Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission file number: 0-51296

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SHARES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(630) 545-0900

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

None

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, no par value

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 Exchange 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 web site, 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 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.  x

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 definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $9,860,000 based upon the average bid and asked price of such common equity as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements

Community Financial Shares, Inc. (“the Company”) from time to time includes forward-looking statements in its oral and written communications. The Company may include forward-looking statements in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, such as this Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, in other written materials and in oral statements made by senior management to analysts, investors, representatives of the media and others. The Company intends these forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and the Company is including this statement for purposes of these safe harbor provisions. Forward-looking statements can often be identified by the use of words like “estimate,” “project,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “expect” and similar expressions. These forward-looking statements include:

The Company’s ability to predict results or the actual effect of future plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Factors which could have a material adverse effect on the operations and future prospects of the Company and its subsidiaries include, but are not limited to, the following:

2

Table of Contents

Because of these and other uncertainties, the Company’s actual future results may be materially different from the results indicated by these forward-looking statements. In addition, the Company’s past results of operations do not necessarily indicate its future results. The Company does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date such forward-looking statement is made.

PART I

Item 1. Business

General

Community Financial Shares, Inc. (the “Company”) is a registered bank holding company. The operations of the Company and its banking subsidiary consist primarily of those financial activities common to the commercial banking industry and are explained more fully below under the heading “Lending Activities”. Unless the context otherwise requires, the term “Company” as used herein includes the Company and its banking subsidiary on a consolidated basis. All of the operating income of the Company is attributable to its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Community Bank-Wheaton/Glen Ellyn (the “Bank”).

3

Table of Contents

The Company was incorporated in the State of Delaware in July 2000 as part of an internal reorganization whereby the stockholders of the Bank exchanged all of their Bank stock for all of the issued and outstanding stock of the Company. The reorganization was completed in December 2000. As a result of the reorganization the former stockholders of the Bank acquired 100% of the Company’s stock and the Company acquired (and still holds) 100% of the Bank’s stock. The former Bank stockholders received two shares of the Company’s common stock for each share of Bank common stock exchanged in the reorganization. The Company was formed for the purpose of providing financial flexibility as a holding company for the Bank. At the present time, the Company has no specific plans of engaging in any activities other than operating the Bank as a subsidiary.

The Bank was established as a state chartered federally insured commercial bank on March 1, 1994 and opened for business November 21, 1994 on Roosevelt Road in Glen Ellyn. The Bank opened a second location in downtown Wheaton on November 21, 1998. A third location was opened in northwest Wheaton on March 24, 2005. A fourth full service branch was opened on November 21, 2007 in north Wheaton. The Bank provides banking services common to the industry, including but not limited to, demand, savings and time deposits, loans, mortgage loan origination for investors, cash management, electronic banking services, Internet banking services including bill payment, Community Investment Center services, and debit cards. The Bank serves a diverse customer base including individuals, businesses, governmental units, and institutional customers located primarily in Wheaton and Glen Ellyn and surrounding communities in DuPage County, Illinois. The Bank has banking offices in Glen Ellyn, and Wheaton, Illinois.

Market Area

The Company is located in the village of Glen Ellyn in DuPage County in Illinois. Glen Ellyn is a suburb of Chicago and is located approximately 20 miles directly west of the city. The combined population of Wheaton and Glen Ellyn is approximately 84,000 while the county of DuPage currently has approximately 930,000 residents. The median household income within the Bank’s market area is above $88,000 which is higher than the area average. The economic base of both communities is comprised primarily of professionals and service related industry. There are no dominant employers in the area. However, the DuPage County offices as well as the College of DuPage, both of whom are nearby, are likely the largest. The local economy remains stable however, real estate values have been negatively impacted which is reflected in the local real estate market.

Regulatory Matters

As previously disclosed, the Bank entered into a Stipulation and Consent to the Issuance of a Consent Order with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation on January 21, 2011, whereby the Bank consented to the issuance of a Consent Order (the “Order”) by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, without admitting or denying that grounds exist for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to initiate an administrative proceeding against the Bank.

The Order requires the Bank to achieve Tier 1 capital at least equal to 8% of total assets and total capital at least equal to 12% of risk-weighted assets within 120 days. At December 31, 2012, these capital ratios were 7.73% and 12.62%, respectively.

The Order also required the Bank to take the following actions: ensure that the Bank has competent management in place in all executive officer positions; increase the participation of the Bank’s Board of Directors in the affairs of the Bank and in the approval of sound policies and objectives for the supervision the Bank’s activities; establish a compliance program to monitor the Bank’s compliance with the Order; increase its allowance for loan losses after application of the funds necessary to effect the charge-off of certain adversely classified loans identified in the related Report of Examination of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (the “ROE”); implement a program for the maintenance of an adequate allowance for loan and lease losses; adopt a written profit plan and a realistic, comprehensive budget for all categories of income and expense for calendar year 2011; charge off from its books and records any loan classified as “loss” in the ROE; adopt a written plan to reduce the Bank’s risk

4

Table of Contents

position in each asset in excess of $500,000 which has been classified as “substandard” or “doubtful” in the ROE; cease extending additional credit to any borrower who is already obligated in any manner to the Bank on any extension of credit that has been charged off the books of the Bank or classified as “loss” in the ROE without the prior non-objection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; not pay any dividends to the Company without prior regulatory approval; implement procedures for managing the Bank’s sensitivity to interest rate risk; provide the Company with a copy of the Order; and submit quarterly progress reports to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation regarding the Bank’s compliance with the Order.

We have been actively working to comply with the requirements of the Order, which will remain in effect until modified or terminated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. Among other things, our Board of Directors has continuously reviewed the qualifications of our management and has determined that management has the authority and ability to: (i) comply with the requirements of the Order; (ii) operate the Bank in a safe and sound manner; (iii) comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations; and (iv) restore all aspects of the Bank to a safe and sound condition, including capital adequacy, asset quality, management effectiveness, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to interest rate risk. The Board has also continued its participation in the affairs of the Bank, assuming full responsibility for the approval of sound policies and objectives and for the supervision of all the Bank’s activities. In connection with its continued oversight, the Board meets no less than monthly to, at a minimum, review and approve: (i) reports of income and expenses; (ii) new, overdue, renewal, insider, charged off, and recovered loans; (iii) investment activity; (iv) the adoption or modification of operating policies; (v) individual committee reports; (vi) audit reports; (vii) internal control reviews including management responses; (viii) reconciliation of general ledger accounts; and (ix) compliance with the Order.

We have also submitted a recapitalization plan to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in accordance with the terms of the Order.

On November 13, 2012, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Securities Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company issued to investors in a private placement offering an aggregate of 4,315,300 shares of common stock at $1.00 per share, 133,411 shares of voting Series C Convertible Noncumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock (the “Series C Preferred Stock”) at $100.00 per share, 56,708 shares of nonvoting Series D Convertible Noncumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock (the “Series D Preferred Stock”) at $100.00 per share and 6,728 shares of nonvoting Series E Convertible Noncumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock (the “Series E Preferred Stock”) at $100.00 per share (the “Investment”). The closing of the Investment occurred on December 21, 2012. The consummation of the Investment permitted us to repay a $1.3 million loan facility with an independent third party bank for $900,000 and to redeem, for $3.7 million, $6.9 million of our Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A (the “Series A Preferred Stock”) and Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series B (the “Series B Preferred Stock”) issued to the Treasury, as well as accrued interest and dividends thereon, in connection with the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) (such repurchase of Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock, the “TARP Repurchase”) while also contributing $18.5 million in proceeds to the Bank. As a result of this capital infusion, the Bank’s Tier 1 ratio was 7.73% and the Bank’s Risk-based capital ratio was 12.62% as of December 31, 2012.

In accordance with the Order, we also increased our allowance for loan and lease losses to $4,373,821 as of June 30, 2010 and to $6,604,000 as of June 30, 2011. As of December 31, 2012 our allowance for loan and lease losses was $3,032,000 and represented 1.54% of total loans and 38.9% of non-performing loans. Our Board continues to regularly approve and review our allowance for loan and lease losses in compliance with the terms of the Order.

Pursuant to the Order, we have also adopted and implemented a written profit plan and a comprehensive budget for all categories of income and expense, as well as a written plan to reduce our risk position in each asset in excess of $500,000 classified as “substandard” or “doubtful” in our report of examination preceding the Order. We have also charged off all loans classified as “loss” in the report of examination in accordance with the terms of the Order.

5

Table of Contents

Any material failure to comply with the provisions of the Order could result in enforcement actions by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. In addition, on January 14, 2011, the Company was notified by the FRB that the overall condition of the Company and the Bank was less than satisfactory. As a result, the Company must now obtain prior written approval from the FRB prior to, among other things, making any payments related to any outstanding trust preferred securities. The Company was also required to downstream all remaining funds to the Bank with the exception of the Company’s non-discretionary payments required to be made over the next twelve months. Additionally, the Company was required to comply with (i) the provisions of Section 32 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and Section 225.71 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with respect to the appointment of any new Company directors or the hiring or change in position of any Company senior executive officer and (ii) the restrictions on making “golden parachute” payments set forth in Section 18(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

The consummation of the Investment, as well as the other actions described above taken by our Board of Directors and management in response to the Order, have increased our regulatory capital levels and improved the overall condition of the Company and the Bank as required by the FRB letter. However, the FRB letter will remain in effect until modified or terminated by the FRB.

Closing of the Investment

Background of the Investment

Like many financial institutions across the United States, our operations have been impacted by recent economic conditions. During 2008 and 2009, the economic crisis that was initially confined to residential real estate and subprime lending evolved into a global economic crisis that negatively impacted not only liquidity and credit quality but also economic indicators such as the labor market, the capital markets and real estate values. As a result of this significant downturn, we have been adversely affected by declines in the residential and commercial real estate market in our market area.

Declining home prices, slowing economic conditions and increasing levels of delinquencies and foreclosures have negatively affected the credit performance of our residential real estate and commercial real estate loans, resulting in an increase in our level of nonperforming assets and loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing interest and charge-offs of problem loans. At the same time, competition among depository institutions in our markets for deposits and quality loans has increased significantly. These market conditions led to increased deficiencies in our loan portfolio and increased market volatility. Our allowance for loan losses was $3.0 million, representing 1.5% of total loans, as of December 31, 2012, compared to an allowance of $8.9 million, or 4.3% of total loans, as of December 31, 2011, $7.7 million, or 3.4% of total loans, at December 31, 2010 and $4.8 million, or 2.0% of total loans, at December 31, 2009. Our nonperforming assets had also increased to $23.1 million, or 7.1% of total assets, at December 31, 2011 from $3.0 million, or 1.0% of total assets, at December 31, 2008.

On July 8, 2010, as a result of the Company’s deteriorating asset quality and its negative impact on the Company’s and Bank’s capital levels, the Company evaluated its strategic alternatives and engaged an investment banking firm to provide placement agent advisory services with respect to a potential capital raise. Following its engagement, the Company’s placement agent began to introduce the Company to various accredited investors. During the fall of 2010 and the winter of 2011, the Company’s placement agent continued to arrange investor meetings and various potential investors engaged in due diligence investigations of the Company. Given the state of the banking industry, particularly in the Midwest, it was determined that a successful capital raise would require that the Company restructure its TARP Preferred Stock and, ultimately, a $1.3 million loan facility with an independent third party bank. Negotiations with the Department of Treasury commenced shortly thereafter.

On January 21, 2011, the Bank consented to the issuance of the Order, which required the Bank to achieve Tier 1 capital at least equal to 8% of total assets and total capital at least equal to 12% of risk-weighted assets within 120 days. At December 31, 2012, these capital ratios were 7.73% and 12.62%, respectively.

6

Table of Contents

In the spring of 2011, as a result of difficulties with the capital raising process and the increased capital requirements set forth in the Order, the Company consulted with its advisors and determined to search for an individual with significant executive experience in the banking industry who could augment the Company’s executive leadership team and assist with its capital raising efforts. As a result, Donald H. Wilson, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Stone Pillar Advisors, Ltd., a financial advisory firm, was contacted and met with members of the Company’s Board and executive management to determine if he would serve in these strategic capacities. Mr. Wilson has more than 25 years of experience in the banking industry, including 12 years in the bank examination and economic research divisions at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and 15 years in executive management positions at several large Midwest financial institutions and financial services companies. The Board believed that with Mr. Wilson as part of the Company’s future management team, the likelihood of a successful capital raise and enhancement of shareholder value would be maximized. In June 2011, Mr. Wilson agreed to assist the Company with its capital raising efforts and to serve as Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors following the completion of a private placement offering.

In July 2011, the Company and its placement agent commenced a new round of investor meetings and approached Clinton Group, Inc. (“Clinton Group”) about serving as a potential lead investor in a private placement offering. Clinton Group conducted a due diligence investigation of the Company in November 2011. In January 2012, the Company and Clinton Group executed an initial term sheet regarding the proposed private placement offering and the Company and its placement agent began to seek additional investors to participate in the transaction. Included in the initial term sheet for the private placement was the condition that the Company’s existing shareholders be permitted to participate in a rights offering at $1.00 per share (the same per share price of the common stock, and the common stock equivalent price of the preferred stock, sold to the investors in the Investment).

In March 2012, the Company received sufficient indications of interest from potential investors to commence a private placement offering that would raise at least $24.0 million in capital, subject to the Company’s ability to restructure the TARP Preferred Stock and its indebtedness to a third party bank at acceptable levels. Acceptable financial terms for these restructurings were initially negotiated in April and May. The Company’s legal counsel subsequently began to prepare and to negotiate a definitive securities purchase agreements with legal counsel for the Clinton Group. Following these negotiations, the Company’s legal counsel presented draft definitive agreements to certain institutional investors advised by the same investment advisor (collectively, the “Second Lead Investor”). During this time, the Company also negotiated an agreement with the Department of Treasury to restructure the terms of the TARP Preferred Stock. On June 15, 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors met to review the draft definitive agreements, and was presented with updated draft agreements on July 18, 2012. Negotiation of the draft agreements with the investors continued through September 2012. During this time, the draft Investment agreements were also reviewed by the Company’s federal regulator. In October 2012, the draft negotiated agreements were distributed to more than 60 other accredited investors including institutional investors, members of the Company’s Board of Directors and executive management team, Mr. Wilson, and several employees of Company’s placement agent and other accredited investors. On November 13, 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors met to review the updated negotiated Investment agreements and approved and authorized their execution. The separate securities purchase agreement negotiated with the Department of Treasury memorializing the restructured terms of the TARP Preferred Stock was also approved by the Board and entered into on November 13, 2012.

On November 13, 2012, the Company entered into the Securities Purchase Agreement, pursuant to which the Company issued to investors in a private placement offering an aggregate of 4,315,300 shares of common stock at $1.00 per share, 133,411 shares of Series C Preferred Stock at $100.00 per share, 56,708 shares of Series D Preferred Stock at $100.00 per share and 6,728 shares of Series E Preferred Stock at $100.00 per share in the Investment. The closing of the Investment occurred on December 21, 2012.

To complete the transactions contemplated by the Securities Purchase Agreement, on December 12, 2012, the Board of Directors obtained the consent of holders of a majority of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock to approve amendments to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to: (i) increase the number of shares of common stock the Company is authorized to issue, and (ii) to permit the shares of voting preferred stock issued in the Investment to vote together with the shares of common stock on an as converted basis.

7

Table of Contents

Impact of the Investment

In accordance with the terms of the Securities Purchase Agreement, the Company used a portion of the proceeds raised in the Investment to repay a $1.3 million loan facility with an independent third party bank for $900,000 and, pursuant to an agreement between the Treasury and the Company, the Company redeemed, for $3.7 million, the $6.9 million in Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock issued to the Treasury, as well as accrued interest and dividends thereon, in connection with the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program. Following the TARP Repurchase, the Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock are no longer outstanding, and accordingly the Company no longer expects to be subject to the restrictions imposed upon us by the terms of our Series A Preferred Stock, Series B Preferred Stock, or certain regulatory provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that are imposed on TARP recipients. Additionally, at December 31, 2012, the Bank’s Tier 1 capital to total assets ratio increased to 7.73% and its ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets increased to 12.62%.

As a result of the Investment, the investors that participated in the Investment collectively own approximately 73.0% of the Company’s outstanding voting securities. Pursuant to the terms of the Securities Purchase Agreement, we agreed to conduct a rights offering to holders of our common stock as of December 20, 2012 (the “Pre-Investment Shareholders”) to provide the Pre-Investment Shareholders with the opportunity to purchase up to 3.0 million shares of our common at a purchase price per share equal to the conversion price of the Series C Preferred Stock (currently $1.00 which is the same price per share of common stock offered to investors in the Investment). We may also enter into investor agreements with certain institutional investors and high net worth individuals, pursuant to which such investors will agree to purchase, in a concurrent private offering to be closed after conclusion of the rights offering, either a minimum number of common shares, or a certain number of the remaining common shares that are not purchased through the exercise of rights, or both. The Securities Purchase Agreement provides that, to the extent the rights offering dilutes their voting or economic ownership interests, four of the Selling Shareholders will have the option of purchasing additional shares of Series C Preferred Stock, Series D Preferred Stock or Series E Preferred Stock following the rights offering to permit them to maintain both the voting and economic ownership interest in the Company that those Selling Shareholders had immediately after the closing of the Investment. Assuming that 3.0 million shares of common stock are sold in the rights offering and concurrent private offering to be closed after the conclusion of the rights offering, these four Selling Shareholders would have the ability to purchase up to a maximum of approximately $2.4 million worth of additional shares of Series C Preferred Stock, Series D Preferred Stock or Series E Preferred Stock following the rights offering an concurrent private offering to be closed after the conclusion of the rights offering. On March 28, 2013, the Company sold 483,121 shares of common stock at $1.00 per share in the rights offering.

Effective as of the closing of the Investment, Donald H. Wilson, Christopher M. Hurst, Daniel Strauss and Philip Timyan were appointed as advisory directors of the Company and the Bank pending the Company’s and the Bank’s receipt of all regulatory approvals required to appoint such individuals as directors of the Company and the Bank. Upon receipt of such regulatory approvals, in accordance with the terms of the Securities Purchase Agreement, Mr. Wilson will become the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company and the Bank and Mr. Hurst, Mr. Strauss and Mr. Timyan will become full voting members of the Board of Directors of the Company and the Bank. The Company received the necessary regulatory approvals needed to appoint Mr. Strauss as a director on March 25, 2013, and Mr. Strauss was appointed as a full voting member of the Board of Directors effective as of that date. On January 8, 2013, Donald H. Fischer retired as Chairman of the Board of Directors. In addition, on February 21, 2013, William F. Behrmann, H. David Clayton, Joseph S. Morrissey and Robert F. Haeger each retired as directors of the Company and the Bank so that the size of the Company’s and the Bank’s Board of Directors can be fixed at nine members in accordance with the terms of the Securities Purchase Agreement. As further described above, the Board has continuously reviewed the Bank’s operations and the qualifications of management. No other changes to the Company’s or the Bank’s management or operations are currently contemplated.

Competition

Active competition exists in all principal areas where the Bank operates, not only with other commercial banks, finance companies and mortgage bankers, but also with savings and loan associations, credit unions, and other financial service companies serving the Company’s market area. The principal methods of competition between the Company and its competitors are price and service. Price competition, primarily in the form of interest rate competition, is a standard practice within the Company’s market place as well as the financial services industry. Service, expansive banking hours, and product quality are also significant factors in competing and allow for differentiation from competitors.

8

Table of Contents

Deposits in the Bank are well balanced, with a large customer base and no dominant segment of accounts. The Bank’s loan portfolio is also characterized by a large customer base, including loans to commercial, not-for-profit and consumer customers, with no dominant relationships. There is no readily available source of information that delineates the market for financial services offered by non-bank competitors in the Company’s market.

Lending Activities

General. The Bank’s loan portfolio is comprised primarily of real-estate mortgage loans, which include loans secured by residential, multi-family and nonresidential properties. The Bank originates loans on real estate generally located in the Bank’s primary lending area in central DuPage County, Illinois. In addition to portfolio mortgages, the Bank routinely originates and sells residential mortgage loans and servicing rights for other investors in the secondary market. The Bank services all of its portfolio loans and the Bank has not purchased mortgage servicing rights.

Loans represent the principal source of revenue for the Company. Risk is controlled through loan portfolio diversification and the avoidance of credit concentrations. Loans are made primarily within the Company’s geographic market area. The loan portfolio is distributed among general business loans, commercial real estate, residential real estate, and consumer installment loans. The Company has no foreign loans, no highly leveraged transactions, and no syndicated purchase participations.

The Company’s loan portfolio by major category as of December 31 for each of the past five years is shown below.

9

Table of Contents

Loan Maturities and Sensitivities of Loans to Changes in Interest Rates

The following table shows the amount of total loans outstanding as of December 31, 2012 which, based on remaining scheduled repayments of principal, are due in the periods indicated.

Below is a schedule of loan amounts maturing or re-pricing, classified according to sensitivity to changes in interest rates, as of December 31, 2012.

Residential – One-to-Four Family. In 1999 the Bank established a dedicated secondary mortgage department to assist local residents in obtaining mortgages with reasonable terms, conditions, and rates. The Bank offers various fixed and adjustable rate one-to-four family residential loan products the majority of which are sold, along with servicing rights, to a variety of investors in the secondary market. Interest rates are essentially dictated by the Bank’s investors and origination fees on secondary mortgage loans are priced to provide a reasonable profit margin and are dictated to a degree by regional competition.

The Bank, for secondary market residential loans, generally makes one-to-four family residential mortgage loans in amounts not to exceed 80% of the appraised value or sale price, whichever is less, of the property securing the loan, or up to 95% if the amount in excess of 80% of the appraised value is secured by private mortgage insurance. Loans for amounts between 80% and 85% of appraised value or sale price may also be granted with an increased interest rate. The Bank usually receives a service release fee of 1.0% to 1.5 % on one-to-four family residential mortgage loans.

In addition to loans originated for the secondary market, the Bank has portfolio loans secured by one-to-four family residential real estate that totaled approximately $20.9 million, or 10.6% of the Bank’s total loan portfolio, as of December 31, 2012.

Commercial Real Estate Lending. Loans secured by commercial real estate totaled approximately $96.6 million, or 49.0% of the Bank’s total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2012. Commercial real estate loans are generally originated in amounts up to 80% of the appraised value of the property. Such appraised value is generally determined by independent appraisers previously approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank.

The Bank’s commercial real estate loans are permanent portfolio loans secured by improved property such as office buildings, retail stores, warehouses, churches, and other non-residential buildings. Of the commercial real estate loans outstanding at December 31, 2012, most are secured by properties located within 10 miles of the Bank’s offices in Wheaton and Glen Ellyn and were made to local customers of the Bank. In addition, borrowers generally must personally guarantee loans secured by commercial real estate. Commercial real estate loans generally have a 10 to 25 year amortization period and are made at rates based upon competitive local market rates, specific loan risk, and structure usage and type. Such loans generally have a five-year maturity.

Commercial real estate loans are both adjustable and fixed, with fixed rates generally limited to no more than five years. Loans secured by commercial real estate properties are generally larger and involve a greater degree of risk than residential mortgage loans. Because payments on loans secured by commercial real estate properties are often dependent on successful operation or management of the properties, repayment of such loans may be subject to a greater extent to adverse conditions in the real estate market or the economy. The Bank seeks to minimize these risks by lending to established customers and generally restricting such loans to its primary market area.

10

Table of Contents

Construction Lending. The Bank is actively engaged in construction lending. Such activity is generally limited to individual new residential home construction, residential home additions, and new commercial buildings. Currently, the majority of the Bank’s new construction activity is in new commercial construction.

At December 31, 2012, the Bank had $3.6 million in construction loans outstanding, which represented 1.8% of the Bank’s loan portfolio at such date. The Bank presently charges both fixed and variable interest rates on construction and end loans. Loans, with proper credit, may be made for up to 80% of the anticipated value of the property upon completion. Funds are usually disbursed based upon percentage of completion generally verified by an on-site inspection by Bank personnel and generally through a local title company construction escrow account.

Consumer Lending. As a community-oriented lender, the Bank offers consumer loans for any worthwhile purpose. Although the Bank offers signature unsecured loans, consumer loans are generally secured by automobiles, boats, mobile homes, stocks, bonds, and other personal property. Consumer loans totaled $1.3 million, or 0.7% of the Bank’s total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2012. Consumer loans generally have higher yields than residential mortgage loans since they involve a higher credit risk and smaller volumes with which to cover basic costs.

Home Equity Lending. Home equity loans are generally made not to exceed 80% of the first and second combined mortgage loan to value. These loans generally made for ten-year terms and are generally revolving credit lines with minimum payment structures of interest only. The interest rate on these lines of credit adjusts at a rate based on the prime rate of interest. Additionally, the Bank offers five-year amortizing fixed rate home equity balloon loans for those who desire to limit interest rate risk. At December 31, 2012, the outstanding home equity loan balance was $50.4 million, or 25.5% of the Bank’s total loan portfolio.

Commercial Lending. The Bank actively engages in general commercial lending within its market area. These loans are primarily revolving working capital lines, inventory loans, and equipment loans. The commercial loans are generally based on serving the needs of small businesses in the Bank’s market area while limiting the Bank’s business risks to reasonable lending standards. Commercial loans are made with both fixed and adjustable rates and are generally secured by equipment, accounts receivable, inventory, and other assets of the business. Personal guarantees generally support these credit facilities. The Bank also provides commercial and standby letters of credit to assist small businesses in their financing of special purchasing or bonding needs. Standby letters of credit outstanding at December 31, 2012 totaled $228,000. Commercial loans totaled approximately $24.4 million, or 12.3% of the Bank’s total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2012.

Loan Concentration

At December 31, 2012, the Company did not have any concentration of loans exceeding 10% of total loans which are otherwise not disclosed. Loan concentrations are considered to exist when there are amounts loaned to a multiple number of borrowers engaged in similar activities which would cause them to be similarly impacted by economic or other conditions.

Provision for Loan Losses

The provision for loan losses is determined by management through a quarterly evaluation of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. This evaluation takes various factors into consideration. The provision is based on management’s judgment of the amount necessary to maintain the allowance for loan losses at an adequate level for probable incurred credit losses. In determining the provision for loan losses, management considers the Company’s consistent loan growth and the amount of net charge-offs each year. Other factors, such as changes in the loan portfolio mix, delinquency trends, current economic conditions and trends, reviews of larger loans and known problem credits and the results of independent loan review and regulatory examinations are also considered by management in assessing the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses.

11

Table of Contents

The allowance for loan losses is particularly subject to change as it is a valuation allowance for probable incurred credit losses, increased by the provision for loan losses and decreased by charge-offs less recoveries. Management estimates the allowance balance required using past loan loss experience, the nature and volume of the portfolio, information about specific borrower situations and estimated collateral values, economic conditions, and other environmental factors. Allocations of the allowance may be made for specific loans, but the entire allowance is available for any loan that, in management’s judgment, should be charged-off. Loan losses are charged against the allowance when management believes the uncollectibility of a loan balance is confirmed.

A loan is impaired when full payment under the loan terms is not expected. Commercial and commercial real estate loans are individually evaluated for impairment. If a loan is impaired, a portion of the allowance is allocated so that the loan is reported, net, at the present value of estimated future cash flows using the loan’s existing rate or at the fair value of collateral if repayment is expected solely from the collateral. Large groups of smaller balance homogeneous loans, such as consumer and residential real estate loans, may be collectively evaluated for impairment.

Assets acquired through or instead of loan foreclosure such as other real estate are initially recorded at fair value less costs to sell when acquired, establishing a new cost basis. If fair value declines, a valuation allowance is recorded through expense. Costs after acquisition are expensed.

The allowance for loan losses was $3.0 million, representing 1.5% of total loans, as of December 31, 2012, compared to an allowance of $8.9 million, or 4.3% of total loans, at December 31, 2011 and $7.7 million, or 3.4% of total loans, at December 31, 2010. The decrease in the provision was the result of management’s quarterly analysis of the allowance for loan losses. The allowance decreased primarily due to specific reserves of $6.0 million established in prior periods on loans which were charged off during the year ended December 31, 2012. In addition, the general portion of the allowance for loan losses totaled $2.4 million, or 1.25% of totals loans evaluated, as of December 31, 2012 compared to $2.6 million, 1.38% for the prior year period. Total nonperforming assets decreased $6.3 million to $16.8 million at December 31, 2012 from $23.1 million at December 31, 2011 and total nonperforming loans as a percentage of total loans totaled 3.94% at December 31, 2012 compared to 6.68% at December 31, 2011. Management believes that, based on information available at December 31, 2012, the Bank’s allowance for loan losses was adequate to cover probable incurred losses inherent in its loan portfolio at that time. However, no assurances can be given that the Bank’s level of allowance for loan losses will be sufficient to cover loan losses incurred by the Bank or that future adjustments to the allowance for loan losses will not be necessary if economic or other conditions differ substantially from the economic and other conditions used by management to determine the current level of the allowance. In addition, the FDIC and IDFPR, as an integral part of their examination processes, periodically review the Bank’s allowance for loan losses and may require the Bank to make additional provisions for estimated loan losses based upon judgments different from those of management. Any material increase in the allowance for loan losses may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and our ability to comply with the Order.

12

Table of Contents

The following table details the component changes in the Company’s allowance for loan losses for each of the past five years:

Allocation of the Allowance for Loan Losses

Presented below is an analysis of the composition of the allowance for loan losses and percent of loans in each category to total loans as of the dates indicated:

13

Table of Contents

One measurement used by management in assessing the risk inherent in the loan portfolio is the level of nonperforming loans. Nonperforming loans are comprised of non-accrual loans and other loans 90 days or more past due. Nonperforming loans and other assets were as follows at the dates indicated.

At December 31, 2012, nonperforming assets consisted of $7.4 million of nonaccrual loans and other real estate owned of $9.0 million. The largest component of nonperforming loans was commercial real estate loans, which represented $3.1 million, or 40.5%, of total nonperforming loans at December 31, 2012. At December 31, 2012, residential mortgage loans totaled $2.6 million, or 33.5%, of total nonperforming loans and home equity lines of credit totaled $1.7 million, or 21.9%, of total nonperforming loans. The ratio of the allowance for loan losses to nonperforming loans was 39.0% as of December 31, 2012 as compared to 64.2% as of December 31, 2011.

The Bank would have recorded interest income of $432,000 for the year ended December 31, 2012 had non-accrual loans and troubled debt restructurings been current in accordance with their original terms.

Other real estate owned (“OREO”) decreased $253,000 to $9.0 million at December 31, 2012 from $9.3 million at December 31, 2011. At December 31, 2012, OREO consisted of 21 properties that were acquired through foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure. Included in the total are 13 residential properties, six commercial real estate properties and two parcels of land.

The provision for loan losses for the year ended December 31, 2012 totaled $1.5 million, which represents a $4.7 million decrease from the provision for loan losses for the year ended December 31, 2011. This decrease in the provision is the result of management’s quarterly analysis of the allowance for loan losses. Levels of nonperforming loans are considered manageable at year end 2012. Total nonperforming loans as a percentage of total loans totaled 3.94% at December 31, 2012 compared to 6.68% at December 31, 2011. Based on its analysis of the loan portfolio risks discussed above, including historical loss experience and levels of nonperforming loans, management believes that the allowance for loan losses is adequate at December 31, 2012 to cover any probable incurred.

Net charge-offs for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 totaled $7.3 million and $5.0 million, respectively. The charge-offs during 2012 and 2011 were primarily the result of recent recessionary economic conditions and the weakened economic environment’s impact upon smaller businesses within the Company’s primary market area. In 2005 management formed a credit quality committee that was charged with monitoring problem credits and directing their resolution. The committee has been successful in identifying existing problem credits and meets on a monthly basis to monitor troubled credits. The Company’s management believes that as of December 31, 2012 any past problems which resulted from weaknesses in processes have been identified and addressed.

14

Table of Contents

Investment Securities

The Board of Directors sets the investment policy and procedures of the Bank. This policy generally provides that investment decisions will be made based on the safety of the investment, liquidity requirements of the Bank and, to a lesser extent, potential return on the investments. In pursuing these objectives, the Bank considers the ability of an investment to provide earnings consistent with factors of quality, maturity, marketability and risk diversification. The Bank does not participate in hedging programs or other activities involving the use of derivative financial instruments. Similarly, the Bank does not invest in mortgage-related securities which are deemed to be “high risk,” or purchase bonds which are not rated investment grade.

The Company’s securities portfolio can be divided into five categories, as shown below. The securities portfolio is managed to provide liquidity and earnings in various interest rate cycles. The carrying value of these securities at December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 is detailed below.

The following table shows the weighted average yield for each security group by term to final maturity as of December 31, 2012.

At December 31, 2012, the Company did not own any security of any one issuer where the aggregate carrying value of such securities exceeded 10 percent of the Company’s stockholders’ equity, except for certain debt securities of the U.S. Government agencies and corporations.

15

Table of Contents

Deposits

The Bank offers a variety of deposit accounts with a range of interest rates and terms. The Bank’s deposit accounts consist of regular savings accounts, retail checking/NOW accounts, commercial checking accounts, money market accounts and certificate of deposit accounts. The Bank offers certificate of deposit accounts with balances in excess of $100,000 at preferential rates (jumbo certificates) and also offers Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) and other qualified plan accounts.

At December 31, 2012, the Bank’s deposits totaled $317.2 million, or 95.3% of interest-bearing liabilities. This represents a decrease from December 31, 2011 when the Bank’s deposits of $301.1 million represented 93.6% of interest-bearing liabilities. For the year ended December 31, 2012, the average balance of core deposits (savings, NOW, money market and non-interest bearing accounts) totaled $215.3 million, or 69.6% of total average deposits, compared to $196.9 million, or 66.5% of total average deposits, for the year ended December 31, 2011. Although the Bank has a significant portion of its deposits in core deposits, management monitors activity on the Bank’s core deposits and, based on historical experience and the Bank’s current pricing strategy, believes that the Bank will continue to retain a large portion of such accounts.

The flow of deposits is influenced significantly by general economic conditions, changes in money market rates, prevailing interest rates and local competition. The Bank’s deposits are obtained predominantly from the areas in which its facilities are located. The Bank relies primarily on customer service and long-standing relationships with customers to attract and retain these deposits; however, market interest rates and rates offered by competing financial institutions affect the Bank’s ability to attract and retain deposits. The Bank uses traditional means of advertising its deposit products and generally does not solicit deposits from outside its market area. While certificates of deposit in excess of $100,000 are accepted by the Bank, and may be subject to preferential rates, the Bank does not actively solicit such deposits as such deposits are more difficult to retain than core deposits.

The following table sets forth the distribution of the Bank’s deposit accounts for the periods indicated and the weighted average rates on each category presented.

The following table shows the maturity schedule for the Company’s time deposits of $100,000 or more as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.

16

Table of Contents

Personnel

As of December 31, 2012, the Company and its subsidiaries had a total of 85 full-time employees and 17 part-time employees. This compares to 75 full-time and 17 part-time employees as of December 31, 2011. None of these employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We believe our relationship with our employees is good.

REGULATION AND SUPERVISION

The Company and the Bank are subject to an extensive system of banking laws and regulations that are intended primarily for the protection of the customers and depositors of the Company’s bank subsidiary rather than holders of the Company’s securities. These laws and regulations govern such areas as permissible activities, reserves, loans and investments, and rates of interest that can be charged on loans.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which was enacted on July 21, 2010, restructured the regulation of depository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act contains several provisions that will continue to have a direct impact on the operations of the Company and the Bank. The legislation contains changes to the laws governing, among other things, FDIC assessments, mortgage originations, holding company capital requirements and risk retention requirements for securitized loans. The Dodd-Frank Act also provided for the creation of a new agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve Board, to take over the implementation of federal consumer financial protection and fair lending laws from the depository institution regulators. However, institutions of $10 billion or fewer in assets continue to be examined for compliance with such laws and regulations by, and subject to the primary enforcement authority of, the prudential regulator rather than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Much of the legislation requires implementation through regulations and, accordingly, a complete assessment of its impact on the Company and the Bank are not yet possible since such regulations have not yet been issued. However, the enactment of the legislation is likely to increase regulatory burdens and costs for us and have a material impact on our operations.

Certain of the regulatory requirements that are or will be applicable to the Company and the Bank are described below. This description of statutes and regulations is not intended to be a complete explanation of such statutes and regulations and their effects on the Company and the Bank and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the actual statutes and regulations.

Regulation of the Company

The Company is regulated as a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended by the 1999 financial modernization legislation known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “BHC Act”). As such, it is subject to the supervision and enforcement authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”). In general, the BHC Act limits the business of bank holding companies to banking, managing or controlling banks, performing certain servicing activities for subsidiaries, and activities that the Federal Reserve Board has determined, by order of regulation in effect prior to the enactment of the BHC Act, to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. As a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amendments to the BHC Act, a bank holding company that meets certain requirements and opts to become a “financial holding company” may engage in any activity, or acquire and retain the shares of any company engaged in any activity, that is either (1) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity (as determined by the Federal Reserve Board in consultation with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury) or (2) 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 Board). Activities that are financial in nature include securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting and making merchant banking investments in commercial and financial companies.

17

Table of Contents

Further, under the BHC Act, the Company is required to file annual reports and such additional information as the Federal Reserve Board may require and is subject to examination by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board has jurisdiction to regulate virtually all aspects of the Company’s business. See “The Company’s Banking Subsidiary” below for discussion of regulators of the Bank.

The BHC Act requires every bank holding company to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board before merging with or consolidating into another bank holding company, acquiring substantially all the assets of any bank or acquiring directly or indirectly any ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank.

The BHC Act also prohibits a bank holding company, with certain exceptions, from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company which is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks, or furnishing services to banks and their subsidiaries. The Company, however, may engage in certain businesses determined by the Federal Reserve Board to be so closely related to banking or managing and controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. See “Financial Modernization Legislation” below for a discussion of expanded activities permissible to bank holding companies that become financial holding companies.

Banking regulations restrict the amount of dividends that a bank may pay to its stockholders. Thus, the Company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders will be limited by statutory and regulatory restrictions. Illinois’ banking laws restrict the payment of cash dividends by a state bank by providing, subject to certain exceptions, that dividends may be paid only out of net profits then on hand after deducting its losses and bad debts. Federal law generally prohibits a bank from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent company if the depository institution would thereafter be undercapitalized. The Federal Reserve Board has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends by bank holding companies which provides that dividends should only be paid out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the bank holding company appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. The Federal Reserve Board’s policies also provide that a bank holding company should serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks by standing ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to those banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and by maintaining the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks where necessary. These policies could also impact the Company’s ability to pay dividends

The FDIC may prevent an insured bank from paying dividends if the Bank is in default of payment of any assessment due to the FDIC. In addition, the FDIC may prohibit the payment of dividends by a bank, if such payment is determined, by reason of the financial conditions of the bank, to be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.

For additional information on the lender covenants that potentially restrict the declaration of dividends, see the discussion under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Dividends”.

The Regulation of the Bank

The Bank is regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), as its primary federal regulator. The Bank is subject to the provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and examination by the FDIC. As an Illinois state–chartered bank, the Bank is also subject to examination by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. The examinations by the various regulatory authorities are designed for the protection of bank depositors and the solvency of the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund.

The federal and state laws and regulations generally applicable to the Bank regulate, among other things, the scope of business, its investments, reserves against deposits, the nature and amount of and collateral for loans, and the location of banking offices and types of activities which may be performed at such offices. Both the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and the FDIC have enforcement authority over the Bank, including the authority to appoint a conservator or receiver under certain circumstances.

18

Table of Contents

Subsidiaries of a bank holding company are subject to certain restrictions under the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act on loans and extensions of credit to the bank holding company or to its other subsidiaries, investments in the stock or other securities of the bank holding company or its other subsidiaries, or advances to any borrower collateralized by such stock or other securities.

The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s previous risk-based assessment system, insured institutions were assigned to one of four risk categories based on supervisory evaluations, regulatory capital levels and certain other factors, with less risky institutions paying lower assessments. An institution’s assessment rate depended upon the category to which it is assigned and, effective April 1, 2009, assessment rates range from seven to 77.5 basis points. On February 7, 2011, the FDIC approved a final rule that implemented changes to the deposit insurance assessment system mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rule, which became effective on April 1, 2011, revised the base on which deposit insurance assessments are charged from one that is based on domestic deposits to one that is based on average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. Under the final rule, insured depository institutions are required to report their average consolidated total assets on a daily basis, using the regulatory accounting methodology established for reporting total assets. For purposes of the final rule, tangible equity is defined as Tier 1 capital.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation imposed on all insured institutions a special emergency assessment of five basis points of total assets minus Tier 1 capital (as of June 30, 2009), capped at ten basis points of an institution’s deposit assessment base, in order to cover losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund. That special assessment was collected on September 30, 2009. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provided for similar assessments during the final two quarters of 2009, if deemed necessary.

In lieu of further special assessments, however, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation required insured institutions to prepay estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 through the fourth quarter of 2012. The estimated assessments, which included an assumed annual assessment base increase of 5%, were recorded as a prepaid expense asset as of December 30, 2009. As of December 31, 2009, and each quarter thereafter, a charge to earnings is recorded for each regular assessment with an offsetting credit to the prepaid asset.

Due to the recent difficult economic conditions, deposit insurance per account owner has been raised to $250,000. That coverage was made permanent by the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation adopted an optional Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program by which, for a fee, noninterest-bearing transaction accounts would receive unlimited insurance coverage until June 30, 2010, subsequently extended to December 31, 2010, and certain senior unsecured debt issued by institutions and their holding companies between October 13, 2008 and October 31, 2009 would be guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation through June 30, 2012, or in some cases, December 31, 2012. The Bank participates in the unlimited noninterest-bearing transaction account coverage and the Bank and the Company opted not to participate in the unsecured debt guarantee program. The Dodd-Frank Act extended the unlimited coverage for certain noninterest-bearing transaction accounts from January 1, 2011 until December 31, 2012 without the opportunity for opt out.

In addition to the assessment for deposit insurance, institutions are required to make payments on bonds issued in the late 1980s by the Financing Corporation to recapitalize a predecessor deposit insurance fund. That payment is established quarterly and during the calendar year ending December 31, 2010 averaged 1.05 basis points of assessable deposits.

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum target Deposit Insurance Fund ratio from 1.15% of estimated insured deposits to 1.35% of estimated insured deposits. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation must seek to achieve the 1.35% ratio by September 30, 2020. Insured institutions with assets of $10 billion or more are supposed to fund the increase. The Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the 1.5% maximum fund ratio, instead leaving it to the discretion of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has recently exercised that discretion by establishing a long range fund ratio of 2%.

19

Table of Contents

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has authority to increase insurance assessments. A significant increase in insurance premiums would likely have an adverse effect on the operating expenses and results of operations of the Bank. Management cannot predict what insurance assessment rates will be in the future.

Insurance of deposits may be terminated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or regulatory condition imposed in writing. The management of the Bank does not know of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of deposit insurance.

Capital Requirements

The Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC have established guidelines for risk-based capital of bank holding companies and banks. These guidelines establish a risk adjusted ratio relating total capital to risk-weighted assets and off-balance-sheet exposures. These capital guidelines primarily define the components of capital, categorize assets into different risk classes, and include certain off-balance-sheet items in the calculation of capital requirements. Generally, Tier 1 capital consists of shareholders’ equity less intangible assets and unrealized gain or loss on securities available for sale, and Tier 2 capital consists of Tier 1 capital plus qualifying loan loss reserves. The agencies also apply leverage requirements which establish a required ratio of Tier 1 capital to total adjusted assets. On January 21, 2011, the Bank entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. The Order requires the Bank to achieve Tier 1 capital at least equal to 8.0% of total assets and total capital at least equal to 12.0% of risk-weighted assets within 120 days of the order. As of December 31, 2012 these ratios totaled 7.7% and 12.6%, respectively.

The FDIC Improvement Act of 1991 established a system of prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized depository institutions. Under this system, federal banking regulators have established five capital categories, well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. The federal banking agencies have also specified by regulation the relevant capital levels for each of the categories. Each depository institution is placed within one of these categories and is subject to differential regulation corresponding to the capital category within which it falls.

Federal banking regulators are required to take specified mandatory supervisory actions and are authorized to take other discretionary actions with respect to institutions in the three undercapitalized categories. The severity of the action depends upon the capital category in which the institution is placed. Generally, subject to a narrow exception, the banking regulator must appoint a receiver or conservator for an institution that is critically undercapitalized. An institution in any of the undercapitalized categories is required to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan to its appropriate federal banking agency and such capital plan must be guaranteed by any parent holding company in an amount of the lesser of 5% of the institution’s assets or the amount of the capital deficiency. An undercapitalized institution is also generally prohibited from paying any dividends, increasing its average total assets, making acquisitions, establishing any branches or engaging in any new line of business, except under an accepted capital restoration plan or with FDIC approval.

Failure to meet capital guidelines could subject a bank or a bank holding company to a variety of enforcement remedies, including issuance of a capital directive, the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC, a prohibition on accepting brokered deposits, and other restrictions on its business. In addition, such a bank would generally not receive regulatory approval of any application that requires the consideration of capital adequacy, such as a branch or merger application, unless the bank could demonstrate a reasonable plan to meet the capital requirement within a reasonable period of time.

The current risk-based capital guidelines that apply to the Bank are based on the 1988 capital accord of the International Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“Basel Committee”), a committee of central banks and bank supervisors, as implemented by the Federal Reserve Board. In 2004, the Basel Committee published a new capital accord, which is referred to as “Basel II,” to replace Basel I. Basel II provides two approaches for setting capital standards for credit risk: an internal ratings-based approach tailored to individual institutions’ circumstances and a standardized approach that bases risk weightings on external credit assessments to a much

20

Table of Contents

greater extent than permitted in existing risk-based capital guidelines, which became effective in 2008 for large international banks (total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated foreign exposure of $10 billion or more). Other U.S. banking organizations can elect to adopt the requirements of this rule (if they meet applicable qualification requirements), but they are not required to apply them. Basel II emphasizes internal assessment of credit, market and operational risk, as well as supervisory assessment and market discipline in determining minimum capital requirements.

In December 2010 and January 2011, the Basel Committee published the final texts of reforms on capital and liquidity, which is referred to as “Basel III.” Although Basel III is intended to be implemented by participating countries for large, internationally active banks, its provisions are likely to be considered by United States banking regulators in developing new regulations applicable to other banks in the United States. Basel III will require bank holding companies and their bank subsidiaries to maintain substantially more capital, with a greater emphasis on common equity. The implementation of the Basel III final framework was originally scheduled to commence on January 1, 2013 but has been delayed by federal regulators. Upon implementation, banking institutions will be required to meet the following minimum capital ratios: (i) 3.5% Common Equity Tier 1 (generally consisting of common shares and retained earnings) to risk-weighted assets; (ii) 4.5% Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets; and (iii) 8.0% Total capital to risk-weighted assets.

When fully phased-in on January 1, 2019, and if implemented by the U.S. banking agencies, Basel III will require banks to maintain:

Basel III also includes the following significant provisions:

Since the Basel III framework is not self-executing, the rules and standards promulgated under Basel III require that the U.S. federal banking regulators adopt them prior to becoming effective in the U.S. Although U.S. federal banking regulators have expressed support for Basel III, the timing and scope of its implementation, as well as any potential modifications or adjustments that may result during the implementation process, are not yet known.

21

Table of Contents

Monetary Policy and Economic Conditions

The earnings of commercial banks and bank holding companies are affected not only by general economic conditions, but also by the policies of various governmental regulatory authorities. In particular, the Federal Reserve Board influences conditions in the money and capital markets, which affect interest rates and growth in bank credit and deposits. Federal Reserve Board monetary policies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and this is expected to continue in the future. The general effect, if any, of such policies on future business and earnings of the Company and its Bank cannot be predicted.

Consumer Protection Laws

The Company’s business includes making a variety of types of loans to individuals. In making these loans, we are subject to State usury and regulatory laws and to various federal statutes, including the privacy of consumer information provisions of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, the Equal Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, which prohibit discrimination, specify disclosures to be made to borrowers regarding credit and settlement costs, and regulate the mortgage servicing activities of the Company, including the maintenance and operation of escrow accounts and the transfer of mortgage loan servicing. In receiving deposits, the Company is subject to extensive regulation under state and federal law and regulations, including the Truth in Savings Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the USA Patriot Act of 2001, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Violation of these laws could result in the imposition of significant damages and fines upon the Company and its directors and officers.

Federal Taxation

The Company files a consolidated federal income tax return. To the extent a member incurs a net loss that is utilized to reduce the consolidated federal tax liability, that member will be reimbursed for the tax benefit utilized from the member incurring federal tax liabilities.

Amounts provided for income tax expense are based upon income reported for financial statement purposes and do not necessarily represent amounts currently payable to federal and state tax authorities. Deferred income taxes, which principally arise from the temporary difference related to the recognition of certain income and expense items for financial reporting purposes and the period in which they affect federal and state tax income, are included in the amounts provided for income taxes.

State Taxation

The Bank is required to file Illinois income tax returns and pay tax at an effective tax rate of 7.30% of Illinois taxable income. For these purposes, Illinois taxable income generally means federal taxable income subject to certain modifications the primary one of which is the exclusion of interest income on United States obligations.

As a Delaware holding company not earning income in Delaware, the Company is exempt from Delaware Corporate income tax but is required to file an annual report with and pay an annual franchise tax to the State of Delaware.

22

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in the Company’s common stock involves a number of risks. We urge you to read all of the information contained in this annual report on Form 10-K. In addition, we urge you to consider carefully the following factors before you invest in shares of the registrant’s common stock. You should carefully consider the following risks in light of our current operating environment and regulatory status. The occurrence of any of the events described below could materially adversely affect our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to continue as a going concern.

A return to recessionary conditions could result in increases in our level of non-performing loans and/or reduce demand for our products and services, which would lead to lower revenue, higher loan losses and lower earnings.

Following a national home price peak in mid-2006, falling home prices and sharply reduced sales volumes, along with the collapse of the United States’ subprime mortgage industry in early 2007, significantly contributed to a recession that officially lasted until June 2009, although the effects continued thereafter. Dramatic declines in real estate values and high levels of foreclosures resulted in significant asset write-downs by financial institutions, which have caused many financial institutions to seek additional capital, to merge with other institutions and, in some cases, to fail. Concerns over the United States’ credit rating (which was recently downgraded by Standard & Poor’s), the European sovereign debt crisis, and continued high unemployment in the United States, among other economic indicators, have contributed to increased volatility in the capital markets and diminished expectations for the economy.

A return of recessionary conditions and/or continued negative developments in the domestic and international credit markets may significantly affect the markets in which we do business, the value of our loans and investments, and our ongoing operations, costs and profitability. Further declines in real estate values and sales volumes and continued high unemployment levels may result in higher than expected loan delinquencies, increases in our levels of nonperforming and classified assets and a decline in demand for our products and services. These negative events may cause us to incur losses and may adversely affect our capital, liquidity, and financial condition.

Our provision for loan losses has increased substantially during recent years and we may be required to make further additions to our allowance for loan losses and to charge-off additional loans in the future, especially due to our level of nonperforming assets. Further, our allowance for loan losses may prove to be insufficient to absorb losses in our loan portfolio.

Our allowance for loan losses was $3.0 million, representing 1.5% of total loans, as of December 31, 2012, compared to an allowance of $8.9 million, or 4.3% of total loans, as of December 31, 2011, $7.7 million, or 3.4% of total loans, at December 31, 2010 and $4.8 million, or 2.0% of total loans, at December 31, 2009. Our nonperforming assets have also increased to $23.1 million, or 7.1% of total assets, at December 31, 2011 from $3.0 million, or 1.0% of total assets, at December 31, 2008. The increase in nonperforming assets was primarily due to the weakened economy and the softening real estate market and the impact of such on our borrowers and the properties securing our loans. If the economy and/or the real estate market remains unchanged or further weakens, we may be required to add further provisions to our allowance for loan losses as nonperforming assets could continue to increase or the value of the collateral securing loans may be insufficient to cover any remaining net loan balance, which could have a negative effect on our results of operations.

Like all financial institutions, we maintain an allowance for loan losses to provide for loans in our portfolio that may not be repaid in their entirety. We believe that our allowance for loan losses is maintained at a level adequate to absorb probable losses inherent in our loan portfolio as of the corresponding balance sheet date. However, our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover actual loan losses, and future provisions for loan losses could materially adversely affect our operating results. In evaluating the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses, we consider such factors as changes in the types and amount of loans in the loan portfolio, historical loss experience, adverse situations that may affect a borrower’s ability to repay, estimated value of any underlying collateral, personal guarantees, estimated losses relating to specifically identified loans, and current economic conditions. This evaluation is inherently subjective as it requires material estimates

23

Table of Contents

including, among others, exposure at default, amount and timing of expected future cash flows on affected loans, value of collateral, personal guarantees, estimated losses on specific loans, as well as consideration of general loss experience. All of these estimates may be susceptible to significant change. While management uses the best information available at the time to make loan loss allowance evaluations, adjustments to the allowance may be necessary based on changes in economic and other conditions or changes in accounting guidance. Our estimates of the risk of loss and the amount of loss on any loan are complicated by the significant uncertainties surrounding our borrowers’ abilities to successfully execute their business models through changing economic environments, the competitive challenges they face, and the effect of current and future economic conditions on collateral values and other factors. Because of the degree of uncertainty and susceptibility of these factors to change, our actual losses may vary materially from our current estimates.

The FDIC and IDFPR, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses by recognizing additional provisions for loan losses charged to expense, or to decrease our allowance for loan losses by recognizing loan charge-offs. Any such additional provisions for loan losses or charge-offs, as required by these regulatory agencies, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

A continued deterioration in national and local economic conditions may negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

We currently are operating in a challenging and uncertain economic environment, both nationally and in the local markets that we serve. Financial institutions continue to be affected by sharp declines in financial and real estate values. Continued declines in real estate values and home sales, and an increase in the financial stress on borrowers stemming from an uncertain economic environment, including rising unemployment, could have an adverse effect on our borrowers or their customers, which could adversely impact the repayment of the loans we have made. The overall deterioration in economic conditions also could subject us to increased regulatory scrutiny. In addition, a prolonged recession, or further deterioration in local economic conditions, could result in an increase in loan delinquencies; an increase in problem assets and foreclosures; and a decline in the value of the collateral for our loans. Furthermore, a prolonged recession or further deterioration in local economic conditions could drive the level of loan losses beyond the level we have provided for in our loan loss allowance, which could necessitate increasing our provision for loan losses, which would reduce our earnings. Additionally, the demand for our products and services could be reduced, which would adversely impact our liquidity and the level of revenues we generate.

We are required to comply with the terms of a consent order issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation and lack of compliance could result in monetary penalties and/or additional regulatory actions.

We have entered into the Order with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, without admitting or denying that grounds exist for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to initiate an administrative proceeding against the Bank. The Order is a formal corrective action pursuant to which we have agreed to address specific areas through the adoption and implementation of procedures, plans and policies designed to enhance the safety and soundness of the Bank. These affirmative actions include, but are not limited to, increased Board participation and the implementation of plans to address capital, sensitivity to interest rate risk, charge-offs and the disposition of assets.

The Order specifies certain timeframes for meeting these requirements, and we must furnish periodic progress reports to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation regarding our compliance with the provisions of the Order. Specifically, the Order requires the Bank to achieve Tier 1 capital at least equal to 8% of total assets and total capital at least equal to 12% of risk-weighted assets within 120 days. At December 31, 2012, these capital ratios were 7.73% and 12.62%, respectively.

24

Table of Contents

Although the Investment provided us with additional capital, the Order will remain in effect until modified or terminated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. If we fail to comply with the Order, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and/or Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation may pursue the assessment of civil money penalties against us and our officers and directors and may seek to enforce the terms of the Order through court proceedings.

The Company’s ability to utilize capital distributions from the Bank is subject to regulatory limits and other restrictions.

A source of the Company’s income from which we could service our debt and pay our obligations is the receipt of dividends from the Bank. Pursuant to the Order, the Bank is required to obtain prior regulatory approval of the FDIC and IDFPR before making dividend payments to the Company. In the event that the Bank is unable to obtain regulatory approval to pay dividends to us, we may not be able to service our debt or pay our obligations. The inability to receive dividends from the Bank may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our ability to fully utilize our net deferred tax assets in future periods could be impaired, which will negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

At December 31, 2012, our net deferred tax assets totaled zero as compared to zero as of December 31, 2011. During the year ended December 31, 2011, our management determined that realization of a portion of our net deferred tax assets was more likely than not to occur. As a result, we incurred a non-cash income tax expense of $7.1 million related to a valuation allowance on deferred tax assets in 2011. If we are unable to continue to generate, or demonstrate that we can continue to generate, sufficient taxable income in the near future, then we may not be able to fully realize the benefits of our deferred tax assets and may be required to recognize an additional valuation allowance if it is more likely than not that some portion of our deferred tax assets will not be realized. In each future accounting period, our management will consider both positive and negative evidence when considering our ability to utilize our net deferred tax assets. Any subsequent reduction in the valuation allowance would lower the amount of income tax expense recognized in our consolidated statements of operations in future periods and would negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to maintain and manage our growth, which may adversely affect our results of operations and financial conditions and the value of our common stock.

Our strategy has been to increase the size of our company by opening new offices and by pursuing business development opportunities. We have grown rapidly since we commenced operations. We can provide no assurance that we will continue to be successful in increasing the volume of loans and deposits at acceptable risk levels and upon acceptable terms while managing the costs and implementation risks associated with our growth strategy. There can be no assurance that our further expansion will be profitable or that we will continue to be able to sustain our historical rate of growth, either through internal growth or through successful expansion of our markets, or that we will be able to maintain capital sufficient to support our continued growth. If we grow too quickly, however, and are not able to control costs and maintain asset quality, rapid growth also could adversely affect our financial performance.

We are subject to credit risks in connection with the concentration of adjustable rate loans in our portfolio.

A majority of our loans held for investment are adjustable rate loans. Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgage loans are exposed to increased monthly payments when the related mortgage interest rate adjusts upward under the terms of the loan from the initial fixed rate or low introductory rate, as applicable, to the rate computed in accordance with the applicable index and margin. Any rise in prevailing market interest rates may result in increased payments for borrowers who have adjustable rate mortgage loans, increasing the possibility of default. Borrowers seeking to avoid these increased monthly payments by refinancing their mortgage loans may no longer be able to find available replacement loans at comparably low interest rates. In addition, a decline in housing prices may also leave borrowers with insufficient equity in their homes to permit them to refinance. Borrowers who intend to sell their homes on or before the expiration of the fixed rate periods on their mortgage loans may also find that they cannot sell their properties for an amount equal to or greater than the unpaid principal balance of their loans. These events, along or in combination, may contribute to higher delinquency rates and negatively impact earnings.

25

Table of Contents

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

Short-term market interest rates (which we use as a guide to price our deposits) have until recently risen from historically low levels, while longer-term market interest rates (which we use as a guide to price our longer-term loans) have not. This “flattening” of the market yield curve has had a negative impact on our interest rate spread and net interest margin. For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 our net interest margin was 3.43% and 3.64%, respectively. If short-term interest rates rise, and if rates on our deposits re-price upwards faster than the rates on our long-term loans and investments, we would experience compression of our interest rate spread and net interest margin, which would have a negative effect on our profitability. During 2008, however, the U.S. Federal Reserve decreased its target for the federal funds rate to a range of zero to 0.25%. Decreases in interest rates can result in increased prepayments of loans and mortgage-related securities, as borrowers refinance to reduce their borrowing costs. Under these circumstances, we are subject to reinvestment risk as we may have to redeploy such loan or securities proceeds into lower-yielding assets, which might also negatively impact our income. For further discussion of how changes in interest rates could impact us, see “Interest Rate Risk” under Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

Our emphasis on commercial and construction lending may expose us to increased lending risks.

At December 31, 2012, our loan portfolio included $96.6 million, or 49.0% of commercial real estate loans, $3.6 million, or 1.8% of construction loans and $24.4 million, or 12.4% of commercial loans. We intend to continue to increase our emphasis on the origination of commercial type lending. However, this type of loan generally exposes a lender to greater risk of non-payment and loss than one- to four-family residential mortgage loans because repayment of the loans often depends on the successful operation of the property, the income stream of the borrowers. Such loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers compared to one- to four-family residential mortgage loans. Commercial loans expose us to additional risks since they typically are made on the basis of the borrower’s ability to make repayments from the cash flow of the borrower’s business and are secured by non-real estate collateral that may depreciate over time. In addition, since such loans generally entail greater risk than one- to four-family residential mortgage loans, we may need to increase our allowance for loan losses in the future to account for the likely increase in probable incurred credit losses associated with the growth of such loans. Also, many of our commercial borrowers have more than one loan outstanding with us. Consequently, an adverse development with respect to one loan or one credit relationship can expose us to a significantly greater risk of loss compared to an adverse development with respect to a one- to four-family residential mortgage loan.

Increased and/or special FDIC assessments will hurt our earnings.

The recent economic recession has caused a high level of bank failures, which has dramatically increased FDIC resolution costs and led to a significant reduction in the balance of the Deposit Insurance Fund. As a result, the FDIC has significantly increased the initial base assessment rates paid by financial institutions for deposit insurance. Increases in the base assessment rate have increased our deposit insurance costs and negatively impacted our earnings. In addition, in May 2009, the FDIC imposed a special assessment on all insured institutions. Our special assessment, which was reflected in earnings for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, was $536,000. In lieu of imposing an additional special assessment, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation required all institutions to prepay their assessments for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, which for us totaled $2.3 million. Additional increases in the base assessment rate or additional special assessments would negatively impact our earnings.

Regulatory reform may have a material impact on our operations.

On July 21, 2010, the President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act restructures the regulation of depository institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act contains several provisions that will have a direct impact on the operations of the Company and the Bank. The legislation contains changes to the laws governing, among other things, FDIC assessments, mortgage originations, holding company capital requirements and risk

26

Table of Contents

retention requirements for securitized loans. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides for the creation of a new agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve Board, to take over the implementation of federal consumer financial protection and fair lending laws from the depository institution regulators. However, institutions of $10 billion or fewer in assets will continue to be examined for compliance with such laws and regulations by, and subject to the primary enforcement authority of, the prudential regulator rather than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Dodd-Frank Act contains various other provisions designed to enhance the regulation of depository institutions and prevent the recurrence of a financial crisis such as occurred in 2008 and 2009. The full impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our business and operations will not be known for years until regulations implementing the statute are written and adopted. However, the Dodd-Frank Act may have a material impact on our operations, particularly through increased regulatory burden and compliance costs.

We need to generate liquidity to fund our lending activities.

We must have adequate cash or borrowing capacity to meet our customers’ needs for loans and demand for their deposits. We generate liquidity primarily through the origination of new deposits. We also have access to secured borrowings, Federal Home Loan Bank borrowings and various other lines of credit. The inability to increase deposits or to access other sources of funds would have a negative effect on our ability to meet customer needs, could slow loan growth and could adversely affect our results of operations.

Our profitability depends significantly on economic conditions in our market.

Our success depends to a large degree on the general economic conditions in our market areas. The local economic conditions in these areas have a significant impact on the amount of loans that we make to our borrowers, the ability of our borrowers to repay these loans and the value of the collateral securing these loans. A significant decline in general economic conditions caused by inflation, recession, unemployment or other factors beyond our control would impact these local economic conditions and could negatively affect our financial condition and performance.

If we experience greater loan losses than anticipated, it will have an adverse effect on our net income.

While the risk of nonpayment of loans is inherent in banking, if we experience greater nonpayment levels than we anticipate, our earnings and overall financial condition, as well as the value of our common stock, could be adversely affected.

We cannot assure you that our monitoring procedures and policies will reduce certain lending risks or that our allowance for loan losses will be adequate to cover actual losses. In addition, as a result of the growth in our loan portfolio, loan losses may be greater than management’s estimates. Loan losses can cause insolvency and failure of a financial institution and, in such an event, our shareholders could lose their entire investment. In addition, future provisions for loan losses could materially and adversely affect our profitability. Any loan losses will reduce the loan loss allowance. A reduction in the loan loss allowance will be restored by an increase in our provision for loan losses. This would reduce our earnings which could have an adverse effect on our stock price.

If we lose key employees with significant business contacts in our market area, our business may suffer.

Our success is largely dependent on the personal contacts of our officers and employees in our market area. If we lose key employees temporarily or permanently, our business could be hurt. We could be particularly hurt if our key employees went to work for our competitors. Our future success depends on the continued contributions of our existing senior management personnel.

27

Table of Contents

In order to be profitable, we must compete successfully with other financial institutions which have greater resources than we do.

The banking business in the Chicago metropolitan area, in general, is extremely competitive. Several of our competitors are larger and have greater resources than we do and have been in existence a longer period of time. We must overcome historical bank-customer relationships to attract customers away from our competition. We compete with the following types of institutions: other commercial banks, savings banks, thrifts, credit unions, consumer finance companies, securities brokerage firms, mortgage brokers, insurance companies, mutual funds and trust companies. Some of our competitors are not regulated as extensively as we are and, therefore, may have greater flexibility in competing for business. Some of these competitors are subject to similar regulation but have the advantage of larger established customer bases, higher lending limits, extensive branch networks, numerous automated teller machines, greater advertising-marketing budgets or other factors.

Our legal lending limit is determined by law. The size of the loans which we offer to our customers may be less than the size of the loans than larger competitors are able to offer. This limit may affect to some degree our success in establishing relationships with the larger businesses in our market.

New or acquired branch facilities and other facilities may not be profitable.

We may not be able to correctly identify profitable locations for new branches and the costs to start up new branch facilities or to acquire existing branches, and the additional costs to operate these facilities, may increase our non-interest expense and decrease earnings in the short term. It may be difficult to adequately and profitably manage our growth through the establishment of these branches. In addition, we can provide no assurance that these branch sites will successfully attract enough deposits to offset the expenses of operating these branch sites. Any new branches will be subject to regulatory approval, and there can be no assurance that we will succeed in securing such approvals.

Government regulations may prevent or impair our ability to pay dividends, engage in additional acquisitions or operate in other ways.

Current and future legislation and the policies established by federal and state regulatory authorities will affect our operations. We are subject to supervision and periodic examination by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as well as the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (the “IDFPR”). Our principal subsidiary, Community Bank-Wheaton/ Glen Ellyn, as a state chartered commercial bank, is also subject to regulation and examination by the FDIC and the IDFPR. Banking regulations are designed primarily for the protection of depositors rather than stockholders, and they may limit our growth and the return to you as an investor by restricting its activities, such as: the payment of dividends to stockholders; possible transactions with or acquisitions by other institutions; desired investments; loans and interest rates; interest rates paid on deposits; the possible expansion of branch offices; and the ability to provide securities or trust services.

We are registered with the Federal Reserve Board as a bank holding company. We cannot predict what changes, if any, will be made to existing federal and state legislation and regulations or the effect that such changes may have on our business. The cost of compliance with regulatory requirements may adversely affect our ability to operate profitably.

Our stock trading volume has been low compared to larger bank holding companies. Accordingly, the value of your common stock may be subject to sudden decreases due to the volatility of the price of our common stock.

Although our common stock trades on the OTCQB, it is not traded as regularly as the common stock of larger bank holding companies listed on other stock exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq Stock Market or the American Stock Exchange. We cannot predict the extent to which investor interest in us will lead to a more active trading market in our common stock or how liquid that market might become. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends upon the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of our common stock at any given time, which presence is dependent upon the individual decisions of investors, over which we have no control.

28

Table of Contents

The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations in response to numerous factors, including, but not limited to, the factors discussed in other risk factors and the following:

These factors may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition, the stock markets, from time to time, experience extreme price and volume fluctuations that may be unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of companies. These broad fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our trading performance.

We may become liable for liquidated damages to certain shareholders if we fail to register the resale of their shares, or maintain the effectiveness of the registration statement filed by us, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pursuant to the terms of a Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of November 13, 2012, we are required to file and maintain the effectiveness of a resale registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the aggregate amount of shares of common stock issuable upon the conversion of the Series C Preferred Stock, Series D Preferred Stock and Series E Preferred Stock (subject to certain limitations set forth in the Registration Rights Agreement). A resale registration statement must be filed within 30 days after each closing of the Investment and must be declared effective (i) within 90 days of each closing of the Investment in the event the Securities and Exchange Commission does not review the registration statement or (ii) within 120 days of each closing of the Investment in the event the Securities and Exchange Commission reviews the registration statement. Failure to meet these deadlines, as well as certain other events, may result in our being obligated to pay holders of registrable securities liquidated damages on each event date and each monthly anniversary of such event until the applicable event is cured. The liquidated damages would equal 1.5% of the aggregate purchase price paid by the holder pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement for any registrable securities held by such holder on the event date.

We rely on technology to conduct many transactions with our customers and are therefore subject to risks associated with systems failures, interruptions or breaches of security.

Communications and information systems are essential to the conduct of our business, as we use such systems to manage our customer relationships, our general ledger, our deposits, and our loans. While we have established policies and procedures to prevent or limit the impact of systems failures, interruptions, and security breaches, there can be no assurance that such events will not occur or that they will be adequately addressed if they do. In addition, any compromise of our security systems could deter customers from using our website and our online banking services, both of which involve the transmission of confidential information. Although we rely on commonly used security and processing systems to provide the security and authentication necessary to effect the secure transmission of data, these precautions may not protect our systems from compromises or breaches of security.

29

Table of Contents

In addition, we outsource certain of our data processing to certain third-party providers. If our third-party providers encounter difficulties, or if we have difficulty in communicating with them, our ability to adequately process and account for customer transactions could be affected, and our business operations could be adversely impacted. Threats to information security also exist in the processing of customer information through various other vendors and their personnel.

The occurrence of any systems failure, interruption, or breach of security could damage our reputation and result in a loss of customers and business, could subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or could expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties

The following table sets forth information related to the offices from which the Company conducts its business at December 31, 2012. These properties are suitable and adequate for the Company’s business needs.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Neither the Company nor the Bank is a party to, and none of their property is subject to, any material legal proceedings at this time.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

30

Table of Contents

PART II

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

As of March 28, 2013, the Company’s stock was held by approximately 452 shareholders of record. The Company’s stock is quoted on the OTCQB under the symbol “CFIS”. The following table sets forth quarterly high and low sales information reported on the OTCQB for the Company’s common stock for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011. These quotes reflect inter-dealer prices without mark-ups, mark-downs or commissions and may not necessarily reflect actual transactions. As of March 28, 2013, there were 6,043,688 shares of common stock issued and outstanding.

Common Stock Price and Dividend History

Historically, it has been a policy of the Company to pay only small to moderate dividends so as to retain earnings to support growth. However, on October 15, 2008 the board of directors voted to suspend the payment of the quarterly cash dividend on the Company’s common stock in an effort to conserve capital. As a result there were no dividends paid on the common stock of the Company in 2012 or 2011.

On January 14, 2011, the Company was notified by the FRB that the overall condition of the Company and the Bank is less than satisfactory. As a result, the Company must now obtain prior written approval from the FRB prior to, among other things, the payment of any capital distribution.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Not Applicable.

31

Table of Contents

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

(All table dollar amounts in Item 7 are in thousands, except share data)

The following presents management’s discussion and analysis of the results of operations and financial condition of Community Financial Shares, Inc. (the “Company”) as of the dates and for the periods indicated. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements and the Notes thereto and other financial data appearing elsewhere in this document.

The statements contained in this management’s discussion and analysis that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements subject to the safe harbor created by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe future plans, strategies, and expectations of the Company, are generally identifiable by use of the words “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “project,” or similar expressions. The Company’s ability to predict results or the actual effect of future plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Factors which could have a material adverse effect on the operations and future prospects of the Company and its subsidiary bank include, but are not limited to, changes in: interest rates; general economic conditions; legislation; regulations; monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. Government including policies of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board; the quality or composition of the loan or securities portfolios; demand for loan products; deposit flows; competition; demand for financial services in the Company’s market area; and accounting principles, policies, and guidelines. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements.

Because of these and other uncertainties, the Company’s actual future results may be materially different from the results indicated by these forward-looking statements. In addition, the Company’s past results of operations do not necessarily indicate its future results. The Company does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date such forward-looking statement is made.

Critical Accounting Policies

Generally accepted accounting principles require management to apply significant judgment to certain accounting, reporting and disclosure matters. Management must use assumptions and estimates to apply those principles where actual measurement is not possible or practical. For a complete discussion of the Company’s significant accounting policies, see the notes to the consolidated financial statements and discussion throughout this Annual Report. Below is a discussion of the Company’s critical accounting policies. These policies are critical because they are highly dependent upon subjective or complex judgments, assumptions and estimates. Changes in such estimates may have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements. Management has reviewed the application of these policies with the Company’s Audit Committee.

Allowance for Loan Losses. The allowance for loan losses represents management’s estimate of probable losses inherent in the Company’s loan portfolio. In determining the appropriate amount of the allowance for loan losses, management makes numerous assumptions, estimates and assessments.

The Company’s strategy for credit risk management includes conservative credit policies and underwriting criteria for all loans, as well as an overall credit limit for each customer significantly below legal lending limits. The strategy also emphasizes diversification on a geographic, industry and customer level, regular credit quality reviews and management reviews of large credit exposures and loans experiencing deterioration of credit quality.

Larger commercial loans that exhibit probable or observed credit weaknesses are subject to individual review. Where appropriate, reserves are allocated to individual loans based on management’s estimate of the borrower’s ability to repay the loan given the availability of collateral, other sources of cash flow and legal options available to the Company. Included in the review of individual loans are those that are impaired as provided in ASC 310-40, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan. Any allowances for impaired loans are measured based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate or fair value of the underlying collateral. The Company evaluates the collectibility of both principal and interest when assessing the need for a loss accrual. Historical loss rates are applied to other commercial loans not subject to specific reserve allocations.

32

Table of Contents

Homogenous loans, such as consumer installment and residential mortgage loans are not individually risk graded. Rather, credit scoring systems are used to assess credit risks. Reserves are established for each pool of loans using loss rates based on a five year average net charge-off history by loan category.

Historical loss rates for commercial and consumer loans may be adjusted for significant factors that, in management’s judgment, reflect the impact of any current conditions on loss recognition. Factors which management considers in the analysis include the effects of the national and local economies, trends in the nature and volume of loans (delinquencies, charge-offs and nonaccrual loans,) changes in mix, asset quality trends, risk management and loan administration, changes in the internal lending policies and credit standards, collection practices and examination results from bank regulatory agencies and the Company’s internal loan review. An unallocated reserve, primarily based on the factors noted above, is maintained to recognize the imprecision in estimating and measuring loss when evaluating reserves for individual loans or pools of loans. Allowances on individual loans and historical loss rates are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as necessary based on changing borrower and/or collateral conditions and actual collection and charge-off experience.

The Company’s primary market area for lending is the county of DuPage in northeastern Illinois. When evaluating the adequacy of the allowance, consideration is given to this regional geographic concentration and the closely associated effect changing economic conditions have on the Company’s customers.

The Company has not substantively changed any aspect of its overall approach in the determination of the allowance for loan losses. There have been no material changes in assumptions or estimation techniques as compared to prior periods that impacted the determination of the current period allowance.

Any material increase in the allowance for loan losses may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and our ability to comply with the Order.

Valuation of Securities. The Company’s available-for-sale security portfolio is reported at fair value. The fair value of a security is determined based on quoted market prices. If quoted market prices are not available, fair value is determined based on quoted prices of similar instruments. Available-for-sale securities are reviewed quarterly for possible other-than-temporary impairment. The review includes an analysis of the facts and circumstances of each individual investment such as the length of time the fair value has been below cost, the expectation for that security’s performance, the credit worthiness of the issuer and the Company’s ability to hold the security to maturity. A decline in value that is considered to be other-than-temporary is recorded as a loss within other operating income in the consolidated statement of income.

Accounting Matters

In October 2012, the FASB issued ASU 2012-04, Technical Corrections and Improvements. The amendments in this ASU make technical corrections, clarifications, and limited-scope improvements to various topics throughout the Accounting Standards Codification. These amendments are presented in two sections: Technical Corrections and Improvements and Conforming Amendments Related to Fair Value Measurements. The amendments in this ASU that will not have transition guidance will be effective upon issuance for both public and nonpublic entities. For public entities, the amendments that are subject to the transition guidance are effective for fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2012. The Company adopted this ASU effective December 31, 2012 with no material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

In October 2012, the FASB issued ASU 2012-03, Technical Amendments and Corrections to SEC Sections. This ASU amends various SEC paragraphs pursuant to Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 114, SEC Release No. 33-9250, and ASU 2010-22, which amend or rescind portions of certain SAB Topics. These amendments are presented in two sections: Amendments to the FASB Accounting Standards Codification and Amendments to the XBRL Taxonomy. The Company adopted this ASU with no material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

33

Table of Contents

In July 2012, the FASB issued ASU 2012-02, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic350): Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment. The amendments in this ASU will allow an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform a quantitative impairment test. Under these amendments, an entity would not be required to calculate the fair value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset unless the entity determines, based on qualitative assessment, that it is not more likely than not, the indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired. The amendments include a number of events and circumstances for an entity to consider in conducting the qualitative assessment. This ASU is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. Early adoption is permitted, including for annual and interim impairment tests performed as of a date before July 27, 2012, if a public entity’s financial statements for the most recent annual or interim period have not yet been issued or, for nonpublic entities, have not yet been made available for issuance. The Company adopted this ASU by the date required with no material effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU 2011-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. The objective of this Update is to provide enhanced disclosures that will enable users of financial statements to evaluate the effect or potential effect of netting arrangements on an entity’s financial position. This includes the effect or potential effect of rights of setoff associated with an entity’s recognized assets and recognized liabilities within the scope of this Update. The amendments require enhanced disclosures by requiring improved information about financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either (1) offset in accordance with Section 210-20-45 or Section 815-10-45 or (2) subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement, irrespective of whether they are offset in accordance with either Section 210-20-45 or Section 815-10-45. The ASU is effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods with retrospective disclosure for all comparative periods presented. This ASU impacts disclosures only and it will have no impact on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Analysis of Net Interest Income

Net interest income represents the difference between income on interest-earning assets and expense on interest-bearing liabilities. Net interest income depends on the relative amounts of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and the interest rate earned or paid on them.

34

Table of Contents

Average Balance Sheet. The following table sets forth certain information relating to the Company’s average balance sheets and reflects the yield on average earning assets and cost of average interest-bearing liabilities for the years indicated. Such yields and costs are derived by dividing interest income or expense by the average balance of assets or liabilities. The average balance sheet amounts for loans include balances for non-accrual loans. The yields and costs include fees that are considered adjustments to yields.