Upon initial impairment of a security, total OTTI losses represent the excess of the amortized cost over the fair value. For subsequent impairments of the same security, total OTTI losses represent additional credit losses and or declines in fair value subsequent to the previously recorded OTTI losses, if applicable. Unrealized OTTI losses recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income ("OCI") represent the non-credit component of OTTI losses on debt securities. Net impairment losses recognized in earnings represent the credit component of OTTI losses on debt securities.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company held fourteen private-label mortgage-backed securities (debt securities) with a total amortized cost (i.e. carrying value) of $5,414 where OTTI losses have been historically recognized in pre-tax earnings. For six of these securities, the Company recognized credit losses in excess of the unrealized losses in accumulated OCI, creating an unrealized gain of $416, net of tax, as included in accumulated OCI as of June 30, 2011. For the remaining eight securities, the total OTTI losses included in accumulated OCI amounted to $567, net of tax, as of June 30, 2011. As of June 30, 2011, the total net unrealized losses included in accumulated OCI for securities held where OTTI has been historically recognized in pre-tax earnings amounted to $151, net of tax, compared with $525 at December 31, 2010.

As of June 30, 2011, based on a review of each of the remaining securities in the securities portfolio, the Company concluded that it expects to recover its amortized cost basis for such securities. This conclusion was based on the issuers’ continued satisfaction of the securities obligations in accordance with their contractual terms and the expectation that they will continue to do so through the maturity of the security, the expectation that the Company will receive the entire amount of future contractual cash flows, as well as the evaluation of the fundamentals of the issuers’ financial condition and other objective evidence. Accordingly, the Company concluded that the declines in the values of those securities were temporary and that any additional other-than-temporary impairment charges were not appropriate at June 30, 2011. As of that date, the Company did not intend to sell nor anticipated that it would more-likely-than-not be required to sell any of its impaired securities, that is, where fair value is less than the cost basis of the security.

The following table summarizes the fair value of securities with continuous unrealized losses for less than 12 months and those that have been in a continuous unrealized loss position for 12 months or longer as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. All securities referenced are debt securities. At June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, the Company did not hold any common stock or other equity securities in its securities portfolio.

For securities with unrealized losses, the following information was considered in determining that the impairments were not other-than-temporary:

• Mortgage-backed securities issued by U.S. Government-sponsored enterprises: As of June 30, 2011, the total unrealized losses on these securities amounted to $362, compared with $578 at December 31, 2010. All of these securities were credit rated "AAA" by the major credit rating agencies. Company management believes these securities have minimal credit risk, as these Government-sponsored enterprises play a vital role in the nation’s financial markets. Management’s analysis indicates that the unrealized losses at June 30, 2011 were attributed to changes in current market yields and pricing spreads for similar securities since the date the underlying securities were purchased, and does not consider these securities to be other-than-temporarily impaired at June 30, 2011.

• Mortgage-backed securities issued by U.S. Government agencies: As of June 30, 2011, the total unrealized losses on these securities amounted to $257, compared with $356 at December 31, 2010. All of these securities were credit rated "AAA" by the major credit rating agencies. Management’s analysis indicates that these securities bear little or no credit risk because they are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The Company attributes the unrealized losses at June 30, 2011 to changes in current market yields and pricing spreads for similar securities since the date the underlying securities were purchased, and does not consider these securities to be other-than-temporarily impaired at June 30, 2011.

• Private label mortgage-backed securities: As of June 30, 2011, the total unrealized losses on the Bank’s private label mortgage-backed securities amounted to $1,629, compared with $2,201 at December 31, 2010. The Company attributes the unrealized losses at June 30, 2011 to the current illiquid market for non-agency mortgage-backed securities, a seriously depressed and still declining housing market, significantly elevated levels of home foreclosures, risk-related market pricing discounts for non-agency mortgage-backed securities and credit rating downgrades on certain private label mortgage-backed securities owned by the Company. Based upon the foregoing considerations and the expectation that the Company will receive all of the future cash flows related to amortized cost on these securities, the Company does not consider there to be any additional other-than-temporary impairment with respect to these securities at June 30, 2011.

• Obligations of states of the U.S. and political subdivisions thereof: As of June 30, 2011, the total unrealized losses on the Bank’s municipal securities amounted to $3,871, compared with $6,050 at December 31, 2010. The Bank’s municipal securities are supported by the general taxing authority of the municipality and in the cases of school districts, are supported by state aid. At June 30, 2011, all municipal bond issuers were current on contractually obligated interest and principal payments. At June 30, 2011, the Bank’s municipal bond portfolio did not contain any below investment grade securities as reported by major credit rating agencies.

The Company attributes the unrealized losses at June 30, 2011, to changes in prevailing market yields and pricing spreads since the date the underlying securities were purchased, driven in part by current media attention and market concerns about the prolonged recovery from economic recession and the impact it might have on the future financial stability of municipalities throughout the country. Accordingly, the Company does not consider these municipal securities to be other-than-temporarily impaired at June 30, 2011.

At June 30, 2011, the Company had no intent to sell nor believed it is more-likely-than-not that it would be required to sell any of its impaired securities as identified and discussed immediately above, and therefore did not consider these securities to be other-than-temporarily impaired as of that date.

Commercial real estate and commercial business loans are considered impaired when it becomes probable the Bank will not be able to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Factors considered by management in determining impairment include payment status and collateral value. In considering loans for evaluation of impairment, management generally excludes smaller balance, homogeneous loans: residential mortgage loans, home equity loans, and all consumer loans, unless such loans were restructured in a troubled debt restructuring. These loans are collectively evaluated for risk of loss.

Loan origination and commitment fees and direct loan origination costs are deferred, and the net amount is amortized as an adjustment of the related loans’ yield, using the level yield method over the estimated lives of the related loans.

The Company’s lending activities are principally conducted in downeast and midcoast Maine. The following table summarizes the composition of the loan portfolio as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:

Loan Origination/Risk Management: The Company has certain lending policies and procedures in place that are designed to maximize loan income within an acceptable level of risk. The Company’s board of directors reviews and approves these policies and procedures on a regular basis. A reporting system supplements the review process by providing management and the board with frequent reports related to loan production, loan quality, concentrations of credit, loan delinquencies and non-performing loans and potential problem loans. The Company seeks to diversify the loan portfolio as a means of managing risk associated with fluctuations in economic conditions.

Commercial Real Estate Mortgages: The Bank’s commercial real estate mortgage loans are collateralized by liens on real estate, typically have variable interest rates (or five year or less fixed rates) and amortize over a 15 to 20 year period. These loans are underwritten primarily as cash flow loans and secondarily as loans secured by real estate. Payments on loans secured by such properties are largely dependent on the successful operation of the property securing the loan or the business conducted on the property securing the loan. Accordingly, repayment of these loans may be subject to adverse economic conditions to a greater extent than other types of loans. The Company seeks to minimize these risks in a variety of ways, including giving careful consideration to the property’s operating history, future operating projections, current and projected occupancy, location and physical condition in connection with underwriting these loans. The underwriting analysis also includes credit verification, analysis of global cash flows, appraisals and a review of the financial condition of the borrower. Reflecting the Bank’s business region, at June 30, 2011 approximately 36.9% of the commercial real estate mortgage portfolio is represented by loans to the lodging industry. The Bank underwrites lodging industry loans as operating businesses, lending primarily to seasonal establishments with stabilized cash flows.

Commercial and Industrial Loans: Commercial and industrial loans are underwritten after evaluating and understanding the borrower’s ability to operate profitability, and prudently expand its business. In nearly all cases, commercial and industrial loans are made in the Bank’s market areas and are underwritten on the basis of the borrower’s ability to service the debt from income. As a general practice, the Bank takes as collateral a lien on any available real estate, equipment or other assets owned by the borrower and obtains a personal guaranty of the borrower or principal. Working capital loans are primarily collateralized by short-term assets whereas term loans are primarily collateralized by long-term assets. In general, commercial and industrial loans involve more credit risk than residential mortgage loans and commercial mortgage loans and, therefore, usually yield a higher return. The increased risk in commercial and industrial loans is principally due to the type of collateral securing these loans. The increased risk also derives from the expectation that commercial and industrial loans generally will be serviced principally from the operations of the business, and, if not successful, these loans are secured only by tangible, non-real estate collateral. As a result of these additional complexities, variables and risks, commercial and industrial loans generally require more thorough underwriting and servicing than other types of loans.

Construction and Land Development Loans: The Company makes loans to finance the construction of residential and, to a lesser extent, non-residential properties. Construction loans generally are collateralized by first liens on real estate and have floating interest rates. The Company conducts periodic inspections, either directly or through an agent, prior to approval of periodic draws on these loans. Underwriting guidelines similar to those described immediately above are also used in the Company’s construction lending activities. Construction loans involve additional risks attributable to the fact that loan funds are advanced against a project under construction and the project is of uncertain value prior to its completion. Because of uncertainties inherent in estimating construction costs, the market value of the completed project and the effects of governmental regulation on real property, it can be difficult to accurately evaluate the total funds required to complete a project and the related loan to value ratio. As a result of these uncertainties, construction lending often involves the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project rather than the ability of a borrower or guarantor to repay the loan. In many cases the success of the project can also depend upon the financial support/strength of the borrower. If the Company is forced to foreclose on a project prior to completion, there is no assurance that the Company will be able to recover the entire unpaid portion of the loan. In addition, the Company may be required to fund additional amounts to complete a project and may have to hold the property for an indeterminate period of time. While the Company has underwriting procedures designed to identify what it believes to be acceptable levels of risks in construction lending, no assurance can be given that these procedures will prevent losses from the risks described above.

Home Equity Loans: The Company originates home equity lines of credit and second mortgage loans (loans secured by a second [junior] lien position on one-to-four-family residential real estate). These loans carry a higher risk than first mortgage residential loans as they are in a second position relating to collateral. Risk is reduced through underwriting criteria, which include credit verification, appraisals, a review of the borrower's financial condition, and personal cash flows. A security interest, with title insurance when necessary, is taken in the underlying real estate.

At June 30, 2011, total other real estate owned consisted of nine properties with a total carrying value of $1,450, compared to four properties with a total carrying value of $656 at December 31, 2010.

 Past due loans: Loans are considered past due if the required principal and interest payments have not been received as of the date such payments were due. The following tables set forth information regarding past due loans at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Amounts shown exclude deferred loan origination fees and costs.

Impaired Loans: Impaired loans are commercial and commercial real estate loans for which the Company believes it is probable that it will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement, as well as all loans restructured in a troubled debt restructuring, if any. Allowances for losses on impaired loans are determined by the lower of the present value of the expected cash flows related to the loan, using the original contractual interest rate, and its recorded value, or in the case of collateral dependant loans, the lower of the fair value of the collateral, less costs to dispose, and the recorded amount of the loans. When foreclosure is probable, impairment is measured based on the fair value of the collateral less cost to sell.

The average recorded investment in impaired loans for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 were $6,063 and $5,662, respectively.

The Bank provides for classification of commercial and commercial real estate loans which are considered to be of lesser quality as substandard, doubtful, or loss. The Bank considers a commercial or commercial real estate loan substandard when it contains a well defined weakness that jeopardizes the collection of a loan’s contractual principal and interest. Such a well defined weakness may include inadequate borrower cash flow, weak or inadequate collateral protection, and/or weak or inadequate guarantor support.

Loans that the Bank classifies as doubtful have all of the weaknesses inherent in those loans that are classified as substandard but also have the added characteristic that the weaknesses present make collection or liquidation in full, on the basis of currently existing facts, conditions, and values, highly questionable and improbable. The possibility of loss is high but because of certain important and reasonably specific pending factors which may work to the advantage and strengthening of the loan, its classification as an estimated loss is deferred until its more exact status may be determined. Pending factors include proposed merger, acquisition, or liquidation procedures, capital injection, perfecting liens on additional collateral and refinancing plans. The entire amount of the loan might not be classified as doubtful when collection of a specific portion appears highly probable. Loans are generally not classified doubtful for an extended period of time (i.e., over a year).

Loans that the Bank classifies as loss are those considered uncollectible and of such little value that their continuance as an asset is not warranted and the uncollectible amounts are charged off. This classification does not mean that the asset has absolutely no recovery or salvage value, but rather it is not practical or desirable to defer writing off this basically worthless asset even though partial recovery may be affected in the future. Losses are taken in the period in which they surface as uncollectible.

Loans that do not expose the Bank to risk sufficient to warrant classification in one of the aforementioned categories, but which possess some weaknesses, are designated special mention. A special mention loan has potential weaknesses that deserve management’s close attention. If left uncorrected, these potential weaknesses may result in deterioration of the repayment prospects for the asset or in the institution’s credit position at some future date. This might include loans which the lending officer may be unable to supervise properly because of: lack of expertise, inadequate loan agreement, the poor condition of or lack of control over collateral, failure to obtain proper documentation or any other deviations from prudent lending practices. Economic or market conditions which may, in the future, affect the obligor may warrant special mention of the asset. Loans for which an adverse trend in the borrower's operations or an imbalanced position in the balance sheet which has not reached a point where the liquidation is jeopardized may be included in this classification. Special mention assets are not adversely classified and do not expose an institution to sufficient risks to warrant classification.

The following tables summarize the commercial loan portfolio as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 by credit quality indicator. Credit quality indicators are reassessed for each applicable commercial loan at least annually, or upon receipt and analysis of the borrower’s financial statements, when applicable. Consumer loans, which principally consist of residential mortgage loans, are not rated, but are evaluated for credit quality after origination based on delinquency status (see past due loan aging table above).

Allowance For Loan Losses: The allowance for loan losses (the "allowance") is a reserve established through a provision for loan losses (the "provision") charged to expense, which represents management’s best estimate of probable losses that have been incurred within the existing portfolio of loans. The allowance, in the judgment of management, is necessary to provide for estimated loan losses and risks inherent in the loan portfolio. The Company’s allowance for loan loss methodology includes allowance allocations calculated in accordance with ASC Topic 310, "Receivables" and allowance allocations calculated in accordance with ASC Topic 450, "Contingencies." Accordingly, the methodology is based on historical loss experience by type of credit and internal risk grade, specific homogeneous risk pools and specific loss allocations, with adjustments for current events and conditions. The Company’s process for determining the appropriate level of the allowance is designed to account for credit deterioration as it occurs. The provision reflects loan quality trends, including the levels of and trends related to non-accrual loans, past due loans, potential problem loans, criticized loans and net charge-offs or recoveries, among other factors. The provision also reflects the totality of actions taken on all loans for a particular period. In other words, the amount of the provision reflects not only the necessary increases in the allowance related to newly identified criticized loans, but it also reflects actions taken related to other loans including, among other things, any necessary increases or decreases in required allowances for specific loans or loan pools.

The level of the allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of industry concentrations, specific credit risks, loan loss experience, current loan portfolio quality, present economic, political and regulatory conditions and unidentified losses inherent in the current loan portfolio. Portions of the allowance may be allocated for specific credits; however, the entire allowance is available for any credit that, in management’s judgment, should be charged off. While management utilizes its best judgment and information available, the ultimate adequacy of the allowance is dependent upon a variety of factors beyond the Company’s control, including, among other things, the performance of the Company’s loan portfolio, the economy, changes in interest rates and the view of the regulatory authorities toward loan classifications.

The Company’s allowance for loan losses consists of three principal elements: (i) specific valuation allowances determined in accordance with ASC Topic 310 based on probable losses on specific loans; (ii) historical valuation allowances determined in accordance with ASC Topic 450 based on historical loan loss experience for similar loans with similar characteristics and trends, adjusted, as necessary, to reflect the impact of current conditions; and (iii) general valuation allowances determined in accordance with ASC Topic 450 based on general economic conditions and other qualitative risk factors both internal and external to the Company.

The allowances established for probable losses on specific loans are based on a regular analysis and evaluation of problem loans. Loans are classified based on an internal credit risk grading process that evaluates, among other things: (i) the obligor’s ability to repay; (ii) the underlying collateral, if any; and (iii) the economic environment and industry in which the borrower operates. This analysis is performed at the relationship level for all commercial loans. When a loan has a calculated grade of 7 or higher, the Company analyzes the loan to determine whether the loan is impaired and, if impaired, the need to specifically allocate a portion of the allowance to the loan. Specific valuation allowances are determined by analyzing the borrower’s ability to repay amounts owed, collateral deficiencies, the relative risk grade of the loan and economic conditions affecting the borrower’s industry, among other observable considerations.

Historical valuation allowances are calculated based on the historical loss experience of specific types of loans and the internal risk grade of such loans at the time they were charged-off. The Company calculates historical loss ratios for pools of similar loans with similar characteristics based on the proportion of actual charge-offs experienced to the total population of loans in the pool. The historical loss ratios are periodically updated based on actual charge-off experience. A historical valuation allowance is established for each pool of similar loans based upon the product of the historical loss ratio and the total dollar amount of the loans in the pool, net of any loans for which reserves are already established. The Company’s pools of similar loans include similarly risk-graded groups of, commercial real estate loans, commercial and industrial loans, consumer real estate loans and consumer and other loans.

General valuation allowances are based on general economic conditions and other qualitative risk factors both internal and external to the Company. In general, such valuation allowances are determined by evaluating, among other things: (i) the experience, ability and effectiveness of the bank’s lending management and staff; (ii) the effectiveness of the Company’s loan policies, procedures and internal controls; (iii) changes in asset quality; (iv) changes in loan portfolio volume; (v) the composition and concentrations of credit; (vi) the impact of competition on loan structuring and pricing; (vii) the effectiveness of the internal loan review function; (viii) the impact of environmental risks on portfolio risks; and (ix) the impact of rising interest rates on portfolio risk. Management evaluates the degree of risk that each one of these components has on the quality of the loan portfolio on a quarterly basis. The results are then used to determine an appropriate general valuation allowance.

Loans identified as losses by management, internal loan review and/or bank examiners are charged-off. Furthermore, consumer loan accounts are charged-off automatically based on regulatory requirements.

 A summary of activity in the allowance for loan losses for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 follows:

The following table details activity in the allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011. The table also provides details regarding the Company’s recorded investment in loans related to each balance in the allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment and disaggregated on the basis of the Company’s impairment methodology. Allocation of a portion of the allowance to one category of loans does not preclude its availability to absorb losses in other categories.

Loan concentrations: Because of the Company’s proximity to Acadia National Park, a large part of the economic activity in the Bank’s area is generated from the hospitality business associated with tourism. At June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, loans to the lodging industry amounted to approximately $95,722 and $86,142, respectively.

Note 6: Retirement Benefit Plans

The Company has non-qualified supplemental executive retirement agreements with certain retired officers. The agreements provide supplemental retirement benefits payable in installments over a period of years upon retirement or death. The Company recognized the net present value of payments associated with the agreements over the service periods of the participating officers. Interest costs continue to be recognized on the benefit obligations.

The Company also has supplemental executive retirement agreements with certain current executive officers. These agreements provide a stream of future payments in accordance with individually defined vesting schedules upon retirement, termination, or upon a change of control.

The following table summarizes the net periodic benefit costs for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010:

Note 7: Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

The Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, Bar Harbor Bank & Trust (the "Bank"), is a party to financial instruments in the normal course of business to meet financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments include commitments to extend credit, unused lines of credit, and standby letters of credit.

Commitments to originate loans, including unused lines of credit, are agreements to lend to a customer provided there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Since many of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Bank uses the same credit policy to make such commitments as it uses for on-balance-sheet items, such as loans. The Bank evaluates each customer’s creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained, if deemed necessary by the Bank upon extension of credit, is based on management’s credit evaluation of the borrower.

The Bank guarantees the obligations or performance of customers by issuing standby letters of credit to third parties. These standby letters of credit are primarily issued in support of third party debt or obligations. The risk involved in issuing standby letters of credit is essentially the same as the credit risk involved in extending loan facilities to customers, and they are subject to the same credit origination, portfolio maintenance and management procedures in effect to monitor other credit and off-balance sheet instruments. Exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance by the counter-party to the financial instrument for standby letters of credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. Typically, these standby letters of credit have terms of five years or less and expire unused; therefore, the total amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements.

The following table summarizes the contractual amounts of commitments and contingent liabilities as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:

As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the fair value of the standby letters of credit was not significant to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

• Level 1 – Valuation is based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has the ability to access at the measurement date.

• Level 2 – Valuation is based on quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, and model-based techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market.

• Level 3 – Valuation is principally generated from model-based techniques that use at least one significant assumption not observable in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect estimates that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include use of discounted cash flow models and similar techniques.

The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety.

The most significant instruments that the Company values are securities, all of which fall into Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy. The securities in the available for sale portfolio are priced by independent providers. In obtaining such valuation information from third parties, the Company has evaluated their valuation methodologies used to develop the fair values in order to determine whether valuations are appropriately placed within the fair value hierarchy and whether the valuations are representative of an exit price in the Company’s principal markets. The Company’s principal markets for its securities portfolios are the secondary institutional markets, with an exit price that is predominantly reflective of bid level pricing in those markets. Additionally, the Company periodically tests the reasonableness of the prices provided by these third parties by obtaining fair values from other independent providers and by obtaining desk bids from a variety of institutional brokers.

A description of the valuation methodologies used for instruments measured at fair value, as well as the general classification of such instruments pursuant to the valuation hierarchy, is set forth below.

• Securities Available for Sale: All securities and major categories of securities classified as available for sale are reported at fair value utilizing Level 2 inputs. For these securities, the Company obtains fair value measurements from independent pricing providers. The fair value measurements used by the pricing providers consider observable data that may include dealer quotes, market maker quotes and live trading systems. If quoted prices are not readily available, fair values are determined using matrix pricing models, or other model-based valuation techniques requiring observable inputs other than quoted prices such as market pricing spreads, credit information, callable features, cash flows, the U.S. Treasury yield curve, trade execution data, market consensus prepayment speeds, default rates, and the securities’ terms and conditions, among other things.

The foregoing valuation methodologies may produce fair value calculations that may not be fully indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future fair values. While Company management believes these valuation methodologies are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.

The following tables summarize financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, segregated by the level of the valuation inputs within the fair value hierarchy utilized to measure fair value:

The following table summarizes financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value during the quarter, on a non-recurring basis as of June 30, 2011, segregated by the level of the valuation inputs within the fair value hierarchy utilized to measure fair value.

The following table summarizes financial assets and financial liabilities measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis as of December 31, 2010, segregated by the level of the valuation inputs within the fair value hierarchy utilized to measure fair value.

The Company had total collateral dependent impaired loans with a carrying value of approximately $2,333 and $3,044, which had specific reserves included in the allowance of $261 and $334, at June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

Deposits: The fair value of deposits with no stated maturity is equal to the carrying amount. The fair value of time deposits is based on the discounted value of contractual cash flows, applying interest rates currently being offered on wholesale funding products of similar maturities. The fair value estimates for deposits do not include the benefit that results from the low-cost funding provided by the deposit liabilities compared to the cost of alternative forms of funding ("deposit base intangibles").

Accrued Interest Receivable and Payable: The carrying amounts of accrued interest receivable and payable approximate their fair values.

A summary of the carrying values and estimated fair values of the Company’s significant financial instruments at June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, follows: