Dodd-Frank Act. Examples from our previous review can be found here. Examples from more recent filings are set forth below.

Risk Factors

China New Media Corp. (Form 10-K filed October 13, 2010)

Compliance with changing regulation of corporate governance and public disclosure will result in additional expenses and pose challenges for our management team.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and SEC regulations, have created uncertainty for public companies and significantly increased the costs and risks associated with accessing the U.S. public markets. Our management team will need to devote significant time and financial resources to comply with both existing and evolving standards for public companies, which will lead to increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue generating activities to compliance activities.

Gilman Ciocia, Inc. (Form 10-K filed October 13, 2010)

Changing laws and regulations have resulted in increased compliance costs for us, which could affect our operating results.

Changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and newly enacted SEC regulations have created additional compliance requirements for companies such as ours. We are committed to maintaining high standards of internal controls over financial reporting, corporate governance and public disclosure. As a result, we intend to continue to invest appropriate resources to comply with evolving standards, and this investment has resulted and will likely continue to result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities.

F.N.B. Corporation (S-4 filed October 13, 2010)

FNB’s expenses have increased and may continue to increase as a result of increases in FDIC insurance premiums.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, absent extraordinary circumstances, the FDIC must establish and implement a plan to restore the deposit insurance reserve ratio, or the reserve ratio, to 1.15% of insured deposits at any time that the reserve ratio falls below 1.15%. If additional bank failures continue to occur, it will result in continued charges against the deposit insurance fund. The FDIC has implemented a restoration plan that changes both its risk-based assessment system and its base assessment rates. As part of this plan, the FDIC imposed a special assessment in 2009. The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Act provides for a new minimum reserve ratio of not less than 1.35% of estimated insured deposits and requires that the FDIC take steps necessary to attain this 1.35% ratio by September 30, 2020. We expect that assessment rates may continue to increase in the near term due to the significant cost of bank failures, the relatively large number of troubled banks and the requirement that the FDIC increase the reserve ratio. Any increase in assessments could adversely impact FNB’s future earnings.

Return Enhanced Notes Linked to the J.P. Morgan Alternative Index Multi-Strategy 5 (USD) due October 24, 2013 (FWP filed October 15, 2010)

THE COMMODITY FUTURES CONTRACTS UNDERLYING THE RELEVANT STRATEGIES ARE SUBJECT TO UNCERTAIN LEGAL AND REGULATORY REGIMES — The commodity futures contracts that underlie the relevant Strategies are subject to legal and regulatory regimes in the United States and, in some cases, in other countries that may change in ways that could adversely affect our ability to hedge our obligations under the notes and affect the value of the Multi-Strategy Index. The effect on the value of the notes of any future regulatory change, including but not limited to changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted on July 21, 2010, is impossible to predict, but could be substantial and adverse to your interest.

Sierra Bancorp (424(b)(5) filed October 14, 2010)

Recently enacted and potential further financial regulatory reforms could have a significant impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) into law. The Dodd-Frank Act is expected to have a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes. Many of the requirements called for in the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented over time and most will be subject to implementing regulations over the course of several years. Given the uncertainty associated with the manner in which the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented by the various regulatory agencies and through regulations, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on our operations is unclear. The changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of business activities, require changes to certain business practices, impose more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. In particular, the potential impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our operations and activities, both currently and prospectively, include, among others:

  • a reduction in the ability to generate or originate revenue-producing assets as a result of compliance with heightened capital standards;
  • increased cost of operations due to greater regulatory oversight, supervision and examination of banks and bank holding companies, and higher deposit insurance premiums;
  • the limitation on the ability to raise new capital through the use of trust preferred securities, as any new issuances of these securities will no longer be included as Tier 1 capital going forward;
  • a potential reduction in fee income due to limits on interchange fees applicable to larger institutions which could effectively reduce the fees we can charge; and
  • the limitation on the ability to expand consumer product and service offerings due to anticipated stricter consumer protection laws and regulations.

Further, we may be required to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, which may negatively impact results of operations and financial condition.

Additionally, we cannot predict whether there will be additional proposed laws or reforms that would affect the U.S. financial system or financial institutions, whether or when such changes may be adopted, how such changes may be interpreted and enforced or how such changes may affect us. However, the costs of complying with any additional laws or regulations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Internal Controls

Teletouch Communications, Inc. (10-Q filed October 15, 2010)

Certain non-recurring expenses are expected to be incurred in fiscal year 2011 related to the arbitration proceeding against AT&T and the startup and expansion costs related to the new products and services. The Company believes that these non-recurring expenses will be manageable and will not materially impair its operating results during fiscal year 2011. In addition, on July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law and a permanent delay of the implementation of section 404(b) of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) for companies with non-affiliated public float under $75,000,000 (“non-accelerated filer”). Section 404(b) under SOX is the requirement to have an independent accounting firm audit and attest to the effectiveness of a Company’s internal controls. As Teletouch currently qualifies as a non-accelerated filer under the SEC rules and expects to remain one through fiscal year 2011, there are no additional costs anticipated for complying with Section 404(b) under SOX.

WES Consulting, Inc. (10-K filed October 13, 2010)

This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting was not subject to attestation by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with recent amendments to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 pursuant to Section 989G of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that permit the Company to provide only management’s report in this Annual Report.

Regulatory Discussions

Smithtown Bancorp (Proxy statement filed October 14, 2010)

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the sweeping financial regulatory reform act entitled the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” that implements far-reaching changes to the regulation of the financial services industry, including provisions that, among other things will:

  • Centralize responsibility for consumer financial protection by creating a new agency responsible for implementing, examining and enforcing compliance with federal consumer financial laws.
  • Apply the same leverage and risk-based capital requirements that apply to insured depository institutions to bank holding companies.
  • Require the FDIC to seek to make its capital requirements for banks such as Bank of Smithtown countercyclical so that the amount of capital required to be maintained increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction.
  • Change the assessment base for federal deposit insurance from the amount of insured deposits to consolidated assets less tangible capital.
  • Implement corporate governance revisions, including with regard to executive compensation and proxy access by stockholders, that apply to all public companies, not just financial institutions.
  • Make permanent the $250,000 limit for federal deposit insurance and increase the cash limit of Securities Investor Protection Corporation protection from $100,000 to $250,000, and provide unlimited federal deposit insurance until January 1, 2013, for non-interest bearing demand transaction accounts at all insured depository institutions.
  • Repeal the federal prohibitions on the payment of interest on demand deposits, thereby permitting depository institutions to pay interest on business transaction and other accounts.
  • Increase the authority of the Federal Reserve to examine Smithtown Bancorp and its non-bank subsidiaries.

Many aspects of the act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on Smithtown Bancorp, its customers or the financial industry more generally. Provisions in the legislation that affect deposit insurance assessments and payment of interest on demand deposits could increase the costs associated with deposits as well as place limitations on certain revenues those deposits may generate.

First Bancshares, Inc. (Form 10-K filed October 13, 2010)

New Legislation. On July 21 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act implements far-reaching changes across the financial regulatory landscape, including provisions that, among other things, will:

—On July 21, 2011 (unless extended for up to six additional months), transfer the responsibilities and authority of the OTS to supervise and examine state savings associations, including the Savings Bank, to the FDIC, and transfer the responsibilities and authority of the OTS to supervise and examine savings and loan holding companies, including the Company, to the Federal Reserve Board.

—Centralize responsibility for consumer financial protection by creating a new agency within the Federal Reserve Board, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, with broad rulemaking, supervision and enforcement authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that would apply to all banks and thrifts. Smaller financial institutions, including the Savings Bank, will be subject to the supervision and enforcement of their primary federal banking regulator with respect to the federal consumer financial protection laws.

—Require new capital rules and apply the same leverage and risk-based capital requirements that apply to insured depository institutions to savings and loan holding companies beginning July 21, 2015.

—Require the federal banking regulators to seek to make their capital requirements countercyclical, so that capital requirements increase in times of economic expansion and decrease in times of economic contraction.

—Provide for new disclosure and other requirements relating to executive compensation and corporate governance.

—Make permanent the $250,000 limit for federal deposit insurance and provide unlimited federal deposit insurance until January 1, 2013 for non-interest bearing demand transaction accounts at all insured depository institutions.

—Effective July 21, 2011, repeal the federal prohibitions on the payment of interest on demand deposits, thereby permitting depository institutions to pay interest on business transaction and other accounts.

—Require all depository institution holding companies to serve as a source of financial strength to their depository institution subsidiaries in the event such subsidiaries suffer from financial distress.

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on the Company and the financial services industry more generally. The elimination of the prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits could materially increase our interest expense, depending our competitors’ responses. Provisions in the legislation that require revisions to the capital requirements of the Company and the Savings Bank could require the Company and the Savings Bank to seek additional sources of capital in the future.