The recent repeal of federal prohibitions on payment of interest on business demand deposits could increase our  interest expense and have a material adverse effect on us. Commercial loans make up a significant portion of our loan portfolio.  Our agricultural loans involve a greater degree of risk than other loans, and the ability of the borrower to repay  may be affected by many factors outside of the borrower’s control.  38  We also originate agriculture real estate loans. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, agricultural real estate loans  totaled $6.1 million and $5.6 million, or 1.9% and 1.7% of our total loan portfolio, respectively. Agricultural real estate  lending involves a greater degree of risk and typically involves larger loans to single borrowers than lending on single- family residences. As with agriculture operating loans, payments on agricultural real estate loans are dependent on the  profitable operation or management of the farm property securing the loan. The success of the farm may be affected by  many factors outside the control of the farm borrower, including adverse weather conditions that prevent the planting of a  crop or limit crop yields (such as hail, drought and floods), loss of livestock due to disease or other factors, declines in  market prices for agricultural products (both domestically and internationally) and the impact of government regulations  (including changes in price supports, subsidies and environmental regulations). In addition, many farms are dependent on a  limited number of key individuals whose injury or death may significantly affect the successful operation of the farm. If the  cash flow from a farming operation is diminished, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. The primary  crops in our market areas are wheat, corn and soybean. Accordingly, adverse circumstances affecting wheat, corn and  soybean crops could have an adverse effect on our agricultural real estate loan portfolio.  Agriculture operating loans comprised $25.8 million and $33.4 million, or 8.1% and 10.7%, of our loan portfolio  at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The repayment of agriculture operating loans is dependent on the successful  operation or management of the farm property. Likewise, agricultural operating loans involve a greater degree of risk than  lending on residential properties, particularly in the case of loans that are unsecured or secured by rapidly depreciating  assets such as farm equipment, livestock or crops. We generally secure agricultural operating loans with a blanket lien on  livestock, equipment, food, hay, grain and crops. Nevertheless, any repossessed collateral for a defaulted loan may not  provide an adequate source of repayment of the outstanding loan balance as a result of the greater likelihood of damage, loss  or depreciation.  Commercial loans comprised $64.6 million and $57.0 million, or 20.1% and 18.1%, of our loan portfolio at  December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Our commercial loans are made based primarily on the identified cash flow of  the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower. Most often, this collateral is accounts  receivable, inventory, or machinery. Credit support provided by the borrower for most of these loans and the probability of  repayment is based on the liquidation of the pledged collateral and enforcement of a personal guarantee, if any exists. As a  result, in the case of loans secured by accounts receivable, the availability of funds for the repayment of these loans may be  substantially dependent on the ability of the borrower to collect amounts due from its customers. The collateral securing  other loans may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the  business. Due to the larger average size of each commercial loan as compared with other loans such as residential loans, as  well as collateral that is generally less readily-marketable, losses incurred on a small number of commercial loans could  have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. All federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on business demand deposit accounts  were repealed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result, some financial institutions have commenced offering interest on  these demand deposits to compete for customers. If competitive pressures require us to pay interest on these demand  deposits to attract and retain business customers, our interest expense would increase and our net interest margin would  decrease. This could have a material adverse effect on us. Further, the effect of the repeal of the prohibition could be more  significant in a higher interest rate environment as business customers would have a greater incentive to seek interest on  demand deposits. 