NEBS New England Bancshares, Inc. (MM)

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1 – Nature of Operations

New England Bancshares, Inc. (“New England Bancshares,” or the “Company”) is a Maryland corporation and the bank holding company for New England Bank (the “Bank”). The principal asset of the Company is its investment in the Bank. The Company was organized in 2005 in connection with the “second-step” mutual-to-stock conversion of Enfield Mutual Holding Company.

The Bank, incorporated in 1999, is a Connecticut chartered commercial bank headquartered in Enfield, Connecticut. The Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC. The Bank is engaged principally in the business of attracting deposits from the general public and investing those deposits primarily in residential real estate loans, commercial real estate loans, and commercial loans, and to a lesser extent, construction and consumer loans.

On May 30, 2012, the Company executed a definitive merger agreement with United Financial Bancorp, Inc. (“United Financial”) under which United Financial will acquire the Company in a transaction valued then at $91 million based on United Financial’s 20 day volume weighted average stock price of $15.89 as of May 30, 2012.

Under the terms of the definitive merger agreement, at the effective time of the merger, each share of the Company’s common stock will be converted to 0.9575 of a share of United Financial common stock. The consideration received by the Company’s stockholders is intended to qualify as a tax-free transaction. The transaction has been approved by the boards of directors of both the Company and United Financial.

NOTE 2 – Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial statements and the instructions to Form 10-Q, and accordingly do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments necessary, consisting of only normal recurring accruals, to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company for the periods presented. In preparing the interim financial statements, management is required to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities as of the date of the balance sheet and revenues and expenses for the period. Actual results could differ significantly from those estimates. The interim results of operations presented are not necessarily indicative of the operating results to be expected for the year ending March 31, 2013 or any interim period.

While management believes that the disclosures presented are adequate so as not to make the information misleading, it is suggested that these condensed consolidated financial statements be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes included in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2012.

The condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2012 was derived from the Company’s audited financial statements, but does not include all the disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

NOTE 3 – Earnings per Share (EPS)

Basic EPS is computed by dividing income available to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or converted into common stock or resulted in the issuance of common stock that then shared in the earnings of the entity. There were zero and 108,563 shares that were anti-dilutive for the three and six month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively. There were 152,763 and 152,763 shares that were anti-dilutive for the three and six month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Anti-dilutive shares are stock options with exercise prices in excess of the weighted-average market value for the same period and are not included in the determination of diluted earnings per share. Unallocated common shares held by the Bank’s employee stock ownership plan are not included in the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for purposes of calculating both basic and diluted EPS.

NOTE 4 – Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards.” The amendments in this ASU explain how to measure fair value. They do not require additional fair value measurements and are not intended to establish valuation standards or affect valuation practices outside of financial reporting. The amendments in this ASU are to be applied prospectively. The amendments are effective during interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income.” The objective of this ASU is to improve the comparability, consistency, and transparency of financial reporting and to increase the prominence of items reported in other comprehensive income. Under this ASU, an entity has the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. An entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. An entity is required to present on the face of the financial statements reclassification adjustments for items that are reclassified from other comprehensive income to net income in the statement(s) where the components of net income and the components of other comprehensive income are presented. The amendments in this ASU should be applied retrospectively. The amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other”, an update to ASC 350, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other.” ASU 2011-08 simplifies how entities, both public and nonpublic, test goodwill for impairment. The amendments in this update permit an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in ASC 350. The more-likely-than-not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than 50 percent. For public and nonpublic entities, the amendments in this ASU are effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial position.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” This ASU is to enhance current disclosures. Entities are required to disclose both gross information and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. The amendments in this ASU are effective for annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. An entity should provide the disclosures required by those amendments retrospectively for all comparative periods presented. The Company does not anticipate that the adoption of this guidance will have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05.” The amendments in this update defer those changes in ASU 2011-05 that relate to the presentation of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the components of net income and other comprehensive income for all periods presented. All other requirements in ASU 2011-05 are not affected by this update. The amendments are effective during interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 5 – Stock-Based Incentive Plan

At September 30, 2012, the Company maintained a stock-based incentive plan and an equity incentive plan. For the six months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, compensation cost for the Company’s stock plans was measured at the grant date based on the value of the award and was recognized over the service period, which was the vesting period. The compensation cost that has been charged against income in the six months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 for the granting of stock options under the plans was $12,000 and $66,000, respectively. The Company did not grant any stock options during the six months ended September 30, 2012. During the six months ended September 30, 2011, the Company granted 20,000 stock options.

There was no compensation cost charged against income for the granting of restricted stock awards during the six months ended September 30, 2012. The compensation cost charged against income for the granting of restricted stock awards under the plan during the six months ended September 30, 2011 was $57,000. The Company did not grant any restricted stock during the six months ended September 30, 2012 or 2011.

The Company has transferred a portion of its originated commercial real estate loans and commercial loans to participating lenders. The amounts transferred have been accounted for as sales and therefore not included in the Company’s accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The Company and participating lenders share ratably in any gains and losses that may result from a borrower’s lack of compliance with contractual terms of the loan. The Company continues to service the loans on behalf of the participating lenders and, as such, collects cash payments from the borrowers, remits payments (net of servicing fees) to participating lenders and disburses required escrow funds to relevant parties. At September 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012, the Company was servicing loans for participants aggregating $13.3 million and $13.3 million, respectively.

NOTE 7 – Allowance for Loan Losses and Impaired Assets

Analysis and Determination of the Allowance for Loan Losses . We maintain an allowance for loan losses to absorb probable losses inherent in the existing portfolio. When a loan, or portion thereof, is considered uncollectible, it is charged against the allowance. Recoveries of amounts previously charged-off are added to the allowance when collected. The adequacy of the allowance for loan losses is evaluated on a regular basis by management. Based on management’s judgment, the allowance for loan losses covers all known losses and inherent losses in the loan portfolio.

Our methodology for assessing the appropriateness of the allowance for loan losses consists of specific allowances for identified problem loans and a general valuation allowance on the remainder of the loan portfolio. Although we determine the amount of each element of the allowance separately, the entire allowance for loan losses is available for the entire portfolio.

Specific Allowances for Identified Problem Loans. We establish an allowance on identified problem loans based on factors including, but not limited to: (1) the borrower’s ability to repay the loan; (2) the type and value of the collateral; (3) the strength of our collateral position; and (4) the borrower’s repayment history.

General Valuation Allowance on the Remainder of the Portfolio. We also establish a general allowance by applying loss factors to the remainder of the loan portfolio to capture the inherent losses associated with the lending activity. This general valuation allowance is determined by segregating the loans by loan category and assigning loss factors to each category. The loss factors are determined based on our historical loss experience, delinquency trends and management’s evaluation of the collectability of the loan portfolio. Based on management’s judgment, we may adjust the loss factors due to: (1) changes in lending policies and procedures; (2) changes in existing general economic and business conditions affecting our primary market area; (3) credit quality trends; (4) collateral value; (5) loan volumes and concentrations; (6) seasoning of the loan portfolio; (7) recent loss experience in particular segments of the portfolio; (8) duration of the current business cycle; and (9) bank regulatory examination results. Loss factors are re-evaluated quarterly to ensure their relevance in the current real estate environment.

Activity in the allowance for loan losses is summarized below:

The following table presents the balance in the allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment based on impairment evaluation method as of September 30, 2012:

The following table presents the balance in the allowance for loan losses by portfolio segment based on impairment evaluation method as of March 31, 2012:

There have been no significant changes in the Company’s methodology for evaluating the allowance for loan losses.

Risk Characteristics by Portfolio Segment. Loans secured by one- to four-family residential real estate have historically been the least risky loan type. However they are affected by declines in the general residential housing market, unemployment and under-employment, and the tightening of lending requirements and standards. Loans secured by commercial real estate, including multi-family loans, generally have larger balances and involve a greater degree of risk than one- to four-family residential mortgage loans. Of primary concern in commercial real estate lending is the borrower’s creditworthiness and the feasibility and cash flow potential of the project.

Payments on loans secured by income properties often depend on successful operation and management of the properties. As a result, repayment of such loans may be subject to a greater extent than residential real estate loans to adverse conditions in the real estate market or the economy. Construction financing is generally considered to involve a higher degree of risk of loss than long-term financing on improved, occupied real estate. Risk of loss on a construction loan depends largely upon the accuracy of the initial estimate of the property’s value at completion of construction and the estimated cost (including interest) of construction. During the construction phase, a number of factors could result in delays and cost overruns. If the estimate of construction costs proves to be inaccurate, we may be required to advance funds beyond the amount originally committed to permit completion of the building. If the estimate of value proves to be inaccurate, we may be confronted, at or before the maturity of the loan, with a building having a value which is insufficient to assure full repayment. Commercial loans are of higher risk and typically are made on the basis of the borrower’s ability to make repayment from the cash flow of the borrower’s business. As a result, the availability of funds for the repayment of commercial loans may depend substantially on the success of the business itself. Further, any collateral securing such loans may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise and may fluctuate in value. Consumer loans may entail greater risk than do residential mortgage loans, particularly in the case of consumer loans that are unsecured or secured by assets that depreciate rapidly. In such cases, repossessed collateral for a defaulted consumer loan may not provide an adequate source of repayment for the outstanding loan and the remaining deficiency often does not warrant further substantial collection efforts against the borrower. In addition, consumer loan collections depend on the borrower’s continuing financial stability, and therefore are more likely to be adversely affected by job loss, divorce, illness or personal bankruptcy.

Credit Risk Management. Credit risk is the risk of not collecting the interest and/or the principal balance of a loan or investment when it is due. Our strategy for credit risk management focuses on having well-defined credit policies and uniform underwriting criteria and providing prompt attention to potential problem loans.

When a borrower fails to make a required loan payment, we take a number of steps to have the borrower cure the delinquency and restore the loan to current status. We make initial contact with the borrower when the loan becomes 15 days past due. If payment is not received by the 30 ^th day of delinquency, additional letters and phone calls generally are made. Typically, when the loan becomes 60 days past due, we send a letter notifying the borrower that we may commence legal proceedings if the loan is not paid in full within 30 days. Generally, loan workout arrangements are made with the borrower at this time; however, if an arrangement cannot be structured before the loan becomes 90 days past due, we will send a formal demand letter and, once the time period specified in that letter expires, commence legal proceedings against any real property that secures the loan or attempt to repossess any business assets or personal property that secures the loan. If a foreclosure action is instituted and the loan is not brought current, paid in full or refinanced before the foreclosure sale, the real property securing the loan generally is sold at foreclosure.

We consider repossessed assets and loans that are 90 days or more past due to be non-performing assets. Past due status is based on contractual terms of the loan. When a loan becomes 90 days delinquent, the loan is placed on non-accrual status at which time the accrual of interest ceases and an allowance for any uncollectible accrued interest is established and charged against operations. Typically, payments received on a non-accrual loan are applied to the outstanding principal and interest as determined at the time of collection of the loan. Loans are returned to accrual status when all the principal and interest amounts contractually due are brought current and future payments are reasonably assured.

Management informs the Boards of Directors monthly of the amount of loans delinquent more than 90 days, all loans in foreclosure and all foreclosed and repossessed property that we own.

Banking regulations require us to review and classify our assets on a regular basis. In addition, the Connecticut Department of Banking and FDIC have the authority to identify problem assets and, if appropriate, require them to be classified. There are three classifications for problem assets: substandard, doubtful and loss. “Substandard assets” must have one or more defined weaknesses and are characterized by the distinct possibility that we will sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected. “Doubtful assets” have the weaknesses of substandard assets with the additional characteristic that the weaknesses make collection or liquidation in full on the basis of currently existing facts, conditions and values questionable and there is a high possibility of loss. An asset classified “loss” is considered uncollectible and of such little value that continuance as an asset of the institution is not warranted. The regulations also provide for a “special mention” category, described as assets that do not currently expose us to a sufficient degree of risk to warrant classification but do possess credit deficiencies or potential weaknesses deserving our close attention. When we classify an asset as substandard or doubtful, we establish a specific allowance for loan losses. If we classify an asset as loss, we charge off an amount equal to 100% of the portion of the asset classified as loss.

The following table shows the risk rating grade of the loan portfolio broken-out by type as of September 30, 2012.

The following table shows the risk rating grade of the loan portfolio broken-out by type as of March 31, 2012.

Impaired Loans. A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect the scheduled payments of principal or interest when due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Factors considered by management in determining impairment include payment status, collateral value, and the probability of collecting scheduled principal and interest payments when due. Loans that experience insignificant payment delays and payment shortfalls generally are not classified as impaired. Management determines the significance of payment delays and payment shortfalls on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the loan and the borrower, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the borrower’s prior payment record, and the amount of the shortfall in relation to the principal and interest owed. Impairment is measured on a loan by loan basis for commercial and construction loans by either the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, the loan’s obtainable market price, or the fair value of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent. The following table shows the Company’s impaired loans at September 30, 2012.

The following table shows the Company’s impaired loans at March 31, 2012.

Delinquencies. The following table provides information about delinquencies in our loan portfolio as of September 30, 2012.

The following table provides information about delinquencies in our loan portfolio as of March 31, 2012.

Troubled Debt Restructuring. The Bank did not restructure any troubled debt during the six months or quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The following table summarizes loans that were modified under a troubled debt restructuring during the year ended March 31, 2012 (Dollars in Thousands).

NOTE 8 – Other-Than-Temporary Impairment Losses

The following table summarizes gross unrealized losses and fair value, aggregated by investment category and length of time the investments have been in a continuous unrealized loss position, at September 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012: