Looked at it again. Though it turned in an exceptional good (relative to its past) my opinion of the bank remains, "no risk of going out of business; no risk of getting rich either."
The deposit gathering remains weak, hence the higher funding cost. In the low rate environment, it makes smaller difference. Once the general rates rise to match inflation, watch out! It more than made up on the rates it charges on loans. Two problems: it has high concentration of riskier loans to individuals, construction & development, etc. it also has higher exposure (21% of all loans) to loans longer than 15 years. When rates begin to rise, the long term loans will reprice slowly, yet it's funding cost rises much faster. Something the saving & Loans industry experienced some 25, 30 years ago. We all know the results.
The banks has smaller branches with low deposits. Average deposit per employ is around $2.5 million, less than half of industry average. The result is very high overhead. True, it earns higher non-interest related fees. That advantage fails to fully absorb the large overhead.
The small banks usually has no economy of scale and earns much lower returns on equity. The usual reason investing in them is future growth. Carrollton had none. The other is that it is cheap. It is cheap. but relative to other banks? You be the judge.